Bewildered Critics
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 8:58 am
Subject: bewildered critics
I made a statement in an earlier post that
seems to have had a bewildering effect upon the critics concerned.
In the thread "anarchosophy", I
wrote (Nov 9):
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/74
"Calling himself an anarchist, Peter
S always insists that anthroposophy is a fascist right wing ideology
and that anthroposophists are, ipso facto, fascist right wingers.
And of course he scoffs at the suggestion that RS could have
been an anarchist."
to which Peter Staudenmaier "replied"
in a message to his congregation of veteran critics:
"Each of those claims is essentially
the contrary of what I have said over and over again. But alas,
accurate reading of critical commentary does not belong to the
canon of anthroposophical virtues... "
Wherepon "bewildered" Walden chimes
in:
"Why would Tarjei say something that
is factually incorrect? I have been reading this list for a couple
of years now and I have not heard Peter always insist that anthroposophy
is a fascist right wing ideology. Nor have I heard anthroposophists
characterized as such. The anthroposophists I know personally
are definitely NOT right of centre."
So Walden has never heard anthroposophists
characterized as fascist or right-wingers by Peter S. and his
cohorts. He must have been sleeping in class, or he hasn't done
his ideological homework:
http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/articles/Staudenmaier.html
"The younger generation of radical right-wing
anthroposophists is represented above all by Werner Georg Haverbeck.
A leader of the Hitler Youth during the Third Reich, Haverbeck
was converted to anthroposophy by Hess. After the war he became
pastor of an anthroposophist congregation and founded the far-right
World League for the Protection of Life (WSL in its German acronym).
The WSL, which has played an influential role in the German environmental
movement, is anti-abortion, anti-immigration, and pro-eugenics.
It promotes a "natural order of life" and opposes racial
"degeneration." As aggressive nationalism gained ever
more ground in German public discourse through the 1980's and
1990's, Haverbeck and the WSL were instrumental in linking it
to ecological issues."
Dan Dugan quotes Mike's suggestion to sign
up on his list and quotes his entire post http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/483
with the following comments:
"Our occasional correspondent Michael
Helsher is itching for a fight over on the "Anthroposophy
Tomorrow" list."
"Hey, Mike, c'mon back, and by all means
bring your friends! We love a good argument here."
Yes, Dan and Peter would just love that. It's
an altogether different thing to speak out "abroad,"
when they're not in their own dens. They complain about being
censored and kicked off anthro-lists, but when confronted with
a free-speech forum like the AT where they don't have that excuse,
it remains to be seen if they have the same guts anthroposophists
have shown by discussing on the WC list. They may feel ill at
ease arguing their case in a "hostile" environment.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Gisele
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 1:12 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] bewildered critics
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Dan Dugan quotes Mike's suggestion to sign
up on his list and quotes his entire post
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/483
with the
following comments:
"Our occasional correspondent Michael
Helsher is itching for a fight over on the "Anthroposophy
Tomorrow" list."
"Hey, Mike, c'mon back, and by all
means bring your friends! We love a good argument here."
Yes, Dan and Peter would just love that.
It's an altogether different thing to speak out "abroad,"
when they're not in their own dens. They complain about being
censored and kicked off anthro-lists, but when confronted with
a free-speech forum like the AT where they don't have that excuse,
it remains to be seen if they have the same guts anthroposophists
have shown by discussing on the WC list. They may feel ill at
ease arguing their case in a "hostile" environment.
They can dish it out, but they can't take it.
Dear Tarjei and Michael,
I am new to this list: could you explain me
who are these cowards Peter and Dan who want to cause trouble?
Thanks,
Gix
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Dec 6, 2003 5:50 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] bewildered critics
At 22:12 06.12.2003, Gix wrote:
Dear Tarjei and Michael,
I am new to this list: could you explain me who are these cowards
Peter and Dan who want to cause trouble?
It's a long story. Many of us have had our
turns on their infamous, and appropriately entitled, "WC
list" (short for "Waldorf Critics list)." "Critics"
is a misnomer for those people, because they are smear campaigners.
A good place to start is Sune's excellent
page on the subject, "Some comments on Waldorf education,
Waldorf schools and the anti-Waldorf diatribes of the small group":
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/plans1.html
I have a short little old thing about Peter
Staudemnaier:
http://www.uncletaz.com/peterbull.html
and a whole lot more about the topics they
raise for smear-purposes:
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
Have fun!
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Dag Horntvedt
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 3:58 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] bewildered critics
Hi everybody
I just found this on the WC list:
Walden saying:
When I read Peter's
articles, I find myself nodding and understanding what he is
saying. I am looking objectively for a logical argument to counter
what he has written. Seriously. When I read some other arguments
countering his understanding of historical events (anthroposophic
roots, in this case) I am usually left wondering if the writer
is referring to Peter's piece or something entirely different.
I appreciate the time all these people have put into the debate
but I still do not understand how two (or more) people can talk
- ostensibly - about the same subject from such completely different
angles.
It's like someone at le
Louvre admires a painting and speaks about the artist to a fellow
art lover beside him... who digests the words and agrees that
baseball is a fine game, indeed. What the...?
[Dag:] Wouldn't the proper comparison be more
like: "The seeing man to the blind: "Hey, look at that
nice painting" The blind man: "I don't see a painting,
so there can't be one."
The big task for some is to see who is blind.
Greetings
Dag
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 6:52 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] bewildered critics
At 12:58 07.12.2003, Dag wrote:
Hi everybody
I just found this on the WC list:
Walden saying:
When I read Peter's articles,
I find myself nodding and understanding what he is saying. I
am looking objectively for a logical argument to counter what
he has written. Seriously. When I read some other arguments countering
his understanding of historical events (anthroposophic roots,
in this case) I am usually left wondering if the writer is referring
to Peter's piece or something entirely different.
Apr 15, 2002, Peter Staudenmaier wrote about
me and my site in a thread on the WC list entitled "Re:
happiness and carefree":
http://makeashorterlink.com/?X2F512DB6
Having unsubscribed from the WC list six months
earlier with no intention of returning after being censored for
calling Peter Staudenmaier's opening statement about Steiner's
lecture cycle in Oslo about folk souls a lie, I commented the
above message on my website:
http://www.uncletaz.com/peterbull.html
This is what Walden is referring to, obviously
bewildered. He quotes my following statement:
".........I told Peter Staudenmaier that
the roots of anthroposophy are to be found in the spiritual world,
and that in order to understand this properly, an occult conception
of historical events must be taken into consideration."
I was referring to a WC post of mine from
May 20, 2001 entitled Roots of AP:
http://makeashorterlink.com/?H6C512DB6
It was an answer to Staudenmaier's allegation
that the roots of Anthroposophy are to be found in "the
confluence of nationalism, right-wing populism, proto-environmentalist
romanticism and esoteric spiritualism" and that Anthroposophy
and Nazism, therefore, have identical roots.
Although one of Staudenmaier's favorite sources,
Nicholas Goodrick-Clarke, does not endorse this preposterous
notion at all, Staudenmaier defends his invention by _indicating_
that he himself is a scholar, objective reseracher, and historian.
And at one point he tried to back it up by denying that I had
read Goodrick-Clarke's "Occult Roots of Nazism."
If, however, anthroposophists are going to
be honest and straightforward about a topic like "the roots
of anthroposophy," they must not shy away from what "critics"
call "anthro-babble." And it is interesting to note
that Staudenmaier and many of his cohorts regard everybody who
believes in the spiritual to be insane, stupid, or worse. The
reality of such people is incomprehensible gibberish to them.
So be it. I don't write a summary of the roots of anthroposophy
in order to enlighten hardcore critics and pathological liars
pretending to be accredited scholars and researchers, but to
help newcomers, lurkers, and seekers of the Spirit to understand.
So this was the WC message I published as
an article on my site:
http://www.uncletaz.com/aproots.html
[Dag quotes Walden]
I appreciate the time all
these people have put into the debate but I still do not understand
how two (or more) people can talk - ostensibly - about the same
subject from such completely different angles.
Of course not. It's anthro-babble.
I just can't resist quoting the apostle Paul
here:
For the preaching of the cross
is to them that perish foolishness; but
unto us which are saved it is the power of God. For it is written,
I will
destroy the wisdom of the wise, and will bring to nothing the
understanding
of the prudent. Where is the wise? where is the scribe? where
is the
disputer of this world? hath not God made foolish the wisdom
of this
world? (1 Corinthians 1:18-20)
[Dag quotes Walden]
It's like someone at le
Louvre admires a painting and speaks about the artist to a fellow
art lover beside him... who digests the words and agrees that
baseball is a fine game, indeed. What the...?
I'll throw the Bible at him once more - this
time with a mind-blasting piece from Christ:
The wind bloweth where it
listeth, and thou hearest the sound thereof, but
canst not tell whence it cometh, and whither it goeth: so is
every one that
is born of the Spirit. (John 3:8)
I guess the roots of Christianity can also
be construed as originating from various confluences that are
shared with disreputable ideologies of various kinds, but if
a true Christian should explain these roots, he or she would
describe the supersensible cosmo-spiritual events surrrounding
Bethlehem, the Baptism in Jordan, Golgotha, and the Ascension.
And the atheist skeptic would stand there bewildered and uncomprehending.
[Dag:] Wouldn't the proper comparison be
more like: "The seeing man to the blind: "Hey, look
at that nice painting" The blind man: "I don't see
a painting, so there can't be one."
The big task for some is to see who is blind.
Bull's eye.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 7:24 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] bewildered critics
Walden saying:
"When I read Peter's
articles, I find myself nodding and understanding what he is
saying. I am looking objectively for a logical argument to counter
what he has written. Seriously. When I read some other arguments
countering his understanding of historical events (anthroposophic
roots, in this case) I am usually left wondering if the writer
is referring to Peter's piece or something entirely different.
I appreciate the time all these people have put into the debate
but I still do not understand how two (or more) people can talk
- ostensibly - about the same subject from such completely different
angles.
Dottie
Oh this is such a sweet day indeed. Mr. Peter
Staudenmaier trying to ressurect some part of his integrity and
getting the critics to help him out a bit. He must be getting
some flack from some constituents noting he's either lying or
confused. Wanting to be considered a 'Historian' means you better
have most of your facts right and the ones you have wrong better
be not obvious to the regular joe. There just is too much evidence
to the contrary of what he reports regarding Steiner.
And a sweet day to Sune and Company for a
job well done.
Oh yes,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sun Dec 7, 2003 10:24 am
Subject: Itching for some... Humor?
Over on the WC-list, Dan Dugan writes:
"Our occasional
correspondent Michael Helsher is itching for a fight over on
the "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" list."
Mike:
No, more like itching for some self aggrandizing humor. You know
- It's the negative attention thing; my kids do it all the time.
You gotta cut me some slack because I just didn't get enough
attention when I was young ;-)
There's a line in one of the Star Trek movies where lieutenant
Savoc (a Vulcan) is told a joke, to which she responds: "Humor?
It is a difficult concept".
Dan:
"Hey, Mike, c'mon
back, and by all means bring your friends! We love a good argument
here."
Mike:
Naa, I really don't feel like arguing right now, but you never
know, Moody Mike has been known to change his mind.
I do appreciate your web-site though; ironically, It has brought
me even closer to Anthroposophy and Waldorf education.
Peace not war
Mike Helsher
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
December 2003/January
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
