Feeds:
Posts
Comments

Archive for the ‘Blogroll’ Category

2007 was a good year, and I wrote a number of interesting product reviews. A recent article I wrote was a list of lens bargains for the Sony Alpha (formerly Minolta Maxxum) lens mount. The article was titled Sony Alpha (Minolta Maxxum mount) lens bargains. I also wrote a review of my main wide-angle lens, [...]

Read Full Post »

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 35 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism: Classical Anthroposophy, with its root races and its national souls, is the "covert curriculum" of Waldorf schools. [Footnote: See Charlotte Rudolph, Waldorf-Erziehung: Wege zur VerSteinerung, Darmstadt 1987. No systematic surveys of Waldorf schooling are available. In this section I have relied chiefly on the work [...]

Read Full Post »

Continuing my commentary on the 34th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier’s Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. It is true that Waldorf pedagogy has proven itself to be on the forefront of progressive trends over the last century. But this is not, as Peter Staudenmaier supposes, because Steiner picked and selected from among the best trends of his day. [...]

Read Full Post »

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 34 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism: Anthroposophy in Practice: Waldorf Schools and Biodynamic Farming The school in Stuttgart turned out to the anthroposophists’ biggest success, along with the nearby pharmaceutical factory that they named after the mythical Norse oracle Weleda. Waldorf schools are now represented in many countries and generally project [...]

Read Full Post »

Continuing my commentary on the 33rd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier’s Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. Peter Staudenmaier writes, “Soon after the revolutionary upsurge of workers across Germany was crushed, Steiner was invited by the director of the Waldorf-Astoria tobacco factory to establish a company school in Stuttgart.” Staudenmaier has the basic chronology correct, but the reasons implicit [...]

Read Full Post »

Continuing my commentary on the 33rd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier’s Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. That the Munich communists denounced Steiner is hardly surprising; communism has an extraordinarily fractious history and denouncing each other and the world at large is something of an art form in those circles. Steiner was certainly no communist, and openly hostile to [...]

Read Full Post »

Continuing my commentary on the 33rd paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier’s Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. "Industrialists, on the other hand, showed a keen interest in Steiner‘s notions." "Industrialists" is perhaps technically not incorrect; there were, after all, two of them involved. Both had been connected with Steiner and Anthroposophy for over a decade. One was Emil Molt, [...]

Read Full Post »

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraphs 31 and 32 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism: In the aftermath of the bloody world war, at the very moment of the greatest upheavals in history against the violence, misery, and exploitation of capitalism, Steiner emerged as an ardent defender of private profit, the concentration of property and wealth, and the [...]

Read Full Post »

Continuing my commentary on the 30th paragraph of Peter Staudenmaier’s Anthroposophy and Ecofascism. Steiner conceived of the Threefold Social Order out of the questions that were put to him, and from a sense for what could serve as a fair and free basis for human society. Flatly counter to Peter Staudenmaier’s claim, Steiner did not [...]

Read Full Post »

Anthroposophy and Ecofascism 103

Peter Staudenmaier writes in Paragraph 30 of Anthroposophy and Ecofascism: Anthroposophists consider this threefold structure to be "naturally ordained." [Footnote; Abendroth, p. 120.]* Its central axiom is that the modern integration of politics, economy and culture into an ostensibly democratic framework must falter because, according to Steiner, neither the economy nor cultural life can or [...]

Read Full Post »

Older Posts »

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.