One of the biggest issues that slowly is draining the potential of Anthroposophy is essentially a falsehood, perpetrated for basically no reason, most people who are familiar with Anthroposophy will have heard this at least once, this article will not be a conclusive "debunk" of these allegations (which i will surely write in the future) but instead i feel an article like this is relatively needed as a first try at addressing this, and also relatively concretely laying out what Anthroposophy actually says about these things.

Race

This is the big one. But it's not really that big, because anyone who does any research on this topic beyond maybe wikipedia or WeHateRudolfSteiner.com will find first what Steiner said about race;

Therefore, in its fundamental nature, the anthroposophical movement… must cast aside the division into races. It must seek to unite people of all races and nations, and to bridge the divisions and differences between various groups of people…
That is why it is absolutely essential to understand that our anthroposophical movement is a spiritual one. It looks to the spirit and overcomes the effects of physical differences through the force of being a spiritual movement. Of course, any movement has its childhood illnesses, so to speak. Consequently, in the beginning of the theosophical movement the earth was divided into seven periods of time, one for each of the seven root races… However, we must get beyond the illnesses of childhood and understand clearly that the concept of race has ceased to have any meaning in our time.

GA 165 - The Universal Human

Now, in the present time, we live in a time of transition in the most eminent sense of the word. All group soulness shall be cast off. Just as the abyss between the individual nations disappear more and more, just as the individual parts of the different nations understand each other more and more, other forms of group soulness will be cast off too, and what is individual in the individual human will step into the foreground. We have thereby characterized something that is very important in this development...
It would have completely no sense if we were to speak of that we in our time were preparing for a sixth 'race'. If we in our time still see remains of the old... differences, remaining old group soulness, so that you still can speak of a differentiation into races - what is preparing itself for the sixth epoch consists specifically in getting rid of and leaving behind that which is 'racial character'. That is the important thing.
Therefore it is necessary, that that movement that is called the anthroposophical movement, and that shall prepare for the sixth [Earth] epoch in its basic character, takes up especially this task of getting rid of that which related to 'racial character' and to unite people of all races, of all nations and in this way bridges this differentiation, these differences, this abyss that exists between different groups of people. Because that which are old racial points of view has a physical character, and that which will develop into the future has a spiritual character.
That is the reason why it is so urgently necessary that our anthroposophical movement is a spiritual movement, that looks at that which is spiritual and overcomes specifically that which is based on physical differences out of the force of this spirituality.
But one has to overcome this childhood illness and become clear that the concept of race ceases to have any meaning / importance specifically in our time.

GA 117 - The Ego

Today the idea of civilization has already superseded the idea of race.

GA 104a - Reading the Pictures of the Apocalypse

In regard to present humanity ... it no longer makes sense to speak simply of the development of the races. In the true sense of the word this development of the races applies only to the Atlantean epoch ... External physiognomies then differed so greatly that one could actually speak of different forms ... In our own epoch the concept of race will gradually disappear along with all the differences that are relics of earlier times. Thus everything that exists today in connection with the [different] races are relics of the differentiation that took place in Atlantean times. We can still speak of races but only in the sense that the real concept of races is losing its validity.

GA 105 - Universe, Earth and Man

And it is national chauvinism that is ringing through the whole civilized world today. This is merely the social counterpart of the utterly reactionary world-view that tries to trace everything back to inherited characteristics.

GA 200

We can sense that the principle ... of working without any distinction between race, color, nationality and so on is fundamentally so closely bound up with the deeper being of our Movement that anyone who agrees with the profound seriousness of spiritual-scientific truths must realize that it would be nonsensical not to stand up for this first principle.

GA174a

Okay, fine. Steiner did say all this, but as some of the news reports and twitter posts suggest, what if he (and the entire later anthroposophical movement) was somehow secretly racist? So let's look at how Steiner opened a lecture in london (which no doubt the audience would have been full of Anthroposophists);

Allow me…to greet you in the warmest way with that deep, inner feeling of unity that belongs to Anthroposophy, and in which all people on earth can unite without distinction of race, colour or any such thing.

While i'm sure there have been some weird racists who are in the Anthroposophical movement, the above quotes should give you an idea of what Anthroposophy actually says, thinks, and puts into practice about race.

I think it'd be a pretty difficult job to find a movement that's never had any weird racists. But just because they're there doesn't mean that they're accepted and their beliefs are tolerated in the wider Anthroposophical movement.

Gender & Sexuality

This one is a relatively newer issue, so we can't really look at what Steiner said on these specific issues, but we can look at what Steiner said at adjacent things which can be applied to this, and we can apply Anthroposophical principles.

Gender

If you know enough Anthroposophy, you also know that people change from one sex to another each incarnation. And you might also know (and even experience) all of the things that can go wrong during incarnation. So, someone feeling as if they are the opposite gender is really not that crazy.

Throughout all my research of communication, PR, psychology, and the general manipulation of the masses via commuication, if we do things in highly specific ways, teach it to children, include it in media, brand products based on it, we can deeply impress something into people as an immovable concept. As an example; we have been taught on authority and constantly had the idea reinforced that "soap" will clean us. Those who say otherwise are, rightfully so, looked on as if they're crazy, but not because each and every one of us knows all the science behind the soap, but because they are challenging an immovable concept which is so deeply impressed into us (not from ourselves, from outside ourselves) we feel the need to defend it.

So maybe i'll spell it out; gender isn't an eternal spiritual truth! It isn't really anything. Gender as the "normal" concept of gender, is, though, one of these immovable concepts. But in reality, it is what we make it.

Surgery is a different conversation, and isn't always linked to this stuff, i see people talk about it like being trans and surgery always are linked but that's not really the case. But opposition to this also brings up a new argument; people should have freedom! If we prevent people from having this surgery, then, to look at this issue from just one perspective, they are not choosing to get it or not. If it's a good thing to do or not is up to the person doing it. Why do some feel the need to impose their own beliefs on others as to make them unfree? Especially when it's a big decision which not being able to choose what they actually want might completely mess up their life. And especially Anthroposophists. We should know better.

But what about when we go outside of the binary?

This topic is constantly basically under constant scrutiny by those who really feel that the way they live and identify is the best and only way to be. Which is not very anthroposophical. But why are we so bothered? This is a way which many people are using to really get in touch with their "I" and find out who they really are, but they just don't use the same words we do. And many people come to find out that who they are doesn't have anything to do with this invented pink-versus-blue idea of gender. So they choose to, out of freedom, go with what feels right for them.

Hello? Conscious self-generated human action? Ethical individualism? Connecting with the "I" on a level which transcends social concepts and expectations? Deep considerations on identity? From my point of view, this is a highly Anthroposophical thing. Just because it's "weird" and doesn't just go with materialistic biology doesn't really change anything. From the perspecive of an outsider, Anthroposophy is both of those things. The communcation of these concepts isn't really typical with what most people expect in communication, yes it's not "normal" but, i think, that's a good thing.

Many people think people make decisions to identify as anything at the drop of a hat for fun. But this is simply because they do not spend enough time really caring about and interacting with people who are outside their circles and what they consider as normal.

And i feel i have to also touch on this aswell; why are people so pressed over pronouns and names? Words represent cosmic forces but they are not the cosmic forces themselves. Why are we all of a sudden so angry that we have to change how we refer to people because of how they identify? We're not disrupting some cosmic order because we have to change one pronoun to another. Words are just words, they don't fully encompass concepts, but they describe them, they scratch the surface. So finding the best describing word is good.

"No, that can't be! They belong to society, their identity should not be reflected in how we talk about them! It should be our preconcieved notions that chooses how we refer to people, and their name is forever the one we give them!"

Do you just want to go with the flow, and unquestioningly go with what you know, not thinking about the way you talk about people? Is that an Anthroposophical thing to do?

Sexuality

I won't go too deply into this one because i should hope that in the year of our lord twenty-twenty six we don't care about people's prefrences anymore. From a moral and philosophical level, who cares. People should be able to do what they want to. But if there are still some people who think that on a spiritual level anything other than heterosexuality is somehow harmful, here are a few points;

  1. People have their own individualities and karma.
  2. Even if spiritually heterosexuality is the only non-harmful thing, (and i don't think that's the case) it's still not that much of a big deal. We have microplastics in the water, computers doing billions of different things a second (and a typewriter makes explosions in the spiritual world with every press of a key), mass polution, mass indoctrination, insane unhealthy work-life balances, deforestation, compared to all of that, which are massively negatively effecting individuals and humanity spiritually, and you choose to be angry about something which isn't really that important in the face of everything else, and that your anger will never change.

Unless you're being intentionally dense and mean, i personally can't see any good reason that justifies taking the position that all this gender and sexuality stuff is evil or somehow negative. Do you think there's a line in the philosophy of freedom that says "you must be free but only if i agree with it"?

Afterword

(and yes i did add the globe image so maybe i could be accused of being paid by the globalist agenda by people who would rather be angry and respond immediately instead of actually reading the article)

I realise the way i've been writing this article makes it seem like all these bad views are common in Anthroposophy, they're very much not, i've only seen things like this a few times, but a few times is too many, and this article is my attempt to explain maybe to these people and others interested in the anthroposophical view on these things.

Those "anthroposophists" who complain about "wokeness" and using their idea of Anthroposophy to justify their beliefs are, in no uncertain terms, making a swing and missing. I won't go deeper into it here but those people are also really falling victim to negative spiritual influences. There's alot more that could be said here, but i think i'll finish this article with this;

Do you seriously think that this point of view, against individuals being recognized as individuals, the idea that people imprisoned to and limited as an individual by their physical body, viewpoints which are no doubt against the inner and freest expressions of the human "I" is the way to go? Are we reading the same Steiner? Do you care about the spiritual truth of Anthroposophy, that it's not dogmatic and you have to do the work, or do you just care that a drop in the ocean of the millions of words that Steiner said if you ignore the context and intention backs up your pre-existing, decisively non-spiritual beliefs?

If you liked this article, consider subscribing to the Epoch for free to get articles about Anthroposophy to your inbox every now and then.