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

Search this site powered by FreeFind