Let's start by saying that massive German rearmament.
is more reminiscent of the extreme right than an online magazine with no reach. I can only think ah yes there go those Germans again.

Alright, let’s dive into anthroposophy from a skeptical lens and address your hypothesis head-on: that it’s a sectarian movement subtly pushing its cosmology onto unsuspecting left-leaning folks. I’ll aim for a truthful, no-nonsense take, sticking to what’s known and reasoning through it critically.

Anthroposophy, founded by Rudolf Steiner in the early 20th century, is a spiritual philosophy—or, depending on who you ask, a new religious movement—that claims humans can access an objective spiritual world through disciplined thought and inner development. It’s got a hefty cosmology: reincarnation, spiritual hierarchies, cosmic evolution, and a big emphasis on Christ as a central figure, all wrapped in a framework Steiner called “spiritual science.” It’s applied practically in areas like Waldorf schools, biodynamic farming, and anthroposophical medicine, which gives it a tangible presence beyond mere theorizing.

From a skeptic’s viewpoint, the first red flag is the “spiritual science” label. Steiner insisted his insights were verifiable through rational, non-sensory perception—like clairvoyance he claimed to have honed—but there’s no empirical evidence backing this up. Critics like Anthony Storr have called it “eccentric” and “unsupported by evidence,” pointing out that unlike, say, Einstein’s theories, Steiner’s ideas don’t hold up to objective testing. They lean hard on subjective experience, which smells more like mysticism than science. Add in stuff like his rejection of the heart as a pump or his take on color theory over Newton’s, and you’ve got a system that often clashes with established knowledge, looking more pseudoscientific than groundbreaking.

Now, is it sectarian? The term “sectarian” implies a group with rigid beliefs, often exclusive or dogmatic, that separates itself from mainstream society. Anthroposophy’s got some of that vibe. The Anthroposophical Society, headquartered at the Goetheanum in Switzerland, is open to anyone who vibes with Steiner’s ideas, but its culture can feel insular. Waldorf schools, for instance, don’t teach anthroposophy directly to kids, but teachers are often steeped in it, and the curriculum reflects Steiner’s worldview—think delayed reading or eurythmy (a spiritual dance). Critics, including ex-Waldorf parents, argue this creates a subtle indoctrination pipeline, even if it’s not overt proselytizing. Lawsuits, like the 1998 PLANS case in California, have tried (and failed) to pin it as a religion violating secular education norms, but the debate lingers: is it a philosophy or a cultish belief system?

Your hypothesis about targeting left-leaning people is intriguing. Anthroposophy does have a progressive sheen—biodynamic farming aligns with eco-consciousness, Waldorf education appeals to holistic, anti-establishment types, and Steiner’s “threefold social order” (separating culture, politics, and economics) can sound like a critique of capitalism. These could draw in folks who lean left, especially those into alternative lifestyles or distrustful of Big Pharma and industrial agriculture. Data’s thin here, but anecdotal evidence from places like Steiner communities suggests a overlap with crunchy, liberal crowds—think urban homesteaders or yoga moms. Steiner’s anti-racist statements might also vibe with progressive values, though his racial theories (e.g., hierarchical “root races”) are a messy contradiction that’s been whitewashed by modern followers.

But is it a deliberate bait-and-switch to push cosmology? Skeptically, I’d say it’s less a grand conspiracy and more a natural byproduct of its structure. Anthroposophy doesn’t seem to “target” leftists with a recruitment playbook—it’s not Scientology with a mailing list. Instead, its cosmology seeps in through osmosis. You sign up for organic veggies or a child-centered school, and over time, you might bump into lectures on reincarnation or Steiner’s take on angels. The movement’s practical arms act like a soft entry point; the deeper stuff—planetary spirits, karma—comes later, often pitched as personal exploration, not dogma. Still, once you’re in, the community’s tight-knit nature and Steiner’s authoritative tone (he wrote over 350 volumes!) can make it feel like there’s one “true” path, which skeptics could read as sectarian pressure.

The left-leaning angle might also be a historical artifact. Steiner emerged from early 20th-century Europe, a hotbed of esoteric and socialist ferment, and his ideas blended spiritual utopianism with social reform. That combo might naturally attract people who’d otherwise vote Green Party today. But there’s a flip side: some of Steiner’s followers, like biodynamic farmers under the Nazis, swung hard right, suggesting the ideology’s flexible enough to hook different crowds depending on the context.

So, tying it together: Anthroposophy’s got sectarian traits—exclusive worldview, charismatic founder, a whiff of us-versus-them—but it’s not a classic cult with locked doors and Kool-Aid. It might catch left-leaners through its progressive trappings, and its cosmology can creep in uninvited, especially in its practical offshoots. Skeptically, though, the “unknowingly” part of your hypothesis holds most weight: it’s less about a sinister plot and more about a system so steeped in Steiner’s vision that you can’t fully escape it once you’re in the orbit. Truthful enough for you? What do you think—want to poke at any piece of this?