Comments on: The Janus Face of Anthroposophy http://www.social-ecology.org/2009/01/the-janus-face-of-anthroposophy-2/ Popular Education for a Free Society Thu, 09 Feb 2012 10:39:14 +0000 hourly 1 http://wordpress.org/?v=3.3.1 By: Misleidend getuigschrift « Steinerscholen.com http://www.social-ecology.org/2009/01/the-janus-face-of-anthroposophy-2/comment-page-1/#comment-4728 Misleidend getuigschrift « Steinerscholen.com Fri, 04 Feb 2011 20:48:17 +0000 http://www.social-ecology.org/?p=1215#comment-4728 [...] Peter Staudenmaier heeft het dan, met bijzonder veel aandacht voor de steinerpedagogie, weer over het dubbele gezicht van de antroposofie [2], de leer van Rudolf Steiner waarop men zich in steinerscholen beroept. Op basis van mijn eigen [...] [...] Peter Staudenmaier heeft het dan, met bijzonder veel aandacht voor de steinerpedagogie, weer over het dubbele gezicht van de antroposofie [2], de leer van Rudolf Steiner waarop men zich in steinerscholen beroept. Op basis van mijn eigen [...]

]]> By: Floris Schreve http://www.social-ecology.org/2009/01/the-janus-face-of-anthroposophy-2/comment-page-1/#comment-349 Floris Schreve Sun, 09 May 2010 13:37:31 +0000 http://www.social-ecology.org/?p=1215#comment-349 Interesting article. On the report of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society I totally agree. I wrote a series of articles in Dutch about the report of the van Baarda-Commission (see http://fhs1973.wordpress.com/category/de-rassenleer-van-rudolf-steiner-en-het-rapport-van-de-commissie-van-baarda/). One article I wrote in English. It is also dealing with the commission report but mainly with a small group of Belgian anthroposophists, who are convinced that it is proper to deny the Holocaust in Steiner's name. They manifest themselves in a Magazine/website called 'De Brug' (means 'The Bridge'). Although their opinions are very extreme (they are admirers of David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel and other Holocaust revisionists and Neo Nazis), it seems they are still an accepted part of the anthroposophical mainstream in both Belgium and the Netherlands. You can find this article (also published on www.egoisten.de) here: http://fhs1973.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/neo-nazi-elements-sold-as-anthroposophy/ . kind regards, Floris Schreve Interesting article. On the report of the Dutch Anthroposophical Society I totally agree. I wrote a series of articles in Dutch about the report of the van Baarda-Commission (see http://fhs1973.wordpress.com/category/de-rassenleer-van-rudolf-steiner-en-het-rapport-van-de-commissie-van-baarda/).
One article I wrote in English. It is also dealing with the commission report but mainly with a small group of Belgian anthroposophists, who are convinced that it is proper to deny the Holocaust in Steiner’s name. They manifest themselves in a Magazine/website called ‘De Brug’ (means ‘The Bridge’). Although their opinions are very extreme (they are admirers of David Irving, Robert Faurisson, Ernst Zündel and other Holocaust revisionists and Neo Nazis), it seems they are still an accepted part of the anthroposophical mainstream in both Belgium and the Netherlands. You can find this article (also published on http://www.egoisten.de) here: http://fhs1973.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/neo-nazi-elements-sold-as-anthroposophy/ .

kind regards,
Floris Schreve

]]>