Too Mean to PLANS?
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 11:33 am
Subject: too mean to PLANS?
On the WC list, Diana suggests that I'm being
too mean to the PLANS cult.
In two WC posts on Dec 23, 2003, she writes:
Tarjei
writes in an (otherwise interesting) discussion of Bob Dylan: "Over the years, some reporters
have gone through his trash to find out what he's thinking and
doing. I guess that's the Staudenmaier approach to "textual
analysis" :)"
Wow, really, you are referring to the Steiner texts quoted by
Peter S. as "trash"?
Yes. Peter S. and Dan D. quote nothing but
trash. Occasionally, they quote something valuable that they're
completely blind to, so they treat that as trash as well. And
they conclude, of course, that everything anthroposophists believe
is trash - or "crap," which DD is apt to call it.
Anthroposophy is not based upon words found
in dead print anywhere, but in the living hearts of those who
connect to the Christ-Michael stream.
I do prefer to stay out
of "spiritual" places where people call me a troll
and a vampire and a gremlin
Has anyone here called you, Diana, a troll,
a vampire, and a gremlin? I was trying to make it clear that
it is the smearmongers in the PLANS cult who are reminiscent
of trolls, vampires and gremlins. Or sewer rats for that matter.
Digging for garbage, and ONLY for garbage, and calling it "textual
analysis.." Calling us all racists by repeating over and
over again like a mantra that "Anthroposophy is racist to
the core." Or like Dan Dugan says, "I think a little
hostility is quite in order when busting a system of institutionalized
racism." http://makeashorterlink.com/?N1E8510D6
For DD, "institutionalized racism"
is a euphemism for the Anthroposophical Movement, which he wants
to "bust" with a little hostility. So Diana, by identifying
yourself with those compared to trolls and gremlins, you're apparently
agreeing that we are all racists, possibly with swastikas and
KKK paraphernalia in our closets and drawers, and that our movement
needs to be busted. (With SWAT teams?)
If you feel targeted by my characterization
of the hate group in question here, consisting of members who
in spite of feeling repelled by anthroposophy, have developed
an obsession with it in order to destroy it and discredit those
who belong to the movement through any conceivable means, then
so be it. If you agree that anthroposophists are dishonest, deceptive,
racist, fascist, self-delusional, wacky, etc. etc. you're agreeing
with the trolls and the gremlins who paint a false, misleading
picture of what we really think and feel. And that makes you
one of them, doesn't it?
A little spirituality like
that goes a long way. This is my general experience with "spirituality"
- where they pull out the scary/silly threatening language when
you balk and don't want to sing their songs or chant their verses,
Diana, I am an anthroposophist. Which songs
and verses do I want you to sing? Anything from Uncle Taz Poetry?
http://www.uncletaz.com/poetry/
Do you expect me to bombard you with silly and threatening language
if you refuse to sing those limericks of mine?
and I decided, back in
childhood, that I had had enough for one lifetime . . . maybe
I'll check out spirituality again next lifetime. I'm very sincere.
Hey, don't we all have karma together? Don't we have a buncha
lifetimes to work this out Tarjei?
Frankly , I don't see much personal karma
between you and me. And I don't expect to spend much time, and
certainly not lifetimes, to prove thaf I am not a self-deluded,
deceptive racist who uses threatening language to make other
people sing his poetry.
I have no idea if your
Spirits of This and Forces of That are real and I don't doubt
you or challenge you on a word of it, not for a minute. Really
pal . . . ease up, eh? Aren't there anthroposophic explanations
for why some people would be materialistic in one lifetime and
spiritual in another?
Maybe. Stick around here on "Anthroposophy
Tomorrow," and perhaps somebody will come up with an answer
to your quest and even back it up with quotes and references.
This is my lifetime to
run screaming from mean spiritual people.
Then why do you flame nice and benevolent
spiritual people? Are you hoping they'll become mean and chase
after you or something?
Seriously, though, I'm
asking you sincerely - isn't this stuff you are dishing out a
little nasty?
Seriously, Diana, the nastiest stuff I have
dished out is about the Norwegian criminal police chief, Arne
Huuse. You can read all about it at
http://www.uncletaz.com/fbi.html
http://www.uncletaz.com/norsktaz/kripos/premiesnakk.html
(The last page above is in Norwegian, except
a quote from "Animal Farm" on the bottom, but the pictures
should give you the idea.)
Really, what did any of
us do to you - criticize Waldorf? (Point out that they do, still,
sometimes try to switch left-handed children, for instance? Heard
one of those cases from a woman who phoned PLANS last week.)
PLANS has done a lot more than "criticize
Waldorf." I am in favor of criticizing Waldorf. I have no
objections against WE being kept out of American public schools.
But PLANS has embarked upon a mission to besmirch anthroposophy
and anthroposophists by dragging us into the sewer and linking
us up with Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust, and that's an entirely
different matter.
About switching left-handed children to right-handed,
I wrote some years ago that I thought it was wrong. After having
read comments and opinions by people who were switched, and who
claim that no harm was done, I have no position on the subject.
I don't qualify because I have no experience with it, and I have
no education or training that would allow me to venture an expert
opinion. Perhaps this is another subject that someone else would
like to approach here, who knows more about it than I do.
Is it helping anthroposophy,
helping Waldorf, helping anyone you know personally, or helping
any of you personally to trash critics of your movement
in this way?
Frankly, my dear, I don't give a damn. The
only thing I'm trashing is the trash itself - the trash and the
lies and the accusations hurled at us anthroposophists because
we value the works of Steiner and honor the memory of a truly
great and brilliant human being. So my answer is yes, I believe
that calling trash for what it is, is helping anthroposophy and
Waldorf.
Happy holidays,
Tarjei Straume
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are
those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest,
and blaspheme the whole." - Friedrich
Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 1:58 pm
Subject: Re: too mean to PLANS?
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Direct Gold:
"Anthroposophy is
not based upon words found in dead print anywhere, but in the
living hearts of those who connect to the Christ-Michael stream."
Frankly , I don't see much personal karma
between you and me. And I don't expect to spend much time, and
certainly not lifetimes, to prove thaf I am not a self-deluded,
deceptive racist who uses threatening language to make other
people sing his poetry.
I have no idea if your
Spirits of This and Forces of That are real and I don't doubt
you or challenge you on a word of it, not for a minute. Really
pal . . . ease up, eh? Aren't there anthroposophic explanations
for why some people would be materialistic in one lifetime and
spiritual in another?
Maybe. Stick around here on "Anthroposophy
Tomorrow," and perhaps somebody will come up with an answer
to your quest and even back it up with quotes and references.
Bradford comments;
It should come as no surprise that there is
a fundamental flaw in the soul condition of those who reject
Spiritual Science. I rail against such rejections, and badly
at that. However there Occult reasons for the attitude and the
lies and the deceptions, that are fueled from a certain 'Faith
based' previous soul life condition. Effort is needed to see
into the Logic of Dr. Steiner's research. Some people cannot
and will not make that effort. Here is how Dr. Steiner saw the
self preservation instinct, for indeed, one can hardly call the
aborted and stinging venom anything but astrally disposed intellectual
self preservation at its worst. Sort of the Survival of the Fittest
confined within the INtellectual Jungle.
Steiner's comments;
"However, a man may feel
too weak to call forth in himself the forces necessary for understanding
what he is told concerning the spiritual world. In that case
he turns away from all this through an instinct for self-preservation
which is right for him. He feels that to accept these communications
would throw his mind into confusion. And in all cases where people
reject what they hear through Spiritual Science, an instinct
of self-preservation is at work; they know that they are incapable
of doing the necessary exercises - that is, of practicing asceticism
in the true sense.
A person prompted by the instinct
for self-preservation will then say to himself: If these things
were to permeate my spiritual life, they would confuse it; I
could make nothing of them and therefore I reject them. So it
is with a materialistic outlook which refuses to go a step beyond
the doctrines of a science it believes to be firmly founded on
facts.
But there are other possibilities,
and here we come to a dangerous side of asceticism. People may
have a sort of avidity for information about the spiritual world
while lacking the inner urge and conscience to test everything
by reason and logic. They may indulge a liking for sensationalism
in this field. Then they are not held back by an instinct for
self-preservation, but are driven on by its very opposite, a
sort of urge for self-annihilation. If anyone takes something
into his soul without understanding it, and with no wish to apply
his reason to it, he will be swamped by it.
This happens in all cases
of blind faith, or when communications from the spiritual worlds
are accepted merely on authority. This acceptance corresponds
to an asceticism which derives not from a healthy instinct for
self-preservation, but from a morbid impulse to annihilate the
self, to drown in a flood of revelations. This has a significant
shadow-side in the human soul: it is a bad form of asceticism
when someone gives up all effort and chooses to live in faith
and in reliance on others." (Metamorphosis
of the Soul;..., Vol. I, 1983, Rudolf Steiner Press, pg.88)
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 2:51 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] too mean to PLANS?
Just a thought on "textual analysis."
As typically employed, the term referrs to debates and about
the meanings of texts and ananysis of the structure of said texts.
It is not clear to me that PLANS is actually debating the texts
upon which the Waldorf movement is based. They have a few favorite
quotes, usually taken out of contexts, which they hold up as
"typical" and as an indictment of the whole movement.
Were they actually engaged in "textual analysis" they
would be debating the context of these quotes and how they do
or do not reflect the authors intent, or how the reader's preconceptions
are likely to color their interpretation of the text. In short,
we could only wish that the PLANS fanatics actually were engaged
in "textual analysis."
Daniel
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 5:35 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] too mean to PLANS?
Daniel, you wrote:
Just a thought on "textual analysis."
As typically employed, the term referrs to debates and about
the meanings of texts and ananysis of the structure of said texts.
It is not clear to me that PLANS is actually debating the texts
upon which the Waldorf movement is based. They have a few favorite
quotes, usually taken out of contexts, which they hold up as
"typical" and as an indictment of the whole movement.
Were they actually engaged in "textual analysis" they
would be debating the context of these quotes and how they do
or do not reflect the authors intent, or how the reader's preconceptions
are likely to color their interpretation of the text. In short,
we could only wish that the PLANS fanatics actually were engaged
in "textual analysis."
Thank you for explaining the difference between
textual analysis and Staudenmaier's abuse of the term (just like
he is abusing terms like "historian," "scholar,"
etc.)
Happy holidays,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: J Allenwood
Date: Fri Dec 26, 2003 8:46 pm
Subject: Re: Seeing the truth
Though I am not privy to the full extent of
this discussion, there is some merit to the rather straightforward
question as the issue recognizing AP or Spiritual Science as
a valid system of spiritual "facts". There may be indeed
more reasons why someone is unreceptive in one life than another.
Though one may be born with good spiritual intentions (from within
one's nature or by upbringing), the ways of the world can turn
anyone inside out and into a materialist or philistine. Kids
spend 12 hours of daily television watching. They are subject
to a constant barrage of new think found in most of our education
systems. Is it any wonder that we can even make real distinctions
within normal reality no less from a material to a spiritual
one. Our acculturation offers little beyond the pre digestive
thinking stage. On the other hand,one does not have to be a deep
spiritual thinker or seeker to at least perceive "something"
beyond the material as intuition, psychic impressions, unlikely
coincidences or faint energy surges in or around the human body
(chi or prana in eastern terminology).
As an adult, all the the religious intention may be redirected
to a mundane course of life or one in which spiritual information
as found in AP is seen as having little value. This does not
necessary imply a defect of soul but maybe someone not ready
to ponder such things or that it simply and utterly contradicts
reason and common intuition.
Ultimately, what is being implied below is still correct- the
inability not to see a probable truth (or even a consideration
of a metaphysical theory) points to only one attitude of mind-
closed and secured in its own perspective. An open mind with
universalism at its roots will have no problem with Steiner,
Ramakrishna or Rumi.
What if a Buddhist or Hindu yogi were reading AP - would they
be able to see the spiritual logic of Christ's Mission and Work?
Maybe not. Are they then damaged souls? This sounds like a rather
harsh judgment. Religious preference may blind some to board
or specific truths but it may be the full extent that one can
reach spiritually at the time. To say that it a flaw in the soul
(to see the truth of Spiritual Science) sounds arrogant and self
protective. I don't think this is your real sentiment but it
sounds exclusive and narrow minded.
Lee
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:22 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Seeing the truth
At 05:46 27.12.2003, Lee wrote:
What if a Buddhist or Hindu yogi were reading
AP - would they be able to see the spiritual logic of Christ's
Mission and Work? Maybe not. Are they then damaged souls? This
sounds like a rather harsh judgment. Religious preference may
blind some to board or specific truths but it may be the full
extent that one can reach spiritually at the time. To say that
it a flaw in the soul (to see the truth of Spiritual Science)
sounds arrogant and self protective. I don't think this is your
real sentiment but it sounds exclusive and narrow minded.
It's a complex topic. There used to be at
least one Buddhist monk who was a member of AS; he probably understood
the Christ logic you're referring to. Gandhi didn't understand
the Mystery of Golgotha, but he exemplified the Christian teachings
to a greater extent than any Christians had and won respect and
recognition of Hinduism. George Harrison was also a sincerely
believing Hindu.
I really appreciate and respect atheists and
agnostics and have plenty of these among friends and relatives,
and my father was an agnostic, and yet Steiner said that sgnosticism
is a misfortune but atheism is a disease, and please note the
difference he said. Well, I understand; that's true from a certain
perspective. But at the same time, most of Steiner's philosophical
heroes were atheists. They depended upon their own judgement
and self-critical thinking, and that's why he preferred a world
view arising from materialistic science instead of one coming
from grandma's old religion good enough for her good enough for
me, and I agree with him.
Maybe we're a little arrogant once in a while
because we feel our spiritual understanding is the best. Well,
the atheists feel the same about their view, the muslims about
theirs, and so on and so on.... If you dont feel your worldview
is the best, you would have chosen another - unless you just
run around sniffing at all philosophies and cooking them in one
huge pot making a tastless cultural stew you don't want to eat,
I don't know...
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 10:53 am
Subject: Re: Seeing the truth
I have a longer reply to Tarjei which I don't
have time to finish right now. I'll reply quickly to Lee, who
wrote:
There may be indeed more reasons why someone
is unreceptive in one life than another. Though one may be born
with good spiritual intentions (from within one's nature or by
upbringing), the ways of the world can turn anyone inside out
and into a materialist or philistine. Kids spend 12 hours of
daily television watching.
I'm pleased to have at least generated a thoughtful
discussion about why perfectly nice people reject the sort of
spiritual path which, it is apparently obvious to everyone here,
we should all be following. I am really not able to reply when
people blame everything on the gods of darkness or characters
from Lord of the Rings. If television is going to be blamed,
at least this can be discussed.
Anyway, I grew up without television. I realize
this is unusual for my generation (I am 42) but it simply refutes
Lee's implied association between television watching and "unreceptiveness"
to spirituality. My childhood involved lots of spirituality and
almost no television; yet I have proved sturdily resistant to
the sort of spirituality offered in a system like anthroposophy.
As an adult, all the the religious intention
may be redirected to a mundane course of life or one in which
spiritual information as found in AP is seen as having little
value. This does not necessary imply a defect of soul
Thank you. Geez. My "mundane" life,
well, that's sorta faint praise, don't you think? but at least
this is better than being told we worship demon gods or have
flawed spiritual natures (a la Bradford). I'll leave alone the
rest of your sentence which implied anyone who doesn't accept
Steiner is simply too stupid to understand him; we're used to
this one and, though it would seem to be obviously inadequate,
it is understandably very hard to resist.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:47 am
Subject: Re: too mean to PLANS?
Hi Tarjei!
"Peter S. and Dan D. quote nothing
but trash."
Well, Tarjei, if you consider Steiner's racial
theories to be trash, you would be doing anthroposophy a big
favor to work on cleaning some of this up. Seriously. Renounce
and refute this material and encourage people like Joel to do
the same. Let me make clear to all on this list, I have nothing
against anthroposophy and am not on a mission to destroy anyone's
spirituality or make them feel bad about their beliefs. This
movement runs schools - the schools have some big problems, many
related to the fact that anthroposophists seem to have a hard
time reconsidering or rejecting anything Steiner wrote or said,
no matter how demonstrably damaging or dangerous. Steiner's racism
is one complaint amongst a number of important complaints about
the Waldorf movement, and yet it is a reasonable place to start.
Steiner's defenders keep the complaint alive by their vitriolic
responses to it. The overwrought talk of "hate groups"
in response to people who have left these schools disillusioned
is the biggest part of why the charges are still discussed; this
stuff tells prospective Waldorf parents far, far more about the
movement, and raises far more concerns about Waldorf schools,
than does the fact that the founder, nearly a century ago, made
a few racist remarks. Most people can readily understand that
not everything the guy said was brilliant, even if they are enthusiastic
about Waldorf education. What comes as a shock is the cult-like
mentality that cannot take a single strand of the founder's thought
(such as his overt, published racism) and say, "Yes, we
don't really believe that anymore, even though Steiner said it"
and this mentality is where the real concern comes in. To be
very frank, if you want to help the anthroposophical aims of
the Waldorf schools, you've really gotta learn to deal calmly
with legitimate questions raised about Rudolf Steiner's racial
theories.
None of this means the schools should close.
On the contrary, I believe firmly that were the problems and
issues to be addressed, Waldorf's clientele would grow. There
are many people now seeking the type of thing Waldorf offers.
It is not for everybody, of course; straightening out the PR
would help a great deal towards steering away those who find
it unappealing (and it is really counterproductive to resort
to calling these people names) - while reaching out to those
in sympathy. Whether they want it this lifetime or the next,
or never, the schools can only thrive by attracting their true
clientele and discouraging the others (blame it on the lords
of darknesss or Sauron's minions if you like). To my mind, this
is what PLANS is for. People need to understand what the education
is for, the karmic soul work for their children, Steiner's view
of the way forward for humanity, the long-term, many-lifetime
plan. (What anthroposophy is, in other words.) Lots of people
want this very badly. Are we not in agreement here? I don't blame
them. I see what they're trying to do. We gave it a shot. I just
saw a downside . . . The Waldorf schools' mission will only thrive
if their clientele "gets it" and wants and supports
anthroposophy. We are sending the naysayers who plague you running
fast in the other direction. The crises with disaffected families
(the people screaming that their left-handed child should not
have been switched, for instance) only slow down the movement's
progress; isn't the time better spent on spiritual pursuits than
holding all these endless meetings trying to placate these materialistic
parents who are all upset because their third graders can't read?
These people do not get it; who needs them? They are bad news
for the whole movement's karma. PLANS can help, we can get these
people out of your way before this trouble starts every
time; plus we pick up the pieces afterward. Most of them don't
want to sue, they just want to vent for awhile afterward. You're
welcome. :)
Has anyone here called you, Diana, a troll,
a vampire, and a gremlin?
Comments such as "That's why the trolls
stay cooped up in their mountain cave" referred to the WC
list in general. So yes, it would seem I'm included in your taunts.
It was an egregious instance of characterizing an entire group
of people in an insulting (not to mention childish) manner, and
it particularly got my goat after reading many, many words from
Joel Wendt objecting to generalities applied to groups of people.
I believe Joel calls it "lying."
I was trying to make it clear that it is
the smearmongers in the PLANS cult who are reminiscent of trolls,
vampires and gremlins. Or sewer rats for that matter.
Uh, Tarjei, "sewer rats" is not
going in the direction I was hoping, this is not an improvement
over trolls and vampires.
Digging for garbage, and ONLY for garbage,
and calling it "textual analysis."
Incorrect. There are a number of people who
have participated on the critics list for several years who have
read many volumes of Rudolf Steiner, myself included. I do not
"dig for garbage." I find the entire movement fascinating
and I have great sympathy for its many adherents. I was one myself,
remember? I try to understand what I read. As you are aware I
disagree with a great deal of it, seeing it in a very different
light after close personal participation, and trying very hard
to understand the strange ways children were treated, and I find
certain aspects of it dangerous, not only the racial material.
I do find it "of a piece" that the racial material
is usually staunchly defended by anthroposophists rather than
simply, quickly dismissed as racist. It makes sense to me because
it is, IMO, reflective of the general anti-intellectual, anti-critical
thought, anti-literacy mentality on which Waldorf pedagogy is
unapologetically founded. The talk of "freedom" from
following Rudolf Steiner now gives me chills. Eschewing thought
and analysis for faith is required of both children and adults
in anthroposophy. It makes it very difficult to ever say the
guru was wrong.
Can I ask folks here what, really, would be
so wrong or bad about saying the guru was wrong now and then?
Do you all feel this is an attack on your spirituality, even
to be asked such a question? As I told Tarjei, that is not my
purpose, and I don't plan to hang around here hassling you; I'm
truly curious. If I'm giving offense I'm happy to leave right
away.
Calling us all racists by repeating over
and over again like a mantra that "Anthroposophy is racist
to the core."
I do not know where anyone on the critics
list has called "you all" racists. I am on record many
times and places saying that most Waldorf parents cannot possibly
be racists since many have no idea about Steiner's racist writings
(many, as well, really don't even understand how thoroughly Waldorf
is based on Steiner). As for this list, I'm not really sure who's
here, it doesn't seem like it's for Waldorf parents. I would
certainly not argue that anyone interested in anthroposophy is
a racist (nor do I recall seeing such an argument on the critics
list; in fact, I think that Peter Staudenmaier, whom you all
love to hate, has recently argued just the opposite). I have
no idea whether anyone on this list is a racist. If the scornful
way in which Peter's work is mentioned here is any indication,
it would appear there is a general lack of interest in contemplating
whether Rudolf Steiner might have been a racist, which seems
a shame in a group fervently devoted to his teachings in general.
(And again I do not plan to hang around to scold you into addressing
Steiner's racism right here; I am, I guess, simply taking the
bait Tarjei dangled, that critics were all cowards and low-lifes
if we wouldn't join anthroposophic lists to debate, but always
insist people come to the critics list for such discussions.)
So Diana, by identifying yourself with
those compared to trolls and gremlins, you're apparently agreeing
that we are all racists, possibly with swastikas and KKK paraphernalia
in our closets and drawers, and that our movement needs to be
busted. (With SWAT teams?)
Well, that's just such a ridiculous comparison
and statement, Tarjei, it doesn't warrant response. The part
that is so funny is that you did lump everyone participating
on a particular mailing list into a category of insulting labels
like trolls and gremlins, while no one has ever said "you
all" (whoever that may be) are racists. In fact, it doesn't
really matter how subtle, complex, or detailed the arguments
get about Rudolf Steiner's racism; his supporters only hear that
their leader has been attacked.
Why is it really so difficult to talk about
Rudolf Steiner's racism without recourse to silly insults?
If you feel targeted by my characterization
of the hate group in question here, consisting of members who
in spite of feeling repelled by anthroposophy, have developed
an obsession with it"
"Hate group" is total nonsense,
Tarjei, and you know it. Just not worthy of your intellect. What
does a "hate group" do that PLANS does? Anybody's philosophy
or religion should be open to public scrutiny, debate on Internet
lists, for instance, especially where it screws up really big
and hurts people. Sorry - get over it, your movement has its
critics. A "hate group" advocates hate and incites
violent acts. PLANS does utterly nothing of the sort and you
know it. It's preposterous.
Our "obsession" with anthroposophy
frequently recurs as an all-purpose insult, and I find it generally
best to simply agree. This movement took several years of my
life and my son's, and has had very profound effects on his development
and education as well as for me personally. (I worked very hard
for your movement for 3 years, and I followed the childrearing
advice. Yes, this continues to be interesting to me.) Why do
you find it so strange that there are people outside your
movement who find it as interesting as people inside? (Especially
considering they're often the same people, a few years later.)
I agree with you, it is a very compelling and important topic
to which I have devoted a lot of time, from both sides, as have
you. I spend hours every week in contact by email and on the
phone with people who are emerging confused and embittered about
their experiences in Waldorf and anthroposophy. Much of it is
practical matters, such as how to help the kids catch up academically,
recoup from various painful experiences, and make new friends.
I do find it a worthwhile use of my time.
in order to destroy it and discredit those
who belong to the movement through any conceivable means, then
so be it. If you agree that anthroposophists are dishonest, deceptive,
racist, fascist, self-delusional, wacky, etc. etc. you're agreeing
with the trolls and the gremlins who paint a false, misleading
picture of what we really think and feel. And that makes you
one of them, doesn't it?
Not going there with this "one of them"
stuff, Tarjei. That was my original point in addressing you personally
on the critics list. The name calling and finger pointing is
just plain stupid and not worthy of your time either. You sound
like John Ashcroft :) You've got so many interesting and worthwhile
things to say when you are not chortling over dopey Lord of the
Rings-derived insults for PLANS. Were we to meet in person, we'd
find ourselves in agreement over many issues I think. This just
ain't one of them. I'm not a vampire. Get over it!
I wrote:
A little spirituality like
that goes a long way. This is my general experience with "spirituality"
- where they pull out the scary/silly threatening language when
you balk and don't want to sing their songs or chant their verses,
Diana, I am an anthroposophist. Which songs
and verses do I want you to sing?
I had my child in a Waldorf school for 3 years.
They wanted him to sing a lot of songs and verses, Tarjei, mostly
anthroposophical.
Do you expect me to bombard you with silly
and threatening language if you refuse to sing those limericks
of mine?
I was really referring there to Bradford's
posts, which, when they are even readable, are full of scary/silly
threats, talk of "demon gods" the people associated
with PLANS supposedly worship. It's just silliness. We're normal
people, people with ordinary jobs and families and a variety
of religious affiliations (and some not) and we do things like
go to the movies, have family holiday get togethers, play with
our kids, volunteer in the community, coach sports, help at our
kids' schools. We do not serve gods of darkness. Grow up, Bradford.
Seriously, Diana, the nastiest stuff I
have dished out is about the Norwegian criminal police chief,
Arne Huuse.
Thanks, Tarjei, I long ago read of your adventures
with the Norwegian police, and I'm on your side with most of
those issues :) My hubby is an even bigger Bob Dylan nut than
you so there too I can relate :) Well, sorta. Not when your analysis
gets too anthroposophical . . .
PLANS has embarked upon a mission to besmirch
anthroposophy and anthroposophists by dragging us into the sewer
and linking us up with Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust, and that's
an entirely different matter.
I think that's ridiculous. It's all based
on Steiner's own words; it could be dealt with by addressing
those texts. It could be dealt with by updating anthroposophy
and renouncing its racist components. I think it's denial to
reply to this by whining that you're being "besmirched."
The complaints about Steiner's racist writings aren't going to
go away until you deal with the fact that Steiner really did
say and write those things. That's the problem you need to work
with. this is very sincere advice, you will do the movement a
huge favor if you address it. Ask yourself if you really cannot
understand why the material Peter Staudenmiaer posted a day or
so ago, from the vermont sophia web pages, is of concern to some
people: do you really not understand, why associating specific
spiritual qualities and missions with specific national or racial
groupings is frightening to many people? (The usual reply, "Well,
we all incarnate in different races in different lifetimes"
is an end- run around the problem, btw. It is a failure to deal
with the text. Y'all want some meaty textual analysis - try it
on your own guru's writings, without first reassuring
yourselves that you have access to higher spiritual channels
than the rest of us. That's cheating.)
About switching left-handed children to
right-handed, I wrote some years ago that I thought it was wrong.
After having read comments and opinions by people who were switched,
and who claim that no harm was done, I have no position on the
subject.
It is an abusive practice (even if done with
smiles and songs) that continues to this day in some Waldorf
schools. In my opinion it is probably a minority, although we
do hear these reports. It is impossible to judge the incidence
of it fairly, because of course PLANS doesn't hear from people
who don't object to it, or who have no experience of it. If a
great many Waldorf teachers were still doing it, surely there
would be an outcry. I am led to believe the practice is slowly,
mercifully, dying. Nevertheless it is a fact that it continues
at least on occasion, as we do, at PLANS, hear from angry Waldorf
parents on this at regular intervals. The latest one was last
week. It is something that simply needs, very clearly and without
defensiveness and denial, to be dealt with. It should not be
done. No other doctor or educational expert in the world today
would advise left-handed children switch. It is cruel and useless,
and a relic of superstition. Steiner was wrong. Sorry.
In my personal opinion it is unlikely Steiner
ever held a strong opinion on left-handedness in the first place.
He just got used to people asking his advice on everything from
the wallpaper to the naming of infants, and probably said whatever
popped into his head when peppered with questions, and people
took it as gospel. (There it will live on bob and nancy till
some anthroposophic renegade has the nerve to say, "Errr,
delete that stuff about left handers, okay? Even if Steiner did
say it, nobody believes it anymore.")
I don't qualify because I have no experience
with it, and I have no education or training that would allow
me to venture an expert opinion.
But you do take a public position on this,
Tarjei, on your web site. You put up all my posts on left-handers
at your site in a context of utter scorn and contempt.
You told me on
the critics list that Michaela Glockler had spoken out against
the practice of left-handed switching in Waldorf schools. I'd
still like to see your evidence of this as I have found none.
When and where did she say this, to whom? I think you told me
off list that she said this to Detlef on the phone maybe? Kinda
a lame effort if she really wishes to condemn this practice?
Perhaps she has made public statements that are not on the web?
More could be done to get the word out. You could easily update
the sarcastic comments on your web site to note that, in fact,
switching of left handers is no longer advised. You don't need
to change any of the snotty stuff it says about me there :)
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Sophia
Date: Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:42 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: too mean to PLANS?
Diana Winters wrote:
As for this list, I'm not really sure who's
here, it doesn't seem like it's for Waldorf parents.
It is a list for Waldorf parents too. And
for critics. Free speech reigns.
Any topic goes.
You can check out the membership at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/members
Here are some promo ads for your website:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/promote
Faithfully,
Sophia (moderator)
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: too mean to PLANS?
At 20:47 29.12.2003, Diana wrote:
Well, Tarjei, if you consider Steiner's
racial theories to be trash, you would be doing anthroposophy
a big favor to work on cleaning some of this up.
I do not consider the theosophical-anthroposophical
theory of evolution to be trash, but factual. Humanity has evolved
through epochs, cultures, and races. Blavatsky and Steiner discovered
our true origins as far as I'm concerned. If that makes me a
racist in your book, so be it. The record shows that the definition
of racism can be stretched beyond any limits in the PLANS cult.
Seriously. Renounce and refute this material
and encourage people like Joel to do the same.
There is nothing for me to refute. This mantra
about refutation that DD keeps chanting and that you've memorized
so successfully is completely meaningless. I can only refute
something I have personally said or expressed belief in. Nothing
else.
People like Joel, who are they? I haven't
seen anybody like Joel, so I don't know what group you're talking
about.
Rudolf Steiner was not a racist. Some of his
remarks are racist and may be considered trash, especially
when quoted out of context with explicit malign intent. There
is nobody I can do any favor for in this regard, except for people
like yourself, by recommending that you read very carefully all
of Steiner's statements regarding race, gender, nationality,
tribe, family, blood ties and so on. All of them, including those
featured on my website.
You don't know much about anthroposophy, do
you? You think it's all an invention by Rudolf Steiner and totally
dependent upon dead print of inaccurate shorthand transcripts?
You're wrong. Anthroposophy is the product of St. Michael, the
Arhcangel-Archai who became the regent of earth evolution in
1879, when he repleced Gabriel to lead humanity into the New
Age. Rudolf Steiner was the herald of spiritual knowledge, but
parallel to this, there evolved a new approach to conflicts and
controversy and a new consciousness of RACE. This part of the
Michael-stream runs right through the biographies of people like
Tolstoi, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother Theresa and
Nelson Mandela. Yes, those are the footprints of Christ-Michael.
But you're blind to that, just like worms digging through the
dirt beneath the surface of the soil, unable to see the sunlight
that nourishes it. All you see is dead words, quotes by Rudolf
Steiner, and the only thing of interest is racism and other "frightening"
things that should be "refuted" by the Children of
the Spiritual Sun who have their eyes fixed upon the future.
So for your own good, open your eyes and lift up your gaze.
Let me make clear to all on this list,
I have nothing against anthroposophy and am not on a mission
to destroy anyone's spirituality or make them feel bad about
their beliefs. This movement runs schools - the schools have
some big problems, many related to the fact that anthroposophists
seem to have a hard time reconsidering or rejecting anything
Steiner wrote or said, no matter how demonstrably damaging or
dangerous.
You're throwing out two false presumptions
here at once: 1) That anthroposophists do not apply their self-critical
judgement to Steiner's works, 2) that Steiner's works are demonstrably
damaging and dangerous.
Steiner's racism is one complaint amongst
a number of important complaints about the Waldorf movement,
and yet it is a reasonable place to start. Steiner's defenders
keep the complaint alive by their vitriolic responses to it.
You can only keep a complaint against racism
alive by preaching and practicing racism, OR by repeating false
accusations ad nauseum for unsuspecting people to swallow it
raw. When DD only a week ago called the Anthroposophical Movement,
"institutionalized racism," he actually compared the
entire MOVEMENT to the Jim Crow laws of the Old South, the apartheid
regime in South Africa, the ethnic injustice enforced by Israel,
and similar misanthropic social orders. That is nothing but sheer
slander.
The overwrought talk of "hate groups"
in response to people who have left these schools disillusioned
is the biggest part of why the charges are still discussed; this
stuff tells prospective Waldorf parents far, far more about the
movement, and raises far more concerns about Waldorf schools,
than does the fact that the founder, nearly a century ago, made
a few racist remarks.
My personal interest in and involvement with
Waldorf schools has always been very limited. My main interest
in and attraction to RS and anthroposophy has been the contribution
to christian theology (Christology), the theory of spiritual
evolution, cosmo-genesis, and its ethical foundation. I don't
care what schools some people have left. I have had nothing to
do with those schools. They are dragging what I regard as holy
into the gutter, blaspheming it, spitting at it, laughing in
my face for regarding it as holy. People who do that kind of
stuff behave like hate groups, because they are driven by hate.
Most people can readily understand that
not everything the guy said was brilliant, even if they are enthusiastic
about Waldorf education. What comes as a shock is the cult-like
mentality that cannot take a single strand of the founder's thought
(such as his overt, published racism) and say, "Yes, we
don't really believe that anymore, even though Steiner said it"
and this mentality is where the real concern comes in.
Anymore? Have they said they were racists
in the past and then changed? I don't think so. I have never
been a racist, and neither have other anthroposophists I know
personally. We are not converts from racism, like you seem to
suggest.
To be very frank, if you want to help the
anthroposophical aims of the Waldorf schools, you've really gotta
learn to deal calmly with legitimate questions raised about Rudolf
Steiner's racial theories.
To be equally frank, it's impossible to take
advice from, or to regard questions as legitimate from, people
who consider "Cosmic Memory" (Aus der Akasha-Chronik)
a "racist racial theory" and who keep insisting upon
this baloney polemically. "Cosmic Memory" is the record
of human pre-history, read clairvoyantly through seership, initiation
science. If that is racism, then God is a redneck bigot.
For the record: I have been receiving thankful
emails from racially mixed families who happen to be anthroposophists,
for giving a piece of my mind on the WC list. My own family is
also racially mixed, and so was the family I had in America when
I lived there. Throughout my life, my virulent anti-racist, egalitarian
stance has been fed and supported by everything I have read in
Rudolf Steiner's works under the guardianship of Christ-Michael.
You have no idea how far off the mark those PLANS sewer rats
are, how much they offend me and piss me off with their lies,
slander, tunnel-vision, intolerance, hatred, and witch-hunting
tactics. And I'm supposed to have something to clean up and something
to refute? Does unbashful hypocrisy know no limits?
None of this means the schools should close.
On the contrary, I believe firmly that were the problems and
issues to be addressed, Waldorf's clientele would grow. There
are many people now seeking the type of thing Waldorf offers.
It is not for everybody, of course; straightening out the PR
would help a great deal towards steering away those who find
it unappealing (and it is really counterproductive to resort
to calling these people names) - while reaching out to those
in sympathy.
First off, I am not interested in PR, only
in honesty even if it looks unpalatable and offensive. But the
name-calling can easily be left to the PLANS cult. DD has said,
for instance, on repeated occasions, that anthroposophists have
no sense of humor and that they never smile, and that they have
no self-irony. Few people have more self-irony and self-depreciating
humor than anthroposophists precisely because they're used to
have their notions laughed at, and I have written innumerable
posts and articles to prove it, like "Anthroposophy in Court"
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocourt.html
But I have never, never read anything that
indicates that so-called "Waldorf critics" are capable
of laughing at their own cause, their own anti-anthro beliefs
and so on. Never.
Whether they want it this lifetime or the
next, or never, the schools can only thrive by attracting their
true clientele and discouraging the others (blame it on the lords
of darknesss or Sauron's minions if you like). To my mind, this
is what PLANS is for.
If that had been all PLANS was about, I wouldn't
even bother to mention them.
Comments such as "That's why the trolls
stay cooped up in their mountain cave" referred to the WC
list in general. So yes, it would seem I'm included in your taunts.
It was an egregious instance of characterizing an entire group
of people in an insulting (not to mention childish) manner,
I don't believe I'm reading this. It goes
to show, then, that PLANS knows how to dish it all out, which
they've been doing for almost decades, but not how to take it?
and it particularly got my goat after reading
many, many words from Joel Wendt objecting to generalities applied
to groups of people. I believe Joel calls it "lying."
I have no opinion about Joel's WC posts. He's
on his own.
Uh, Tarjei, "sewer rats" is not
going in the direction I was hoping, this is not an improvement
over trolls and vampires.
In case you didn't believe in the latter,
you might accept the former. They're more physical :)
Digging for garbage, and ONLY for garbage,
and calling it "textual analysis."
Incorrect. There are a number of people
who have participated on the critics list for several years who
have read many volumes of Rudolf Steiner, myself included. I
do not "dig for garbage." I find the entire movement
fascinating and I have great sympathy for its many adherents.
I was one myself, remember? I try to understand what I read.
As you are aware I disagree with a great deal of it, seeing it
in a very different light after close personal participation,
and trying very hard to understand the strange ways children
were treated, and I find certain aspects of it dangerous, not
only the racial material. I do find it "of a piece"
that the racial material is usually staunchly defended by anthroposophists
rather than simply, quickly dismissed as racist.
The problem is that if you demand that the
anthroposophical theory of evolution must be dismissed by the
anthroposophist as racist, you're demanding that the anthroposophist
abandons - or "refutes" if you like - anthroposophy.
Because to you, Christ-Michael is just a great illusion like
the Easter Bunny, right? As far as you're concerned, the Easter
Bunny might be responsible for the New Bunny Age (Playboy?) and
anthroposophy, so it ain't worth shit, right? Just trash it all
away for the benefit of PR so you don't offend anyone?
It makes sense to me because it is, IMO,
reflective of the general anti-intellectual, anti-critical thought,
anti-literacy mentality on which Waldorf pedagogy is unapologetically
founded.
Sounds like an odd description of Waldorf
pedagogy, but it's not my field.
The talk of "freedom" from following
Rudolf Steiner now gives me chills. Eschewing thought and analysis
for faith is required of both children and adults in anthroposophy.
That's totally untrue. As a student of anthroposophy
for three and a half decades, I can testify to that. I have never
eschewed thought and analysis for faith when studying Steiner's
works. Those who have done so, have totally misunderstood the
principles of Spiritual Science and ignored Steiner's guidelines.
It makes it very difficult to ever say
the guru was wrong.
I wouldn't know, because I've never had a
guru, except Uncle Taz.
I do not know where anyone on the critics
list has called "you all" racists.
Insisting over and over that anthroposophy
is racist to the core, makes all anthroposophists, ipso facto,
racists to the core.
I am on record many times and places saying
that most Waldorf parents cannot possibly be racists since many
have no idea about Steiner's racist writings
I see. So if you're unfamiliar with Steiner's
writings, you're off the hook what the accusation of racism is
concerned. And if you're familiar with them, you're a suspect?
(many, as well, really don't even understand
how thoroughly Waldorf is based on Steiner).
Of course it is. Nothing wrong with that.
As for this list, I'm not really sure who's
ere, it doesn't seem like it's for Waldorf parents.
Everybody's welcome here. I like it here because
I've been censored elsewhere, on other anthro-lists as well as
the WC list. We have free speech here and no topic is off-topic
except list management.
I would certainly not argue that anyone
interested in anthroposophy is a racist (nor do I recall seeing
such an argument on the critics list; in fact, I think that Peter
Staudenmaier, whom you all love to hate, has recently argued
just the opposite).
Peter Staudenmaier is a real sweetheart. Sune
asked him some straightforward questions, and he wrote back "Yes,
moron" and "No, moron." He told me I smoked too
much weed, needed new reading glasses,
May 18, 2001
Tarjei:
one of your fellow critics just came extremely close to calling
me a racist because I subscribe to Steiner's theory of evolution.
Staudenmaier:
I don't know if your ridiculous beliefs make you a racist, but
they do make you a nutcase. (Now don't get upset. Some of my
best friends are Rmohals.)
Tarjei:
what the doctrine really contains: A path to a reunion between
men and gods.
Staudenmaier:
Sort of leaves women and goddesses out of things a bit, doesn't
it? Or do they get their own reunion? Are they on the same date?
I was thinking of going to both. Maybe you could send me a map
so I can find this path. Wouldn't want to be late for the reunion.
Staudenmaier's main argument is that most
anthroposophists are duped morons or too stupid to see what he
sees, or in self-denial - and confronted with it, he can just
as easily prove the opposite, that he has never said anything
at all.
I have no idea whether anyone on this list
is a racist. If the scornful way in which Peter's work is mentioned
here is any indication,
We've been scornful to the noble Peter
S? I don't believe I'm reading this hypocritical piece of apology
for the Cult of Peter.
it would appear there is a general lack
of interest in contemplating whether Rudolf Steiner might have
been a racist, which seems a shame in a group fervently devoted
to his teachings in general.
You really don't get it, do you? Rudolf Steiner
said that racial ideals lead mankind into decadence. See also
his piece about racial intermarriage:
http://www.uncletaz.com/steinchrmar.html
There are now volumes of documentation being
churned out to show that Steiner was NOT a racist. But you keep
singing that old song without ever getting tired of it, don't
you?
(And again I do not plan to hang around
to scold you into addressing Steiner's racism right here; I am,
I guess, simply taking the bait Tarjei dangled, that critics
were all cowards and low-lifes if we wouldn't join anthroposophic
lists to debate, but always insist people come to the critics
list for such discussions.)
Thank you for being a good sport by joining
us, Diana.
The part that is so funny is that you did
lump everyone participating on a particular mailing list into
a category of insulting labels like trolls and gremlins, while
no one has ever said "you all" (whoever that may be)
are racists.
The funny part, Diana, is that being likened
to a gremlin is not an insult. They are extremely sweet and cute
and cuddly. Unless someone feeds them after midnight. That's
when they turn into trolls. If you wish to argue the case that
nobody has ever fed the WC gremlins after midnight, we will have
to let the evidence speak for itself.
So what is the difference between saying that
all anthroposophists are racists on the one hand, and that anthroposophy
is racist to the core on the other?
In fact, it doesn't really matter how subtle,
complex, or detailed the arguments get about Rudolf Steiner's
racism; his supporters only hear that their leader has been attacked.
That's a non sequitur argument. Don't follow
leaders and watch the parkin' meters.
Why is it really so difficult to talk about
Rudolf Steiner's racism without recourse to silly insults?
With this question, you're taking for granted
that Rudolf Steiner was a racist. In spite of his racist remarks,
he wasn't. There are innumerable quotes, passages, and lectures
that testify to this. So the question is: Why is that so hard
to live with?
"Hate group" is total nonsense,
Tarjei, and you know it.
Really? In that case, you haven't read a word
of Sune's excellent page, "Two mythologies cultivated by
the small criticism-hate group PLANS in San Francisco."
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/two-mythologies.htm
Just not worthy of your intellect.
I use my intellect, Diana. Do you? Or are
you so mesmerized and blinded by what Dottie so aptly called
"The Cult of Peter" that you're incapable of seeing
through his falsehood? His allegation, for instance, that Rudolf
Steiner's ideology is based upon "soil and blood" is
a blatant, deliberate lie that can only fool those who have never
made an effort to understand Spiritual Science. Steiner taught
the opposite of "soil and blood," namely, that the
time has come for man to become a "homeless soul" and
liberate himself from ties and bonds related to family, tribe,
nationality, and race. This is a persistent theme with Steiner
that is impossible to overlook for the serious student. Peter
S. has read enough of Steiner to know that this is true. He is
not mistaken, Diana. He is lying.
Another deliberate lie by Peter S. is that
Steiner endorsed pan-Germanism and political nationalism. His
argument was partly based upon a mistranslated word in the elib.com
edition of his autobiography - a mistranslated word of which
Staudenmaier was perfectly aware with his fluency in the German
language.
A third lie by Peter S. - and the mot outrageous
- with which you are familiar, is his opening sentence in his
libellous fantasy, "Anthroposophy and Ecofascism":
In the Oslo lecture and throughout
his Norwegian tour Steiner presented his theory of "national
souls" (Volksseelen in German, Steiner's native tongue)
and paid particular attention to the mysterious wonders of the
"Nordic spirit." The "national souls" of
Northern and Central Europe were, Steiner explained, components
of the "germanic-nordic sub-race," the world's most
spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard
of the highest of five historical "root races." This
superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was
naturally the "Aryan race."
When I challenged him about this - Steiner
NEVER said anything about Aryans being a superior race, and he
was not on any Norwegian tour, so this is pure fabrication -
Staudenmaier said it was just an "opening device" that
shouldn't be paid attention to. Hello?
Who needs some waking up here, Diana?
What does a "hate group" do that
PLANS does?
Elementary, my dear Watson: Remember the Protocols
of Zion? Compare the "Protocol of Steiner" mythology
explained by Sune at
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/two-mythologies.htm
Anybody's philosophy or religion should
be open to public scrutiny, debate on Internet lists, for instance,
especially where it screws up really big and hurts people. Sorry
- get over it, your movement has its critics. A "hate group"
advocates hate and incites violent acts.
PLANS encourages hate, slander, and fabrications.
That is the difference between critics and hate-and-smearmongers.
You're in pretty bad company.
PLANS does utterly nothing of the sort
and you know it. It's preposterous.
Are you so hypnotized?
Our "obsession" with anthroposophy
frequently recurs as an all-purpose insult, and I find it generally
best to simply agree.
Insult? Look who's talking. It's self-defense.
In 2000, Peter Staudenmaier's above-mentioned article about Steiner
and 'superior Aryans' was published in the Norwegian cultural
magazine "Humanist." A full page introductory picture
showed the German Nazi eagle and swastika banner mounted in front
of the Goetheanum.
"Concentration camps, slave labor and
the murder of Jews constitute a praxis whose key is perhaps to
be found in the 'theories' of Rudolf Steiner," Staudenmaier
quoted from one of his sources in the footnotes. Another photo
of the death camp Dachau, where there was allegedly supposed
to be a bio-dynamic garden of herbs, is placed vis-á-vis
a photo of the Waldorf school at Hovseter in Oslo. In Dachau
they experimented on prisoners - what is happening in the crypto-nazi
institution in Norway? The fact is that several of the school's
pioneer teachers were incarcerated in death camps during the
war, and they weren't Nazis or traitors. The perfidious accusation
that this use of pictures communicates, is directed at teachers
of the past as well as the present - not to mention those among
Humanist's readers who may be connected with the school as teachers,
students, or parents.
This is not criticism, Diana. It is something
much more ugly and sinister. And you endorse this campaign by
Peter S, don't you?
As a result of this article publication, Waldorf
kids were bullied by public school kids, and Waldorf parents
were told by shocked readers not to send their kids "to
that Nazi lair."
Congratulations, Diana. Your organization
has been doing a wonderful job.
This movement took several years of my
life and my son's, and has had very profound effects on his development
and education as well as for me personally.
Did they kidnap you, or did you simply choose
a private school without knowing what it was about? Did the movement
march in and take something from you?
(I worked very hard for your movement for
3 years, and I followed the childrearing advice.
You worked for my movement? I hope
you're aware of the distinction between anthroposophical institutions
and organizations, including Waldorf schools and the AS, and
the Anthroposophical Movement, which is independent of external
manifestations. As a participant in the Anthroposophical Movement,
did you connect to the Christ-Michael Stream and Anthroposophia,
spiritually? If not, you didn't work for my movement,
Diana.
Yes, this continues to be interesting to
me.) Why do you find it so strange that there are people outside
your movement who find it as interesting as people inside?
I don't consider that strange at all. It has
nothing to do with hate campaigns with swastikas and death camp
pictures.
(Especially considering they're often the
same people, a few years later.) I agree with you, it is a very
compelling and important topic to which I have devoted a lot
of time, from both sides, as have you.
You don't seem to have understood anything
about Spiritual Science, so how can you have been devoted to
a topic that represents nothing but illusions and dead shadows?
I spend hours every week in contact by
email and on the phone with people who are emerging confused
and embittered about their experiences in Waldorf and anthroposophy.
Those people you are in contact with, do they
relate to Spiritual Science and understand its principles empirically?
Much of it is practical matters, such as
how to help the kids catch up academically, recoup from various
painful experiences, and make new friends.
If we're talking instances of child abuse,
violence, trauma and similar horror stories, it's a matter for
local authorities, isn't it?
I do find it a worthwhile use of my time.
Devoting your time to a topic you do not believe
in, that you probably think is insane? And the idea is to expose
people like me and our connection to Dachau and Heinrich Himmler?
Not going there with this "one of
them" stuff, Tarjei. That was my original point in addressing
you personally on the critics list. The name calling and finger
pointing is just plain stupid and not worthy of your time either.
You sound like John Ashcroft :)
Ashcroft and Himmler are two of a kind. Your
association says it all. All I need is a swastika on my chest.
I'm not a vampire.
No, you're a gremlin.
Get over it!
Those vicious lies printed in "Humanist"
by Peter S? No, I won't get over it.
Do you expect me to bombard you with silly
and threatening language if you refuse to sing those limericks
of mine?
I was really referring there to Bradford's
posts, which, when they are even readable, are full of scary/silly
threats, talk of "demon gods" the people associated
with PLANS supposedly worship. It's just silliness.
Could you quote one of Bradford's _threats_
please? What has he threatened to do to you?
We do not serve gods of darkness.
The gods of darkness are subtle. they seduce
people to serve them by convincing them that they do not exist.
Savvy?
PLANS has embarked upon a mission to besmirch
anthroposophy and anthroposophists by dragging us into the sewer
and linking us up with Adolf Hitler and the Holocaust, and that's
an entirely different matter.
I think that's ridiculous. It's all based
on Steiner's own words; it could be dealt with by addressing
those texts.
I have seen Dan Dugan's efforts to link Steiner
quotes with Nazi propaganda. It's not only pathetic, but libellous
to the extreme. It reminds me of the words that finally ended
the notorious career of the pathological liar, senator Joseph
McCarthy: "Do you have no sense of decency?"
It could be dealt with by updating anthroposophy
and renouncing its racist components.
Anthroposophy is not updating by editing old
texts and transcripts, Diana, but through living communion with
Christ-Michael and Anthroposophia. You're talking about beating
a dead horse here, because that seems to be the only thing that
is real to you.
I think it's denial to reply to this by
whining that you're being "besmirched."
In denial, like an alcoholic who won't go
to AA? Take another look at those lies by DD and PS, Diana, and
tell me once more who is in denial here.
The complaints about Steiner's racist writings
aren't going to go away until you deal with the fact that Steiner
really did say and write those things.
I have dealt with that years ago, diana. And
you are gravely mistaken if you believe that I have claimed Steiner
did not say "those things." In that case, quote me.
That's the problem you need to work with.
My drinking problem? My drug problem? You're
talking about denial. Are you suggesting that I have denied the
authenticity of undisputed RS quotes? What gave you that notion?
Some oracle in the Temple of Peter?
this is very sincere advice, you will do
the movement a huge favor if you address it.
I sincerely doubt your power of judgement
about what is best for the Anthroposophical Movement. Your suggestion
that I need to address Steiner's problematic remarks about race
suggests that I am a racist who has been unduly influenced by
those quotes. Frankly, I believe your need to confront deliberate
untruths propagated by your movement is much more urgent
than the needs you project upon anthroposophists.
Ask yourself if you really cannot understand
why the material Peter Staudenmiaer posted a day or so ago, from
the vermont sophia web pages, is of concern to some people: do
you really not understand, why associating specific spiritual
qualities and missions with specific national or racial groupings
is frightening to many people?
That is an excellent anthroposophical website.
If it frightens you, go to Disneyland instead.
I am concerned with the intentional lies Staudenaier
has published about RS and Anthroposophy and his preposterous
notion that Steiner was an atheist when he wrote the PoF. As
a matter of fact, Steiner tells us that the PoF is the message
of Christ to humanity in our age, and that it is the John gospel
in a new clothing - the garment of Liberty. Peter Staudenmaier
insists that Rudolf Steiner was a liar when he wrote about his
early years in his autobiography. If you cannot figure out who
the liar is here, you've been brainwashed by the Cult of Peter
and with a little help from Ahriman (the Father of Lies), whether
you like it or not.
(The usual reply, "Well, we all incarnate
in different races in different lifetimes" is an end- run
around the problem, btw. It is a failure to deal with the text.
Y'all want some meaty textual analysis - try it on your own guru's
writings, without first reassuring yourselves that you
have access to higher spiritual channels than the rest of us.
That's cheating.)
How can you understand texts like this unless
you're capable of cognizing a spiritual world order on an empirical
level?
About switching left-handed children to
right-handed, I wrote some years ago that I thought it was wrong.
After having read comments and opinions by people who were switched,
and who claim that no harm was done, I have no position on the
subject.
It is an abusive practice (even if done
with smiles and songs) that continues to this day in some Waldorf
schools.
How do you know it is abusive? Do you know
of people who have suffered because they were switched when they
were children? (Personally, I have no idea, and for that reason,
I do not have an opinion. My initial reaction against it was
a knee-jerk response.)
In my opinion it is probably a minority,
although we do hear these reports. It is impossible to judge
the incidence of it fairly, because of course PLANS doesn't hear
from people who don't object to it, or who have no experience
of it. If a great many Waldorf teachers were still doing it,
surely there would be an outcry. I am led to believe the practice
is slowly, mercifully, dying. Nevertheless it is a fact that
it continues at least on occasion, as we do, at PLANS, hear from
angry Waldorf parents on this at regular intervals. The latest
one was last week. It is something that simply needs, very clearly
and without defensiveness and denial, to be dealt with.
Denial? Again, go to AA and do without a drink
for 30 days. If someone switches from lefthandedness to righthandedness,
there is nothing to deny.
It should not be done. No other doctor
or educational expert in the world today would advise left-handed
children switch. It is cruel and useless, and a relic of superstition.
Steiner was wrong. Sorry.
I envy your certainty. My own uncertianty
has nothing to do with Steiner being right or wrong. Even if
a dr. Smith had recommended switching, I would have to read a
great deal about it, including testimonies from adults who were
switched as children, to form an opinion of my own.
I don't qualify because I have no experience
with it, and I have no education or training that would allow
me to venture an expert opinion.
But you do take a public position on this,
Tarjei, on your web site. You put up all my posts on left-handers
at your site in a context of utter scorn and contempt.
Really? I simply responded to your take-off
from my own web article: http://www.uncletaz.com/diana2.html
This is what Diana Winters
and other "Waldorf Ctritics" say about me on the WC
list - in a thread even bearing my name. It deserves no comment
Here is a favorite quote from Walden: "Tarjei
is the one deliberately lying." A PLANS'er calls me a deliberate
liar. I love it. It takes one to know one, I guess, but he's
wrong. I'm too ignorant about the topic to lie deliberately about
it. Besides, my source was a trustworthy one.
You told me on the critics list that Michaela
Glockler had spoken out against the practice of left-handed switching
in Waldorf schools. I'd still like to see your evidence of this
as I have found none. When and where did she say this, to whom?
I think you told me off list that she said this to Detlef on
the phone maybe?
You'll have to ask Detlef. He is a reliable
source. Unlike your pals at PLANS, he is not in the habit of
lying on purpose.
Kinda a lame effort if she really wishes
to condemn this practice? Perhaps she has made public statements
that are not on the web?
The answer, my friend, is blowing in the wind
- the Idiot Wind perhaps:
http://www.bobdylan.com/songs/idiot.html
Tarjei Straume
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are
those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few
things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the
whole." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed
Opinions and Maxims
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:16 am
Subject: Tarjei - part 1
I will break this in 3 pieces, since it is
so long, post them, and then sign off the list. I don't have
time for more, and I don't want to hijack this list for the critics'
purposes. I don't plan to reply after this, don't take it personally.
I will probably post the links or some direct quotes from this
exchange on the critics list.
Tarjei:
I do not consider the theosophical-anthroposophical theory
of evolution to be trash, but factual. Humanity has evolved through
epochs, cultures, and races.
Okay. To state that humanity has evolved through
races, Tarjei, is racist. From a nonracist point of view, peoples'
racial characteristics are irrelevant from any evaluative standpoint,
such as spiritual qualities. Nothing about a person's skin color,
or the racial origin of their family, determines their contribution
to history, or their personal character. The course of history
is not determined by racial categories. To say that humanity
evolves through "epochs" would seem a simple tautology,
like saying time passes - tying the concepts of race and progress
is where you endorse, simply, racism. (Even if you say this is
all in the past and the future is one great brotherhood etc.
Your theory of history is racist.) Indeed this facet of anthroposophy
should be of concern to parents considering a Waldorf education.
Blavatsky and Steiner discovered our true
origins as far as I'm concerned. If that makes me a racist in
your book, so be it.
I think it's counterproductive to point fingers
and say, this person or that person is a racist. It doesn't really
matter to you whether we do that or not - you can't hear the
content of the discussion anyway. Why should we bend over backwards
to soothe your feelings? What matters to me is that Steiner's
racist doctrines seemingly cannot be re-examined by anthroposophists,
and that leads to the attempts to be secretive, change the subject,
arrogant attitudes like "You aren't spiritual enough to
understand," obfuscating, denying, and extreme hostility,
when this material is made available to Waldorf parents. That
is what is of interest to me. It is not of interest to me whether
you are a racist. I guess we could go on pondering the question
but I have other things to do.
I'm sorry you have your feelings hurt, but
it's really not a big thing to me, in the big picture.
The record shows that the definition of
racism can be stretched beyond any limits in the PLANS cult.
That would not be necessary, as a simple statement
such as you have made above, that humanity advances through races,
is enough according to any basic definition of racism.
Seriously. Renounce and refute this material
and encourage people like Joel to do the same.
There is nothing for me to refute. This
mantra about refutation that DD keeps chanting and that you've
memorized so successfully
Excuse me. I would like to say that I am sick
and tired of this condescending suggestion that other people
like myself on the critics list somehow follow Dan Dugan or "memorize"
what Dan Dugan says. You must not have been paying attention.
I have my own thoughts, plenty of them. This is sexist and stupid.
It's the first thing Sune Nordwall said to me when I first came
on the critics list - smtg like, "Have you really read Steiner,
Diana, or just read Dan Dugan's story?" I barely knew who
Dan Dugan was at the time. We had just left the Waldorf school
and I had my own story to tell. Someone told me to type "Dan
Dugan" into the search engine. I was still kinda fuzzy on
who Dan Dugan was or what had happened to his kids. I was so
confused to be told I was a Dan Dugan groupie. In the time since
then, I've gotten to know Dan pretty well, and while I agree
with him about a lot of things, we also have significant differences.
It seems to be quite lost on our critics that the "Waldorf
critics," over the years, have included literally hundreds
of people with many divergent stories and viewpoints.
Rudolf Steiner was not a racist. Some of
his remarks are racist
That's an interesting statement. Maybe it
is true. It's interesting because you can apparently apply this
crucial distinction to Rudolf Steiner but not to yourself or
your fellow anthroposophists?
and may be considered trash, especially
when quoted out of context with explicit malign intent.
Tarjei, whatever intent a person has in quoting
something really doesn't change the quote. Well, perhaps it does
in anthroposophy - this is Joel's thing about thoughts being
the same as deeds, I guess.
by recommending that you read very carefully
all of Steiner's statements regarding race, gender, nationality,
tribe, family, blood ties and so on. All of them, including those
featured on my website.
It's interesting to me that you think I haven't
done that. I won't claim to have read all of them as I'm
sure you can find something I've missed - but I have read many
of the relevant texts, some of them many times over.
You don't know much about anthroposophy,
do you?
Incorrect. I know a great deal about anthroposophy.
You wish people like me didn't know much about it. A dopey taunt.
Deal with the topics raised, quit saying "I know more than
you."
You think it's all an invention by Rudolf
Steiner and totally dependent upon dead print of inaccurate shorthand
transcripts?
No - I don't think that. I am not an expert
on its derivations, but it doesn't take a genius to understand
that anthroposophy comes from much older sources.
Anthroposophy is the product of St. Michael,
the Arhcangel-Archai who became the regent of earth evolution
in 1979, when he repleced Gabriel to lead humanity into the New
Age.
Oh. You meant spiritual sources, not historical
sources. Please contact the Waldorf association in your area,
and ask them to please clarify this in brochures for prospective
parents. It is fine with me if you believe this. If you want
your movement to grow, and improve its spiritual karma, you need
to get honest with your clients. Obviously, I am not among the
believers, in statements such as St. Michael being a "regent"
of earth evolution. (yeah I know you mean 1879) St. Michael is
nothing to me. I should not have been hoping to get my son educated
by people who believed such stuff.
Rudolf Steiner was the herald of spiritual
knowledge, but parallel to this, there evolved a new approach
to conflicts and controversy and a new consciousness of RACE.
This part of the Michael-stream runs right through the biographies
of people like Tolstoi, Mahatma Gandhi, Martin Luther King, Mother
Theresa and Nelson Mandela. Yes, those are the footprints of
Christ-Michael. But you're blind to that, just like worms digging
through the dirt beneath the surface of the soil, unable to see
the sunlight that nourishes it. All you see is dead words, quotes
by Rudolf Steiner, and the only thing of interest is racism and
other "frightening" things that should be "refuted"
by the Children of the Spiritual Sun who have their eyes fixed
upon the future. So for your own good, open your eyes and lift
up your gaze.
Above are all the reasons you can't get at
people like me. Once I am compared to a worm, and told to "lift
up my gaze" - "for my own good" - join the "Children
of the Spiritual Sun" - I know which way to run, Tarjei.
Been there and done that. (whew. Holiday season does this to
me.)
You can only keep a complaint against racism
alive by preaching and practicing racism,
Huh? The way to keep a complaint about racism
alive is to practice racism? Not following you.
OR by repeating false accusations ad nauseum
for unsuspecting people to swallow it raw.
I agree we repeat the quotes fairly often,
but unless the quotes are inaccurate - which you guys never claim
- we can hardly be repeating false accusations. Anyone is free
to decide for themselves whether the quotes are racist or not.
When DD only a week ago called the Anthroposophical
Movement, "institutionalized racism," he actually compared
the entire MOVEMENT to the Jim Crow laws of the Old South, the
apartheid regime in South Africa, the ethnic injustice enforced
by Israel, and similar misanthropic social orders. That is nothing
but sheer slander.
I don't think so. He didn't compare anthroposophy
to Jim Crow, etc. "Institutionalized racism" is alive
and well in many, many forms today. If people draw such connections
in their minds, that's appropriate. The lesser forms of institutionalized
racism deserve comparison with the worse forms, as a warning
and a call for vigilance. Quite appropriate. What the heck do
you think we've been trying to say? Avoid this stuff, is our
advice. Look where, historically, the promotion of racial doctrines,
or even the passive disinterest in racial doctrines, has led.
My personal interest in and involvement
with Waldorf schools has always been very limited.
That seems odd to me, since your child attends
one I believe? But since your interest in Waldorf schools is
limited that explains why you don't understand, or care to understand,
what the critics say about them, and are impatient with attempts
to actually connect Waldorf practices to anthroposophy.
Tarjei, could you believe me on one little point? Waldorf comes
from anthroposophy. We saw what teachers did with this stuff
to our children.
My main interest in and attraction to RS
and anthroposophy has been the contribution to christian theology
(Christology), the theory of spiritual evolution, cosmo-genesis,
and its ethical foundation. I don't care what schools some people
have left.
Yeah, I get that.
I have had nothing to do with those schools.
They are dragging what I regard as holy into the gutter, blaspheming
it, spitting at it, laughing in my face for regarding it as holy.
People who do that kind of stuff behave like hate groups, because
they are driven by hate.
You are mistaken. I am not driven by hate.
I reply to the people who write and phone me, regarding problems
their children are having in Waldorf schools. I really don't
have Tarjei Straume and what he holds holy in mind when I deal
with this stuff. You really do not understand that it is all
the time - that it is not possible to be away from the computer
for more than a day or so because there will be an urgent plea
from someone who is trying to figure out how to extricate themselves
or their child from some disasterous situation, wanting to understand
something like why the recommendation to switch their left hander
has been made, why the child is crying after eurythmy sessions,
or why the teacher will not intervene when a gang has attacked
their child on the playground etc. I actually thought, for a
moment, when you wrote above that "they" are dragging
what you regard as holy into the gutter, etc., that "they"
meant Waldorf teachers, because it would have made more sense
to me.
end part 1
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:30 am
Subject: Tarjei - part 2
Part 2
Tarjei:
Cosmic Memory" is the record of human pre-history, read
clairvoyantly through seership, initiation science. If that is
racism, then God is a redneck bigot.
LOL. Lots of people believe in a different
god than yours, a god who would not have done the redneck
bigot stuff some of Steiner's spirits get up to.
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocourt.html
Yeah, I liked that, though I didn't get all
of it, if I recall.
But I have never, never read anything that
indicates that so-called "Waldorf critics" are capable
of laughing at their own cause, their own anti-anthro beliefs
and so on. Never.
My guess is neither side laughs at themselves
in public . . . It does seem a little hard to laugh at oneself
for not holding certain beliefs. Heh heh, how silly of
me not to get in line to venerate Michael? Hm.
sewer rats:
In case you didn't believe in the latter,
you might accept the former. They're more physical :)
Heh heh.
The problem is that if you demand that
the anthroposophical theory of evolution must be dismissed by
the anthroposophist as racist, you're demanding that the anthroposophist
abandons - or "refutes" if you like - anthroposophy.
Ah. I kind of suspected that. How is it, then,
that the racial material is so often dismissed as not very important,
only a tiny piece of Steiner anyway that the critics are making
too much of? Are you really saying that with the racial material
removed, anthroposophy isn't anthroposophy? May I quote you?
(Just a joke. Being as it's a public list, I will quote you anyway.)
Yes, Tarjei, I do know that. I argued this
on the critics list just last week. If the racial material is
removed, Steiner might not even be a seer, or else he was a seer
who made some pretty big mistakes. So everything else is cast
into doubt as well. I agree it's a big problem. Furthermore the
premise of "As above, so below" (I think I'm quoting
Percedol) is undermined if physical characteristics, to the extent
they are determined by race (which is, actually, not a very great
extent anyway), no longer have spiritual derivation.
Because to you, Christ-Michael is just
a great illusion like the Easter Bunny, right?
Actually, no, but let's not waste a lot of
bandwidth on this. I personally think far more highly of Christ
than of the Easter Bunny (Christ-Michael I don't really get;
everyone on this list seems to conflate all these characters
in increasingly confusing ways. Lazarus is John, Steiner is Christian
Rosenkreutz, males turn out to be females, I don't pretend to
understand this stuff.)
As far as you're concerned, the Easter
Bunny might be responsible for the New Bunny Age (Playboy?) and
anthroposophy, so it ain't worth shit, right? Just trash it all
away for the benefit of PR so you don't offend anyone?
No, no, not at all. Those concerned with Waldorf
PR should explain it all, honestly, the way you do here, so that
those in sympathy with your beliefs know where to find the like-minded,
and know where to send their children to the kind of setting
they wish for them.
This is a very basic confusion. No one is
asking you to "trash" your beliefs, Tarjei. Actually
just the opposite. The movement as a whole should publicize them
more freely and explicitly than ever before. The era is over
when veiled hints were appropriate, layers of meaning to decode
and waiting till people are "ready" - draw the connection
to the Waldorf movement very explicitly. I honestly feel certain
Steiner would agree.
Insisting over and over that anthroposophy
is racist to the core, makes all anthroposophists, ipso facto,
racists to the core.
You state exactly the opposite above regarding
Rudolf Steiner as an individual, so apparently you are capable
of making this distinction.
So if you're unfamiliar with Steiner's
writings, you're off the hook what the accusation of racism is
concerned. And if you're familiar with them, you're a suspect?
If you're familiar with them, you owe it to
yourself and your family, if you're in the Waldorf school, to
at least make a study of the matter, I'd say.
He told me I smoked too much weed,
Oh did he? Come on now, you brag all over
the web about how much weed you've smoked. I was just enjoying
the loving photograph gallery depicting the beauty of marijuana
at your site :)
I don't believe I'm reading this hypocritical
piece of apology for the Cult of Peter.
This Cult of Peter stuff irks me almost as
much as the cult of Dan Dugan stuff. I guess it offends my own
ego that people like myself who have also had a great deal to
say, and sometimes disagreeing with Peter or Dan, are seen as
followers. It's really stupid, and it's sexist (how come there's
no Cult of Debra Snell or Cult of Lisa Ercolano for instance?
How come I'm not accused of "memorizing" Lisa Ercolano's
story?).
I admire what Peter has done and I think he's
a very nice guy, but I assure you there is no cult of Peter.
The funny part, Diana, is that being likened
to a gremlin is not an insult.
Oh.
Why is it really so difficult to talk about
Rudolf Steiner's racism without recourse to silly insults?
With this question, you're taking for granted
that Rudolf Steiner was a racist.
True.
In spite of his racist remarks, he wasn't.
Okay, Tarjei, think hard now. In spite of
his racist remarks, he wasn't a racist. But when critics say
anthroposphy is racist, we are ipso facto, calling "you
all" racists. Just work on this one for awhile, okay?
End part 2
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:45 am
Subject: Tarjei - part 3
Part 3
Tarjei:
In 2000, Peter Staudenmaier's above-mentioned
article about Steiner and 'superior Aryans' was published in
the Norwegian cultural magazine "Humanist." A full
page introductory picture showed the German Nazi eagle and swastika
banner mounted in front of the Goetheanum.
"Concentration camps, slave labor
and the murder of Jews constitute a praxis whose key is perhaps
to be found in the 'theories' of Rudolf Steiner," Staudenmaier
quoted from one of his sources in the footnotes. Another photo
of the death camp Dachau, where there was allegedly supposed
to be a bio-dynamic garden of herbs, is placed vis-á-vis
a photo of the Waldorf school at Hovseter in Oslo. In Dachau
they experimented on prisoners - what is happening in the crypto-nazi
institution in Norway? The fact is that several of the school's
pioneer teachers were incarcerated in death camps during the
war, and they weren't Nazis or traitors. The perfidious accusation
that this use of pictures communicates, is directed at teachers
of the past as well as the present - not to mention those among
Humanist's readers who may be connected with the school as teachers,
students, or parents.
This is not criticism, Diana. It is something
much more ugly and sinister. And you endorse this campaign by
Peter S, don't you?
I don't think I've seen that in real life.
If it is as you describe, I would agree with you it was slanderous.
I don't believe anyone should be implying that Waldorf schools
are "crypto-Nazi institutions" and I'm not sure if
that was your term or you were quoting the article. I would not
agree with placing a photo of Dachau near a photo of a Waldorf
school to imply an association. I don't know whose decision this
would have been, probably someone's at the magazine, so I can't
comment. I wouldn't have made such a decision, I'd have argued
against if it had had anything to do with me, but it didn't,
nor with PLANS, as far as I know. You have no reason to be aware
of this, but I personally have spent a great deal of time and
sweat in internal argumentation about PLANS' tactics and ethics.
Did they kidnap you, or did you simply
choose a private school without knowing what it was about? Did
the movement march in and take something from you?"
The movement is very careful to be sure that
only parents who appear receptive are given a full picture of
the role of anthroposophy in the school. Within a few weeks of
working there, I fully realized that most parents, who were not
spending hours a day there like I was, did not understand. Of
course they didn't kidnap us. They held a very pleasant interview
with us, where they told us things like, "Imagination is
so important." "It is so important to preserve childhood
today, videos are not appropriate for 3 year olds, don't you
think?" They taught my son how to make tissue paper butterflies
the first time we visited - a much more effective technique than
kidnapping, certainly.
(I worked very hard for your movement for
3 years, and I followed the childrearing advice.
You worked for my movement? I hope
you're aware of the distinction between anthroposophical institutions
and organizations, including Waldorf schools and the AS, and
the Anthroposophical Movement, which is independent of external
manifestations. As a participant in the Anthroposophical Movement,
did you connect to the Christ-Michael Stream and Anthroposophia,
spiritually? If not, you didn't work for my movement,
Diana.
Oh please. As I keep saying, just explain
your Christ-Michael Streams to parents first, and let them decide
before hand, not years afterward, what movement exactly they
are getting involved with. I find it ethically indefensible for
you to claim some part of your movement is "independent
of external manifestations." How convenient.
Those people you are in contact with, do
they relate to Spiritual Science and understand its principles
empirically?
Oh please again! Of course not! They had usually
never heard of it until a few evenings at the Waldorf school,
and some still, after the kids have been there for years, don't
know from Spiritual Science. They are parents Tarjei,
ordinary parents who were trying to pick the best school for
their kids.
If we're talking instances of child abuse,
violence, trauma and similar horror stories, it's a matter for
local authorities, isn't it?"
Sometimes, yes.
The gods of darkness are subtle. they seduce
people to serve them by convincing them that they do not exist.
Savvy?
Gosh, yes, very!! Now I see. I have been serving
a god by virtue of not knowing he existed. In this scheme, I
really can't get away, can I?
Steiner tells us that the PoF is the message
of Christ to humanity in our age, and that it is the John gospel
in a new clothing
Then why do you deny, to parents, that anthroposophy
is based on sacred texts - Steiner?
How can you understand texts like this
unless you're capable of cognizing a spiritual world order on
an empirical level?
I think you have tunnel vision. Lots of people
believe in a spiritual world, but would reject the proposition
that spirits would favor certain races or peoples, or other of
the various nasty tricks Steiner's spirits get up to. This would
be the opposite of how any spirits I would want to follow would
behave. This seems to be a key point of criticism that anthroposophists
have trouble understanding: Some people who are spiritual don't
believe in your spirit world.
Left-handers:
How do you know it is abusive? Do you know of people who have
suffered because they were switched when they were children?
Sure. And people who suffer presently
because of this practice.
Even if a dr. Smith had recommended switching,
I would have to read a great deal about it, including testimonies
from adults who were switched as children, to form an opinion
of my own."
This would not be the case if not for your
involvement with anthroposophy, for there is no other school
you could attend today where the question would even be raised.
It would never occur to a normal child that they are using the
"wrong" hand to do something. It is adults who introduce
this complication. It's a form of sadism.
This is what Diana Winters and other "Waldorf
Critics" say about me on the WC list - in a thread even
bearing my name. It deserves no comment
It deserves no comment? It really amazes me
that the actual content of this discussion is not of interest
to you. What interests you is that your spiritual quest somehow
feels under threat. Whether it is painful to children to be forced
to eat or write with the wrong hand (it is - I assure you; if
you want empirical evidence, just try it yourself; eat your lunch
today with your nondominant hand) - is not of interest to you.
You obstinately miss the point by insisting this is about your
spiritual life. This is about the children who are caused
pain by this practice. Yep, you have a public position on it.
You make fun of me for my position on it, you implicitly therefore
condone the continuation of a policy that harms children.
You'll have to ask Detlef. He is a reliable
source.
I think that's sad. I think it's sad that
it isn't possible to interest you in the topic. You are only
indignant that your "right-handed magic" was attacked
- the actual applications of such, the way ancient superstitions
about the left and right hands, play out in real-life classrooms
today, for children sitting in desks lined up in rows
in the morning, isn't interesting to you. You prefer to play
games. You stated publicly that Michaela Glockler had changed
her mind on this, and you have no evidence, and you think it's
just funny to play games with me about where to find your supposed
evidence. It's a game to you, taunt and bait Waldorf critics.
You think we like this game too? What we don't like is hearing
from parents who are baffled to have been told their left-handed
child needs evaluation and possibly "therapy" (i.e.,
eurythmy) to change it. The child comes home crying. Does this
mean anything to you?
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Tarjei - part 1
Okay. To state that humanity has evolved
through races, Tarjei, is racist.
Diana,
Here you are revealing that you have not actually understood
that which you attack. You see, to an Anthroposophist, to say
that "humanity" has evolved means that a group of individuals,
collectively called "humanity" has incarnated in different
races at different times, and each individual has grown and learned
as a result of their experiences. The same individuals, different
races. To take a hypothetical example, let us say you, Diana,
had lived your last life as a Chinese around the time of Marco
Polo, previous to that you lived in Africa, before that in pre-Columbian
America and before that in Palestine as a shepherd in the time
of King David. Now in this hypothetical situation, however improbably
you might find it, you would hopefully learned a few things,
so it could be said that you evolved. Taking the racial characteristics
into account, it could be said that you "evolved through
races." However it is not to imply a hierarchy, that you
are now at some peak of perfection (which implies - with nowhere
to go but down) either in your racial characteristics or any
of your personal characteristics; it only implies that you have
lived in different races, and grown as a result of what you learned.
Anthroposophy recognizes that there have existed in the world,
and continue to exist different races. Anthroposophy does not
categorize the races into a sort of hierarchy, with one race
at the bottom, and another at the top. With your heightened sesitivity
to racism, you read this into the statement "humanity has
evolved through races" inferring the hierarchy and every
other backwards misconception that you so despise. But were you
to take the time to understand what is meant, as opposed to instantly
finding what you would so righteously attack, you would perhaps
see that the statement is to be understood differently. Reincarnation
and Karma are THE central beliefs of Anthroposophy. If an Anthroposophist
talks of evolution, it is ONLY in this context.
If Tarjei says that he believes in the "the
theosophical-anthroposophical theory of evolution" please
try to understand that theory before attempting to lynch him
on account of it. You might be surprised to find that he agrees
completely with your further statements, such as "From a
nonracist [or Anthroposophical] point of view, peoples' racial
characteristics are irrelevant from any evaluative standpoint,
such as spiritual qualities. Nothing about a person's skin color,
or the racial origin of their family, determines their contribution
to history, or their personal character. The course of history
is not determined by racial categories."
The epochs of the "the theosophical-anthroposophical
theory of evolution" are cultural, and not racial. The word
"Aryan" for example, originally was a linguistic term
for all cultures whose language derived from the Indo-European.
It has nothing to do with racial characteristics. The term was
borrowed by racists starting a little bit before the beginning
of the 20th Century, and by the end of the Nazi era had completely
lost it's original linguistic meaning, such that even linguists
no longer use it. The "Aryan" epoch, lasting 25,000
years and starting about 15,000 years ago was renamed the "Post-Atlantean"
by 1906 (as it was noticed that the word "Aryan" bore
less and less it's original meaning) and only in older documents
will you find that term used. I think it is historically ingnorant
to call all 19th Century linguists who used the term a racist,
and likewise its use in most early Theosophical literature was
not intended racially. The smaller epochs are named after the
culture (culture, not race) that is most prominent during that
era. However, it is explicitly clear that these are not the only
cultures of importance during that era. Every culture is an important
part of the whole, just as every individual is an important part
of the whole of humanity. If you spent more time studying the
system that you are already sure you understand, these things
would perhaps become clearer.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:30 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Tarjei - part 1
Hi Diana,
You were one of those that I had in mind to
send a Christmas email greeting to, but I only came to send snail
mail greetings this year. So greetings after the event!
You write:
Well, Tarjei, if you consider Steiner's
racial theories to be trash, you would be doing anthroposophy
a big favor to work on cleaning some of this up. Seriously. Renounce
and refute this material and encourage people like Joel to do
the same.
...
Steiner's racism is one complaint amongst a number of important
complaints about the Waldorf movement, and yet it is a reasonable
place to start.
What you refer to is very much a straw man
built for thrashing on the WC-list, not because it should be
something important or relevant as such in relation neither to
waldorf practice nor in relation to Waldorf theory.
It is primarily cultivated and used as a demagogical
tool by PLANS, in much the same way that quotes like that found
at anti-Semitic hate sites like that of Radio Islam http://abbc.com/islam/english/english.htm
and documented at pages like http://abbc.com/islam/english/toread/jewras.htm
and http://abbc.com/quotes/q101-150.htm#q114
are used.
To get a perspective on the issue:
One part of the demagoguery is built on references
to superficially understood and distortingly argued about concepts
and how Steiner actually related to them at different times of
his life.
Another part consists of references and repeated
quoting of a number of (not many) instances, when Steiner mostly
in passing in a specific historical and social context made some
remarks that today stand out as racist.
It took place in a culture permeated with
discussions of people in terms of "race" as part of
the developing theory of evolution of Darwin, and most of the
remarks in passing were related to the situation during the first
WW and its aftermath, like the use by the French of imported
colonial troops from Africa as cannon fodder, with 16 quotes
considered by a commission initiated by the AS in Holland some
years ago as discriminatory, in relation to present day legislation
on discrimination in the Netherlands some years ago, 80-100 years
after they were made.
Five of them, in total c 1/3 of the total
number of 16 found on 89.000 pages of published works, were made
during one humorous ad hoc lecture to construction workers at
one time, where RS to my memory also joked about among other
things empirical philosophers, indicating that they would not
have developed their empiricist philosophies if they had had
a better digestion, or been given anti-constipation remedies
...
Both parts of the argumentation much is cultivated
by Peter Staudenmaier, whose hypocrisy regarding 'honesty' in
his demand that 'anthroposophists honestly deal with the racism
of Steiner' I think is outstanding, as documented at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
demonstrating his seemingly extremely lighthearted relation to
honesty and truthfulness in relation to his repeated claims to
be a 'historical scholar' in what he writes and has written on
RS and anthroposophy, and revealing that his argumentation only
superficially has something to do with honesty, and primarily
is pure demagoguery and made not for truthfinding, but for demagogical
purposes.
It is the same Peter Staudenmaier, that you
recently (Dec 14), after probably having read everything I have
documented about him and his writings at my site, including http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
expressed such admiration of and gratefulness to on the WC-list,
begging him not to apologize to the list members for 'educating'
them (including you) about RS and anthroposophy
(http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715501008).
If he has been so extremely lightheartedly
untruthful with regard to the story he tells at the very first
start of his career as solo writer on RS and anthroposophy, and
then in addition afterwards for years has defended and tried
to cover up for his untruthfulness with a number of new untruth
instead of correcting it, (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html)
how much confidence can you have in this word juggler even when
he says he quotes Steiner?
My discussions with him and comparison on
a number of points of what he has written with the sources he
asserts that he describes in his articles, as partly documented
at my main mentioned page on him, has made me come to the view
that one of the safest assumptions you can make when reading
ANYTHING Peter Staudenmaier writes on Steiner or anthroposophy,
beyond pure quotes, is that it is untruthful, or more or less
twisted and distorted one way or another in relation to what
he refers to.
In my experience of him, one of those to my
impression coming closest to him as character as word juggler
is 'Christopher Rockefeller', interviewed on 60 Minutes in April
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/04/18/60minutes/main550070.shtml
http://www.subtleny.150m.com/Chris/National%20Post%204-13-02.htm
http://www.usdoj.gov/usao/nye/pr/2003may19.htm
PS, after his repeated untruthfulness has
been exposed in what he writes on RS and anthroposophy - as the
main admired and defended 'teacher' and 'educator' on the WC-list,
expressly admired and defended by you - has written on RS and
anthroposophy and in discussions about his exposed untruthfulness,
has argued that he not can be accused of having lied, as he himself
- as repeatedly self proclaimed 'historical scholar' - has believed
that he has been telling the truth. Repeatedly ...
Yeah. Right.
Do you actually expect to have any credibility
in your argumentation about RS and anthroposophy except as mainly
demagoguery too, as long as you expressly defend and express
your admiration for such a person as 'educator' after probably
having read the documentation of his repeated untruthfulness
in his argumentation, as documented at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
?
I'm sorry for getting so upset about it, as
I otherwise really feel sympathy for you as a person.
There is one point that is justified at the
origin of the otherwise I think primarily demagogical argumentation
by PLANS' promoters and supporters, using the two first mentioned
types of arguments at the bottom of http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/plans1.html
to propagate the demagogical mythologies cultivated by PS and
supported by Dan, you and some others on the WC.
It is that it is quite uninteresting when
relating to people what skin color or other external characteristics
they or you may have. As humans we all deserve to be respected
for what we are as humans in the same way we expect others to
respect us on a purely human basis for what we are as humans.
If someone seriously and systematically seems
to argue for something else, they haven't understood what it
means to be a human.
Does Steiner do that? No, not very much beyond
some temporary hot tempered or joking remarks in passing in some
specific social and historical contexts in a cultural and historical
context permeated by thinking in terms of "race" and
"races".
What then are the seemingly more systematical
arguments of RS having been racist?
At http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm
that I put up in its first form already two years ago and probably
both you, PS and the others on the WC-list have read, I have
tried to sort out some of the concepts involved, used in the
demagoguery of PLANS supporters.
Two of them; 'root races' and 'sub races'
come out of the cultural context and obsession with the concept
of 'race' at the end of the 19th and the beginning 20th century,
as part of the developing theory of evolution.
They were used in theosophy at the time and
continue to be used by some individuals up to this day, also
in anthroposophical contexts, like the site you at present discuss
at the WC-list.
I think it is socially indefensible to do
that today, without pointing out that the concepts in question
come out of a historical context permeated with a thinking in
terms of "races" in a way that colored the thinking
and language at the time, far beyond what a proper use of the
term as a biological concept.
Already early Steiner pointed to how inappropriate
it in his view was to use the concept "race" the way
it was done in theosophy to describe the origin and development
of man (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/GA117-1909-12-04.htm
and other places) and then, when he himself in his basic work
on the origin and development of the human being from before
the existence of time as such (http://www.elib.com/Steiner/Books/GA013/English/)
describes the same things as described by Blavatski, leaves the
theosophical race-terminology behind, and later argues that to
speak of belonging to a special race or nation as an ideal is
to speak of decaying impulses of humanity (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/GA177-1917-10-26-eng.htm).
You probably have read http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm
as also probably most of the others argumenting on the WC-list.
Yet PS and others on the WC-list continue
to argue as if you knew nothing about it, except for DD at one
time (http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715501863)
simply describing it as an attempt to 'deny the racist content
of Steiner's writing' without otherwise commenting on its content
beyond telling that he does not think that denying "the
obvious" enhances my credibility.
Except for that, I have not seen ONE comment
by you or anyone else on the page and its relevance to the argumentation
on the WC-list, except for 'Percedol's, who pointed to the page
in a posting at http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715501406
It again tells that those who argue for the
view that anthroposophy should be racist because the theosophical
tradition used and still uses such concepts as 'root races' and
'sub races' as systematical concepts in describing all of human
evolution and some few anthroposophically oriented people thoughtlessly
continue to do it up to this day, while Steiner stopped doing
it some 90-100 years ago, do it as pure demagoguery in a way
that has nothing whatsoever to do with any truth seeking or -argumentation.
Why not start engaging in some effort of real
representation of anthroposophy on the WC-list and as a first
start try to find out what actually distinguishes anthroposophy
from theosophy, before jumping to the distorted and distorting
demagoguery continuously cultivated by Peter Staudenmaier on
the WC-list and in other places, repeatedly mixing everything
into one big soup or words and twisting people's minds.
You're an intelligent person. Why not tell
walden what the repeated mind- and word game of Staudenmaier
about his writings, last in the form found at http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715505999
is about, and that walden asks about at http://www.topica.com/lists/waldorf-critics/read/message.html?mid=1715511752
It's very simple. PS has engaged in (repeated)
spiritual forgery of what Steiner expressed in the lecture series
'Mission of Folk Souls'. The lecture he describes as introduction
to his solo career as story teller on anthroposophy of course
exists in the sense of there existing a first lecture of the
lecture series PS refers to. But it does not exist as he describes
it with regard to its content.
About these simple facts PS seemingly succeeds
in repeatedly playing different mind and word games on the WC-list
with not one intelligent person commenting on it, not even you,
instead expressing your great admiration for and gratefulness
to him for 'educating' you.
Do you expect such a discussion list, and
your contribution to it, to be taken seriously?
Wish I could have finished on a more positive
note, but it really is difficult in relation to the WC-list.
Better New Year for us all!
Sune
...................................................................................................................................
From: Steinerhead
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Tarjei - part 1
In a message dated 12/30/03 11:36:19 PM !!!First
Boot!!!, sune.nordwall writes:
<snip>
As humans we all deserve to be respected
for what we are as humans in the same way we expect others to
respect us on a purely human basis for what we are as humans.
If someone seriously and systematically
seems to argue for something else, they haven't understood what
it means to be a human. <snip>
I'll toast to that!
Reading Peter S's diatribes leave allot to
be desired when thinking in terms of human compassion,
or Empathy. Maybe it's just me, but can't help feeling that he's
writing so as to impress some kind of computer that will "analyze"
his work -- the Mother of all "textural analysis" machines.
Then again, his snake-in-the-grass cat and mouse word smithing
does have a "human" element to it ... but I don't think
it falls into the category of "respect."
Nihilism and Cynicism
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 9:21 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: too mean to PLANS?
Tarjei wrote:
Rudolf Steiner was not a racist. Some of his remarks are racist
and may be considered trash, especially when quoted out
of context with explicit malign intent.
Dear Tarjei and Diana,
I think by todays standards one can try and
make Steiners remarks seem to be racists but I do not believe
for one second that was his intent. Therefore I do not find his
comments when taken in with all he left as a legacy to be of
a racist nature in any way shape or form. I don't think anyone
can get inside a mind and declare such a thing on his behalf.
And I find nothing of his to be trash in of what I have read
so far.
How can one say such a thing regarding Steiner
when the words and teachings he left speak to the absolute contrair.
We don't speak the same language as one did back in the late
1800' early 1900s and to judge it to todays standards shows no
understanding of how the world of ideas work.
Peter Staudenamier is a liar or at least he
is a very closed minded individual that only sees what he wants
to see, the very same thing he declares for Steiner students.
But he doesn't realize the fork tongue of which he speaks out
of or he wouldn't harm his own personal reputation among clear
thinking peoples. It's always easy to appeal to those who have
the same issues as you do but to make sense to open minded people
who look to find the truth of said thing he loses sorely and
badly. And for that I am glad. His way of debating is insulting
to the intellectual minded people who work to find a truth. His
way of denigrating others to prove his point shows his vulnerable
side and for that I am glad. He does not know how to debate the
issues without bringing in the 'oh you obviously are too close
to your teacher or the 'I seem to understand your own philosophies
better than you'. Oh. Okay. I will take your word for it when
everything I have ever read speaks to the opposite. And you who
do not even believe in spiritual reality claims to know the mind
of a seer which is something you do not even believe is possible
to begin with. Oh. Okay.
In regards to a Peter cult there does appear
to be one and I do not think it sexist to mention it to be so.
A cult is one that believes the speaker/teacher no matter what,
or at least believes him/her without doing the research. I am
not implying that Diana is of said cult however I am implying
that he is believed without the intricacies being checked out.
I for one checked out those writings and was appalled at the
way Staudnemaier handled himself. I had no idea he was that corrupt
in his writings. IF a little me can find the inconsistancies
so will the others but only if they care to do the work. In looking
at WCr's replies to Staudenmair I had come to the conclusion
that in fact they did not check the work by this man versus the
work of same thing on Steiner. They believed him and defended
him to such an extent that they could have the words 'cult of
Peter' thrown back in their faces as they had done to the STeiners
students. What is good for the goose is good for the gander but
WCrs seem to decry this kind of treatment that they do indeed
dish out.
In regards to Debra or Lisa, they just rant
and rave and stretch so very far to express their points. I have
no doubt that their experiences were real. Where they get caught
up is trying to explain why these things happen and what they
have to do with Dr. Steiners person. They try to explain how
karma is believing it is okay to let your child die without seeking
medical help or getting medication. How can one explain the intricacies
of karma if one does not believe in the spiritual understanding
behind such a thing. It is so easy to say 'aha see what they
are doing' when they do not know the long hand of the comment
only the short hand. And they may think this is doing a service
to their cause but it is not it is actually the shrivelling of
their original justified experiences with Waldorf.
In regards to the idea that thoughts are deeds.
I can relate to that and have since the first time I read it.
The idea that I am standing in traffick waiting for it to move
and cursing everything in sight unbeknownst to me was eye opening.
And it led me to fidn a more patient route to my life. When I
would say 'god you are such an idiot' I began to realize that
I was indeed sending a thought out to that particular person.
One can actually see this live when one observes others silent
ways of interacting and one can feel the impact it has. I think
it is admirable to teach a child to be careful of what he/she
thinks towards another. If in teaching this to a child you make
him wrong for his thoughts I would strongly disagree. If, however,
you can show a child how he/she can be aware of how their thoughts
can impact others, it is a beautiful thing.
Sincerely,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:25 am
Subject: Detlef about Glöckler and Tarjei about trolls
Diana, you wrote:
You told me on the critics list that Michaela
Glockler had spoken out against the practice of left-handed switching
in Waldorf schools. I'd still like to see your evidence of this
as I have found none. When and where did she say this, to whom?
I think you told me off list that she said this to Detlef on
the phone maybe? Kinda a lame effort if she really wishes to
condemn this practice? Perhaps she has made public statements
that are not on the web? More could be done to get the word out.
You could easily update the sarcastic comments on your web site
to note that, in fact, switching of left handers is no longer
advised. You don't need to change any of the snotty stuff it
says about me there :)
Diana
Read the WC archives - Detlef cited Glöckler
with a reference years ago if he remembers correctly. He never
spoke to you about it, it was an unequivocal statement that appeared
in print, although he may have mentioned it. Maybe Sune knows
where it appeared.
Incidentally, Diana, snottiness aside, you're
a human being and not a troll or a gremlin, but you PLANS people
have so many gremlins and trolls working through you, and they're
the ones making you so hostile. If it's any comfort to you, you're
never lonely that way, but it must be a nasty feeling to carry
so much hostility around and ill will and sing "refute your
racism refute your racism" to people who have never been
racists. Try some self-exorcism. There may be exercises to perform
such spiritual surgery, perhaps by some occultist other than
Steiner so you can avoid him and thus not provoke the trolls
even more....
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:50 am
Subject: Re: Detlef about Glöckler and Tarjei about trolls
Tarjei:
Read the WC archives - Detlef cited Glöckler with a reference
years ago if he remembers correctly. He never spoke to you about
it, it was an unequivocal statement that appeared in print, although
he may have mentioned it. Maybe Sune knows where it appeared.
I'd love it if someone would actually unearth
where this reference from Michaela Glockler, advising against
switching left-handers, appeared in print. Thanks to anyone who
can provide it. A search of the critics archives does not turn
up anything like this, I've tried that before.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 12:45 pm
Subject: Re: Tarjei - part 3.1
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
winters_diana wrote:
Sitting on the treasue of Michael Wisdom and
most of us having grown up in America's Civil Rights Movement...
I side with Jan- Starbirgarden that if Waldorf was Racist, as
the obvious definition to Racism for idiots would be, then Waldorf
Students should show signs of being frothing Aryan supremacists.
Has never happened and would never happen for the very reasons
everyone with any common sense has given Diana. After that we
are just looking in the unresolved guilt of her own bad parenting.
Part 3.1
http://www.lewrockwell.com/jarvis/jarvis55.html
What first set my pulse racing
was this comment by one of the panelists: "Racism does exist.
It is something that we do not talk about." Do not talk
about?? Racism is practically the only thing we talk about. I
can't recall a single day without a reference to some form of
racism in the media. I have seen articles about racism in housing;
schools and colleges, government agencies, business organizations,
sports, entertainment, the healthcare system, the justice system,
lending practices and so on.
Over the years the definition
of racism has become so flexible that it now means anything a
member of a grievance group says it means. As an illustration,
consider these two examples of racism voiced by members of the
audience at the racial reconciliation meeting: 1. The disproportionate
ratio of black prisoners to white ones in the state's penal system;
and 2. The bad treatment of Muslims in Georgia.
Each of these examples is
based on a pre-conceived supposition; i.e., the justice system
in Georgia is prejudiced against minorities, and Muslims are
subjected to discrimination and harassment throughout the state.
Whether or not these suppositions are true is beside the point.
If members of minority groups claim they are true, that ends
the discussion.
To those of us old enough
to remember the initial goals of the civil rights movement -
(to end segregation and remove legal impediments to minority
advancement) - the concerns voiced at the recent racial reconciliation
meeting are amazing. Can you imagine what the reaction would
have been if these demands had been part of the original goals
of the civil rights movement?
Civil rights activists have
wisely targeted one goal at a time, even though they know they
have Congress under their thumbs. After each goal was substantially
achieved, a new goal was established, and, as I stated, racism
was redefined to include opposition to the new goal. And a gullible
and guilt-obsessed public meekly accepted each new definition.
I can't recall any Lowcountry
newspaper raising a single objection to any claim of racism no
matter how far-fetched. Furthermore, even though it is an insult
to blacks, area newspaper editors assume that all blacks think
alike. You will search in vain for columns by black journalists
such as Thomas Sowell, Walter Williams and Larry Elder. And I
would doubt that local journalists ever consult the website of
that astute black lady, Elizabeth Wright - Issues & Views.
Obviously, we know that the
ultimate result of these racial reconciliation meetings will
be a demand for more government regulations at the state level.
That is a given. But we have already had 50 years of government
mandated racial preferences. And most Americans would agree that
the government's role in racial reconciliation long ago passed
its "sell by" date. Any future improvement in race
relations will have to be made by individuals themselves.
So, in my opinion, Governor
Perdue has made a serious misjudgment by holding these sessions.
Like many others, Governor Perdue possesses the naïveté
to think that talking about problems alleviates them. Sometimes
it does, but it can also exacerbate them. I maintain that these
meetings will aggravate race relations. I make that claim because
the advertised agenda of the meetings primarily attracts those
who already have an inflated sense of injustice...
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:52 pm
Subject: About left- and right-handed occultism
At 16:45 30.12.2003, Diana wrote:
It deserves no comment? It really amazes
me that the actual content of this discussion is not of
interest to you. What interests you is that your spiritual quest
somehow feels under threat. Whether it is painful to children
to be forced to eat or write with the wrong hand (it is - I assure
you; if you want empirical evidence, just try it yourself; eat
your lunch today with your nondominant hand) - is not of interest
to you. You obstinately miss the point by insisting this is about
your spiritual life. This is about the children who are
caused pain by this practice. Yep, you have a public position
on it. You make fun of me for my position on it, you implicitly
therefore condone the continuation of a policy that harms children.
Am I making fun of you for your position on
switching lefties to righties? Where have you been? Do you remember
what you posted to the WC and what you copied from my site? You
took a little piece from the following section of my article
about Hubbard and Steiner:
http://www.uncletaz.com/hubbstein.html
I have ponted out that Western
occult tradition speaks of a right-handed and a left-handed occultism,
which is equivalent to white and black magic. I also explained
that the right-handed path is based upon very demanding and time-consuming
moral purification of body, soul and spirit and the cultivation
of total harmlessness and unconditional selfless love toward
all living creatures.
Throughout Rudolf Steiner's
life and work, it becomes clear that this was the path and the
method which he himself had chosen. But 'der Doktor' also gave
some very interesting descriptions of left-handed occultism,
or black magic. The levels he described appear to be quite advanced.
(I believe that the proper Scientological term here is 'high
gradient'.)
When Steiner approached a
topic of this kind, he always put a great deal of emphasis on
the inner spiritual experiences of the person concerned; external
techniques were secondary. A right-handed occultist, who is cultivating
the power of selfless love for all creatures, will from time
to time feel himself projected, so to speak, into the inner life
of another being. This other being can be a loved one, a friend,
an animal, or an invisible living spirit (a departed soul or
an angel, for instance). The practitioner outgrows his self-interest
through the fire of love and compassion for other creatures while
yet retaining his self-dependent consciousness and rational thinking.
This rational thinking has been acquired through the experience
of egoism. Egoism has thus served its purpose, which the right-handed
occultist, or white magician, no longer needs. This development
will eventually open his higher faculties in relation to the
spiritual world.
What external techniques are
concerned, the role of the anonymous benefactor may be mentioned.
The idea is to give anonymously, to individuals or to society,
to benefit others, to relieve suffering etc. by any available
means in such a way that detection of the benefactor or well-doer
is impossible. It may also be a good idea to claim responsibility
for the misdeeds of others if one is better able to take the
heat than they are. ('Secret agents of Christ' perhaps?)
The black magician, or the
left-handed occultist, seeks to strengthen the power of egoism.
When he succeeds in doing so, he experiences an increase in his
separateness from his fellow creatures, from the rest of life.
It is important, therefore, that he learns to desensitize himself
from the inner experiences of others and thus acquires the capacity
to ignore, or to take pleasure in, the sufferings of fellow creatures.
By using advanced techniques for this purpose, the black magician
may acquire tremendous power. This may culminate in a left-handed
initiation which gives him clairvoyance.
One of the techniques utilized
for this purpose, also mentioned by Steiner, consists of deliberately
causing pain and suffering to another creature in a deliberate,
conscious, and technically prescribed way. (This is pro 'tech',
folks.) The practitioner experiences an increased isolation of
his ego and a new inner strength parallell with a radical cooling
of his feelings.
One of the best known methods
in this kind of black magic consists of stabbing a sharp object
like a knife into very special spots in the victim's body and
combine such actions with certain exercises in breathing and
concentration. In this way, the practitioner may acquire enormous
power and extract deep secrets of esoteric knowledge.
Based upon the above, Diana wrote the following
post to the WC list March 28, 2002 :
http://www.uncletaz.com/dianamagic.html
Left-handedness and black
magic
Here is some possible insight
into why Waldorf teachers, unlike any others today, continue
to feel left-handed children need to be forced to write with
their right hands. This is from Uncle Taz's (Tarjei Straume's)
page:
http://www.uncletaz.com/hubbstein.html
A brief summary if you don't
wish to read the whole excerpt:
Right-handedness is associated
with white magic, left-handed with black magic. With right-handedness,
we have moral purity, advanced moral and spiritual development,
selflessness, patience, endurance, and association with the "Christ
impulse." With left-handedness, you have . . . the opposite
of all that. The right-handed initiate has spent many lifetimes
getting there, so I guess it seems actually charitable to try
to help lefties along a bit on their spiritual path by switching
their handedness.
So you see, Diana, I was not making fun of
your position on switching, but of your confusing this topic,
of which I must claim ignorance, with the symbolic language of
occultism.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 3:04 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] About left- and right-handed
occultism
I forgot the punch-line here:
My article involving a section about black
and white magic has led Diana Winters to believe that Waldorf
teachers switch left-handed children into right-handed children
in order to prevent them from practicing black magic!
I apologize for the cruelty involved in making
fun of this nonsense, but.....
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 1:37 pm
Subject: Diana's hit and run
At 16:16 30.12.2003, Diana wrote:
To state that humanity has evolved through
races, Tarjei, is racist.
Nominated to Waldorf Critic Quote of the YEAR
- of 2003! We have twelve months to find an equal for 2004.
I rest my case. But the party is not over
yet:
From a nonracist point of view, peoples'
racial characteristics are irrelevant from any evaluative standpoint,
such as spiritual qualities. Nothing about a person's skin color,
or the racial origin of their family, determines their contribution
to history, or their personal character. The course of history
is not determined by racial categories. To say that humanity
evolves through "epochs" would seem a simple tautology,
like saying time passes - tying the concepts of race and progress
is where you endorse, simply, racism. (Even if you say this is
all in the past and the future is one great brotherhood etc.
Your theory of history is racist.)
I assume that the PLANS theory of evolution
involves not a colorful symphony of diversity, but a gray mass
- something once dreamed about by Lenin and Mao. The ideal proletariat.
Reminds me of a science fiction movie I remember to have seen
- help me out if you can here, Christine, JoAnn, or Joel - I
think it was the one about that guy whose dreams always became
true, so he was exploited for this reason. Anyway, it was a white
guy with a black girlfriend, and in one of his dreams the authorities
had decided to eliminate racism by obliterating differences of
complexion, so the guy wakes up and sees his girlfriend's body
is all gray, and his own body is all gray, and he looks out the
window and sees only gray faces in the street. Welcome to the
ideal world of PLANS.
Why should we bend over backwards to soothe
your feelings?
My feelings don't need your soothing. As a
matter of fact, I have some Luciferic trolls who provide me with
a perverse pleasure when I'm fired up. I picked those trolls
up at the WC back in 1999. They jumped out of the toilet bowl
and bit me in the butt and wouldn't let go. Now I've tamed them
so they only bite when I ask them to. If you want them back,
you have to pay me for taming and training them.
What matters to me is that Steiner's
racist doctrines seemingly cannot be re-examined by anthroposophists,
i.e. you can't get anthroposophists to agree
with your definitions of "racism" and "racist
doctrines." Give it up.
and that leads to the attempts to be secretive,
change the subject, arrogant attitudes like "You aren't
spiritual enough to understand," obfuscating, denying, and
extreme hostility, when this material is made available to Waldorf
parents.
If parents aren't spiritual enough to understand,
they should go to a secular school instead unless they
have an instinctive confidence in Waldorf that defies intellectual
understanding. Reminds me of another movie - are you with me,
Christine? A young Shirley McClaine in "Some Came Running"
with Frank Sinatra, who plays an author. It's an exceptionally
moving drama about the true, self-sacrificing love of a uneducated
common girl. When the author (Sinatra) confronts his admirer
with her not understanding a single word he has written, she
says: "I don't understand you, but I love you!"
When Rudolf Steiner visited the first Waldorf
school, he kept asking the children over and over again: "Do
you love your teachers?" And they answered enthusiastically,
"Yes!"
Of course PLANS won't understand any of this.
They're too full of venom and hate inundated by their invisible
ahrimanic goblins biting them in their asses.
That is what is of interest to me. It is
not of interest to me whether you are a racist. I guess we could
go on pondering the question but I have other things to do.
I know: Your WC goblins are waiting.
I'm sorry you have your feelings hurt,
but it's really not a big thing to me, in the big picture.
You're so cold and cruel, Diana, you're making
a masochist out of me :)
The record shows that the definition of
racism can be stretched beyond any limits in the PLANS cult.
That would not be necessary, as a simple
statement such as you have made above, that humanity advances
through races, is enough according to any basic definition of
racism.
Thank you for embellishing our Waldorf Critic
Quote of the Year.
Excuse me. I would like to say that I am
sick and tired of this condescending suggestion that other people
like myself on the critics list somehow follow Dan Dugan or "memorize"
what Dan Dugan says.
Then why do you write identical sentences,
almost verbatim? Must be mantras you're chanting during WC rituals
with a little flushing in between to keep the air fresh.
You must not have been paying attention.
I have my own thoughts, plenty of them. This is sexist and stupid.
I guess sexism and racism goes hand in hand.
Read all about it at http://www.uncletaz.com/indgenus.html
It's the first thing Sune Nordwall said
to me when I first came on the critics list - smtg like, "Have
you really read Steiner, Diana, or just read Dan Dugan's story?"
I barely knew who Dan Dugan was at the time.
Your soul brother?
We had just left the Waldorf school and
I had my own story to tell. Someone told me to type "Dan
Dugan" into the search engine. I was still kinda fuzzy on
who Dan Dugan was or what had happened to his kids. I was so
confused to be told I was a Dan Dugan groupie.
He's a sound technician. Does he have a band
too?
In the time since then, I've gotten to
know Dan pretty well, and while I agree with him about a lot
of things, we also have significant differences.
OK, so he's not your soul brother. Sorry.
It seems to be quite lost on our critics
that the "Waldorf critics," over the years, have included
literally hundreds of people with many divergent stories and
viewpoints.
Yes, Christian fundamentalists and atheist
skeptics and so on. In 1999, I asked a protestant fundy on the
WC if he thought his atheist allies would land in Hell when they
died. He never answered my question. Instead, he whined for the
moderator to intervene.
The marriage of convenience between atheists
and fundies at PLANS in their joint cause against the evils of
anthroposophy reminds me of a news story from Sweden a few years
back. You see, some neo-Nazis had been arrested for Nazi mischief
and criminality of some kind, and one of them was a black Arab.
Of course a lot of people were puzzled by the sight of a black
foreigner in the midst of a white supremacy movement. To me,
however, the mystery was a piece of cake. Elementary, my dear
Watson. Politics makes strange bedfellows as they say, and in
this case, hatred of the Jews had probably welded them together.
I almost got the feeling of sweetness, like an air of romance
about this spectacle. And that's how it is with PLANS, where
the Protocols of Steiner has replaced the Protocols of Zion.
Rudolf Steiner was not a racist. Some of
his remarks are racist
That's an interesting statement. Maybe
it is true. It's interesting because you can apparently apply
this crucial distinction to Rudolf Steiner but not to yourself
or your fellow anthroposophists?
Does that mean that I have uttered racist
remarks that call for a distinction of this kind?
and may be considered trash, especially
when quoted out of context with explicit malign intent.
Tarjei, whatever intent a person has in
quoting something really doesn't change the quote.
Oh yes it does. The text introducing the quote
and the juxtaposition of other quotes play a paramount role in
creating pictures and images and notions and associations and
opinions in the minds of the readers. A quote taken out of context
can be read in many different ways, depending upon how it is
presented, and for what purpose.
by recommending that you read very carefully
all of Steiner's statements regarding race, gender, nationality,
tribe, family, blood ties and so on. All of them, including those
featured on my website.
It's interesting to me that you think I
haven't done that.
If that reading failed to make you realize
that Steiner was not a racist, I dare say that something is seriously
lacking in your comprehension of Spiritual Science.
I know a great deal about anthroposophy.
You wish people like me didn't know much about it.
Wrong. I wish people like you were right when
making that claim.
Oh. You meant spiritual sources, not historical
sources. Please contact the Waldorf association in your area,
and ask them to please clarify this in brochures for prospective
parents.
I am not in the school promo business, not
for Waldorf or Montessory or any other. I have already reminded
you that the Anthroposophical Movement is independent of, but
not excluding, anthroposophically inspired institutions and organizations.
This is a topic best suited for private anthroposophical study
groups.
It is fine with me if you believe this.
If you want your movement to grow, and improve its spiritual
karma, you need to get honest with your clients.
I am honest with our clients about rates and
coverage when they purchase our telephone services, but the bigggest
phone company in Norway, Telenor, is not honest. They get away
with illegalities and have 85 per cent of the market. They're
crooks.
I don't have any other kinds of clients, Diana.
My personal interest in and involvement
with Waldorf schools has always been very limited.
That seems odd to me, since your child
attends one I believe?
In a different city, living with his mother,
who is a Waldorf teacher. I am not involved. I do occasionally
get dragged along to parents' meetings at my teenage stepson's
Waldorf high school. Twice a year on the average.
But since your interest in Waldorf schools
is limited that explains why you don't understand, or care to
understand, what the critics say about them, and are impatient
with attempts to actually connect Waldorf practices to
anthroposophy.
Anthroposophy is not taught at the Oslo Waldorf
High School (Oslo By Steinerskole). The boy doesn't even know
who Steiner is or what he taught, although my shelves are filled
up. They have a very high quality standard. I have talked with
the teachers of chemistry, literature, physics, and biology.
We got involved in a discussion about Einstein and Bohr and Heisenberg
and their theories and so on. One of the participants was a Waldorf
parent who was also a professor of nuclear physics at the university.
He seeemed very pleased with the standard of science teaching.
Our last prime minister (before the present one) is a Waldorf
student. They are high achievers in this country.
Last spring, we went to a theater in town
where my stepson and his fellow students were giving a musical
performance directed by their music teacher. It knocked me out.
They did everything from Mozart to Janis Joplin, from complete
choirs to solo performances, with all kinds of instruments, and
with classical dance and eurythmy in between. The talents these
kids came up with were amazing.
Incidentally, my stepson used to attend a
public grammar school, but he didn't like public school and asked
to be switched to Waldorf, where he loves it. They get fancy
trips to Berlin and Paris.
By the way, Diana, my stepson, who is not
white but partly Asian, went to see the death camp Auschwitz
when he was younger (attending public school). Is he one of your
targets for Nazi-racist garbage about Waldorf? Do you have no
sense of decency?
Tarjei, could you believe me on one little
point? Waldorf comes from anthroposophy.
That's why the students are doing so well.
Steiner was a very smart guy.
We saw what teachers did with this stuff
to our children.
Torture? Sleep deprivation? Random beatings?
Sexual abuse?
I actually thought, for a moment, when
you wrote above that "they" are dragging what you regard
as holy into the gutter, etc., that "they" meant Waldorf
teachers, because it would have made more sense to me.
The Waldorf teachers you describe sound like
Waldorf critics in disguise.
Are you really saying that with the racial
material removed, anthroposophy isn't anthroposophy?
With your eccentric definition of racial and
racist, including all theosophical-anthroposophical pre-history
and cosmo-genesis, that's what it looks like. And if the genius
of anthroposophical insight that informs Waldorf education, the
Christian Community, biodynamic agriculture, and anthroposophically
extended medicine should be removed from its products, PLANS
will have succeeded in destroying - or "busting" if
you like - the Anthroposophical culture. That is why anthroposophists
must have the integrity of putting their foot down and say to
people like you, take it or leave it.
May I quote you? (Just a joke. Being as
it's a public list, I will quote you anyway.)
We've been thinking about archiving all our
posts on a suitable anthroposophical website, like DD is doing.
But we won't publish the email addresses like he does, making
them vulnerable to spammers' robots, and we'll be sensitive to
requests to have names removed or changed and messages deleted.
How sensitive and courteous are the custodians of the WC archives?
Yes, Tarjei, I do know that. I argued this
on the critics list just last week. If the racial material is
removed, Steiner might not even be a seer, or else he was a seer
who made some pretty big mistakes. So everything else is cast
into doubt as well. I agree it's a big problem.
I didn't say it was a big problem, Diana.
It's no problem at all. You're trying to make a problem out of
it.
This Cult of Peter stuff irks me almost
as much as the cult of Dan Dugan stuff.
What's the difference? It's the same cult.
I guess it offends my own ego that people
like myself who have also had a great deal to say, and sometimes
disagreeing with Peter or Dan, are seen as followers.
You may be their leader, what do I know about
what's happening backstage?
It's really stupid, and it's sexist (how
come there's no Cult of Debra Snell or Cult of Lisa Ercolano
for instance? How come I'm not accused of "memorizing"
Lisa Ercolano's story?).
Change the name if you like.
Oh please. As I keep saying, just explain
your Christ-Michael Streams to parents first,
How many times do I have to tell you that
I hardly ever speak to Waldorf parents? But I'll keep it in mind
next time I see that nuclear physics professor - in a few months
perhaps...
and let them decide before hand, not years
afterward, what movement exactly they are getting involved with.
I'm not in a position to let or make anyone
decide anything what schools are concerned.
I find it ethically indefensible for you
to claim some part of your movement is "independent of external
manifestations." How convenient.
Yes, it's convenient to be independent. I'm
not a mamber of any organization or political party. I'm not
interested in running a PR campaign for anybody. If what I speak
or write rubs people the wrong way, I say what the hell. I'm
not interested in making friends and influencing people.
You are only indignant that your "right-handed
magic" was attacked -
On the contrary, Diana. Your confusing right-
and left-handed occultism with right- and left-handedness was
a source of entertainment, not indignation :)
the actual applications of such, the way
ancient superstitions about the left and right hands, play out
in real-life classrooms today, for children sitting in
desks lined up in rows in the morning, isn't interesting to you.
You prefer to play games. You stated publicly that Michaela Glockler
had changed her mind on this, and you have no evidence, and you
think it's just funny to play games with me about where to find
your supposed evidence. It's a game to you, taunt and bait Waldorf
critics. You think we like this game too? What we don't like
is hearing from parents who are baffled to have been told their
left-handed child needs evaluation and possibly "therapy"
(i.e., eurythmy) to change it. The child comes home crying. Does
this mean anything to you?
Of course it does. But the question that arises
in my nasty Adolf Ashcroft head
http://www.uncletaz.com/ashcroft/adolf-ashcroft.jpg
is as follows: Why does the child cry? Who
scared the shit out of him or her? Kids are tough and brave,
even when they need painful operations at the hospital, if grown-ups
know how to treat them - a knowledge that comes from the heart,
not the head. Seeing the mentality and the dysfunctional pathologies
among Waldorf critics, especially after they dared attack my
son en masse who was only 11 years old at the time with hysterical
frenzy, I shudder when I think about what their kids must be
going through at home.
Tarjei Straume
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are
those who proceed like plundering soldiers:
they pick up a few things they use, soil and confuse the rest,
and blaspheme the whole." - Friedrich
Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
...................................................................................................................................
From: Sophia
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:21 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Diana's hit and run
Tarjei wrote:
We've been thinking about archiving all
our posts on a suitable anthroposophical website,
Please, Tarjei, keep this off-list until we've
made some plans and conducted some polls here. It requires a
lot of work, we don't know if anyone would volunteer for it,
and we have no idea about which website to use.
Sophia (moderator)
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:24 pm
Subject: Left-Handedness
Dear Diana (if you are still with us) Tarjei
and Everyone,
Excerpt from Diana & Tarjei's conversation:
Left-handers:
How do you know it is abusive? Do you know
of people who have suffered because they were switched when they
were children?
Sure. And people who suffer presently
because of this practice.
Even if a dr. Smith had recommended switching,
I would have to read a great deal about it, including testimonies
from adults who were switched as children, to form an opinion
of my own."
This would not be the case if not for your
involvement with anthroposophy, for there is no other school
you could attend today where the question would even be raised.
It would never occur to a normal child that they are using the
"wrong" hand to do something. It is adults who introduce
this complication. It's a form of sadism.
This is what Diana Winters and other "Waldorf
Critics" say about me on the WC list - in a thread even
bearing my name. It deserves no comment
It deserves no comment? It really amazes
me that the actual content of this discussion is not of
interest to you. What interests you is that your spiritual quest
somehow feels under threat. Whether it is painful to children
to be forced to eat or write with the wrong hand (it is - I assure
you; if you want empirical evidence, just try it yourself; eat
your lunch today with your nondominant hand) - is not of interest
to you. You obstinately miss the point by insisting this is about
your spiritual life. This is about the children who are
caused pain by this practice. Yep, you have a public position
on it. You make fun of me for my position on it, you implicitly
therefore condone the continuation of a policy that harms children.
As a fully trained Waldorf teacher, I would
like to add to this that I have never heard anywhere in Waldorf
Education materials that it is advisable to switch a child. In
fact, I remember distinctly that one of the women in my teacher
training group had been switched as a young girl herself, by
the public school system (where it was a common practice at least
until the 60s) and how much she felt she had lost by it. We had
some long discussions. I certainly can't quote from those discussions,
but I can give you the ideas that I have carried with me since.
I think the book "Drawing on the Right Side of the Brain."
had come out around those years (1977-78) and we discussed the
issue very much in terms of the comparatively recent investigations
being done in the mainstream regarding right and left hemispheres
of the brain. The research was leading to the ideas that 1. The
left side of the brain controlled and was influenced by the right
side of the body's nervous system and the right hemisphere, the
left side of the body and 2. The right hemisphere of the brain
was the "seat" of the more imaginative or artistic
side of the thinking processes of a person, while the left hemisphere
was the "seat" of the more analytic, mathematical and
concrete thinking processes. Based on these assumptions (and
please bear that this is an incomplete sketch of these ideas
which bear a more thorough study), a child who showed a right
handed dominance would tend to be more left-brained in their
thinking. Rote learning and abstract conceptualisation would
come more easily, which was favored by the mainstream perspective
in education.
The child who was left side dominant might
be more "dreamy", more artistic in temperment, often
judged "slow" - by mainstream educational thinking,
please note.
I remember it very clearly being said that
it was NOT desirable to try to change this dominance in any child.
That one needed to respect the child's Pre-Natal choice for this
dominance (sorry for the airy-fairy bit here) also, we thought
about some aspects of a previous lifetime that may have contributed
to this, such as someone who had done so much writing in a previous
lifetime that the right side was "worn out" spiritually
(I think of George Sand and her thousands and thousands of letters)
and now this individual needed a "break" and to give
that side a rest, so to speak. But this was only one possibility.
Every child is an individual and has a unique pre-natal "story".
We cannot judge this, just wonder about it.
This being said, just as in the case of the
four temperaments and their manifestations in children, it is
never the case of "correcting" this tendency, as there
is fundamentally, nothing to correct. But there is the question
of balance. And all children in a Waldorf classroom are given
games and exercises designed to stimulate the opposite side of
their polarities, creating greater harmony and balance between
the two hemispheres. I think of bean-bag tossing where we all
try catching and throwing with the right hand, then with the
left. Or hopping on one foot - the right and then the left. There
is mirror-image form drawing that can be done right or left handed,
but the mirror image is still more difficult in any case and
strengthens the neural networks betweent the hemispheres. I have
never heard of asking a child to eat with his or her opposite
hand, but I could imagine it as a great game at the lunch table,
where we ALL try to do it - just for fun. Again, this simply
being a neural network balancer.
Now, I know that there is in Waldorf the "Extra
Lesson" in which I am sure that dominance is examined to
see if it is a factor which PARTICULARLY impinges on a normal
developmental learning curve. I am not a trained Extra Lesson
facilitator, so I can't say for sure what the testing process
consists of (I have done a few myself, but only a little bit)
or what the therapeutic process is. But as I understand it, it
would be more hopping on one foot, catching a bean bag, form
drawing, etc.. As I also understand it, though, the Extra Lesson
is brought in only after lengthy discussions between parents
and teachers as to a particular child's difficulties in learning
to read and write. I still don't think they try to '"switch"
the child, only do balancing exercises. The Extra Lesson is done
on a regular basis, but outside the regular classroom, as a "remedial"
course. I can't see any reason for drawing attention to the child
within the daily classroom in terms of left/right dominance.
If this is going on, I have to think it is a big mistake and
probably a mis-interpretation of the Extra Lesson material.
Unfortunately, there is a LOT of material
to be absorbed in learning to be a Waldorf Teacher. And I have
personally known many, many teachers in Waldorf schools who were
not even fully Waldorf Trained, much less doing further course
work in things like the Extra Lesson material. Yet, people read
lots of things and hear lots of things, pick up materials and
go to conferences and think they have learned something of value.
It does happen that ideas are not worked through fully and they
can be and are misinterpreted and misapplied. These are the most
unfortunate things that backfire and do give Waldorf Education
a real "black-eye."
I actually have spent a little time on the
PLANS site and I have found quite a few parents' account of things
that happened that I think absolutely should not have happened!!
I have heard about quite a few of these discipline
problems and I fully disagree with the tactic of "allowing"
the bullies to get away with it!!! absolutely not the right thing
at all. Please bear in mind that German children (at least middle
class ones) would not have DREAMED of inflicting the kinds of
violence on one another that I have myself witnessed!!! Steiner
spoke so much to the teacher about less discipline, especially
in early childhood, because the children were receiving so much
of it at home!!! The children that I began teaching in 1980 were
just the opposite - they were wild!!! I had to abandon a lot
of "Waldorf stuff" and just get control!!! Luckily,
after my "trial by fire" I was able to hook up with
some good techniques that helped to "head 'em off at the
pass" and keep the tough guys occupied!! But let me tell
you, especially with 14 boys and 4 girls in my first kindergarten
and lots of "tough guys" after that, they had to know
who was BOSS!!! I had to be the General that they needed - someone
to look up to and respect, otherwise they had no use for me.
Once I showed them I was tougher, they had no problem following
me and my "commands" then, they were able to relax
and let go and allow that energy to be re-directed positively,
which it was!
This points to the great danger in applying
ANY educational theory or technique willy-nilly to ALL children,
even all children in a classroom. Each child needs something
different, which is why education must be an ART - the teacher
must know where to apply this blue, that red. There are the delicate
creatures in a classroom, that one only has to look at critically
and they completely fall apart. These should be handled with
kid gloves and they don't need much discipline if any, but Oh
boy, those tough cholerics! You have to be tougher and more choleric
with them!
Well, as I said, it is the people wherein
the problem lies. There are just as many "horror stories"
in public schools, which is why people look for a private school
in the first place. At least, though, one isn't paying tuition,
hug
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 8:13 am
Subject: Steiner about racial hatred
At 20:47 29.12.2003, Diana wrote:
Steiner's racism is one complaint amongst
a number of important complaints about the Waldorf movement,
and yet it is a reasonable place to start. Steiner's defenders
keep the complaint alive by their vitriolic responses to it.
There are many things in human
life that separate man from man, and it is from this separation
of souls that all the frightful conditions we are experiencing
come. This separation will only be overcome through a knowledge
that conceives of the human being beyond all divisiveness, through
a knowledge that is for every single human being. All those divisions
upon which men build their feelings today are actually only valid
here in the physical world. When one sees the sympathy and antipathy
poured out today, and when one sees that they come only from
the unspiritual, then in all this outpouring of sympathy and
antipathy one also recognizes the denial of the spirit.
All racial hatred, for instance,
is also a fight against the spirit. Because this age of ours
is so strongly inclined to fight against the spirit, it therefore
possesses this talent for racial hatred. Here is one of the deepest
secrets of our present spiritual culture; the only way out is
through the living grasp of the spirit.
- Rudolf Steiner, "Inner Impulses of
Evolution - The Mexican Mysteries and the Knights Templar",
Lecture IV, Dornach, September 23, 1916 (GA 171)
Tarjei Straume
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are
those who proceed like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few
things they use, soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the
whole." - Friedrich Nietzsche, Mixed
Opinions and Maxims
...................................................................................................................................
From: Joel Wendt
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 9:16 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Diana's hit and run
The movie was called the Lathe of Heaven,
and was based upon a book by a very wise woman writer, Ursula
K. LeGuin. Two made for TV versions of the book exist, one done
in the late 70's or early 80's for PBS, and then one done a couple
of years ago, and done (or at least shown) for the Arts and Entertainment
(A&E) cable channel. The earlier one is truer to the book,
and has the part about the the graying of individuals in it,
while the second one leaves that particular change induced through
the "effective dreaming" of the main character out.
I have both versions on tape.
joel
On Tue, 2003-12-30 at 14:37, Tarjei Straume
wrote:
The ideal proletariat. Reminds me of a
science fiction movie I remember to have seen - help me out if
you can here, Christine, JoAnn, or Joel - I think it was the
one about that guy whose dreams always became true, so he was
exploited for this reason. Anyway, it was a white guy with a
black girlfriend, and in one of his dreams the authorities had
decided to eliminate racism by obliterating differences of complexion,
so the guy wakes up and sees his girlfriend's body is all gray,
and his own body is all gray, and he looks out the window and
sees only gray faces in the street. Welcome to the ideal world
of PLANS.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Dec 31, 2003 9:25 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Diana's hit and run
Thank you Joel!
Tarjei
At 18:16 31.12.2003, you wrote:
The movie was called the Lathe of Heaven,
and was based upon a book by a very wise woman writer, Ursula
K. LeGuin.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 8:42 am
Subject: Race
At 23:14 30.12.2003, Daniel wrote:
The epochs of the "the theosophical-anthroposophical
theory of evolution" are cultural, and not racial.
This is very, very complicated. In earler
epochs when the group souls were dominant and the "I"
subordinate, the physiology of the human being was much more
strongly influenced by the national and tribal culture. In addition
to this, the geographical location with its peculiar earth radiations
and so on, also had a stronger influence upon the physiology.
The positions of the stars in various areas also come into play.
Bradford just mentioned how easily the charge
of racism is abused these days. In France, a man was prosecuted
for racism because he had said that Islam is a stupid religion.
And although the charges were dropped, his case did end up in
court! It's very difficult to criticize Islam in Europe these
days without being accused of racism, and for half a century,
anyone strongly critical of Israel's politics has been running
the risk of being labelled an anti-Semite. Political correctness
has become a tyrant, and anthroposophists jump defensively every
time someone mentions the word race. And they say: "When
Steiner speaks about races, it has NOTHING to do with races AT
ALL, but only with cultures and epochs!"
But that's not honest; it's not true. Misconceptions
are defensible, but intellectual dishonesty is a lot worse than
political incorrectness. It's true that races, including root
races and sub races and so on, are not identical to what we associate
with "races" today. But it's utterly false to claim
that these definitions have nothing to do with each other and
that they do not intersect.
Think about it, folks. The further we go back
in time, and especially when we get to pre-historic antiquity,
the more strongly does geography, with earth-radiations and positions
of the stars, and culture, through the group souls, have a direct
influence upon physiology, racial physiology, than today,
when these influences are so subtle that they are almost imperceptible
because of the gradual ossification of the human form, which
has gone through tremendous metamorphosis during the last 200-300
years. Today, such direct influences upon individual physiology
is almost limited to the duality of heredity on the one hand
and what is brought down from the spiritual world with the baggage
of former incarnations on the other.
Part of this mystery is what the apocalyptist
Lazarus-John calls the old and the new Jerusalem. Prior to the
Mystery of Golgotha, the human form, the Old Jerusalem, was built
from earthly substances. Under the increasing influence of the
Christ Impulse, however, the New Jerusalem, i.e. the human form
of the present and future, is being built from above downwards,
from the spiritual world. There is a connection between this
mystery and the gradual disappearance of human races as they've
existed in the past and still exist in the present, side by side
with the emergence of the New Jerusalem under the influence of
the Golgotha Mystery.
Racial differences are linked to the construction
of the Old Jerusalem, of the dependence of the human form upon
earthly substances from below upwards - a condition that is gradually
being eradicated under the influence of Christ.
Racists have no understanding of the New Jerusalem,
of spiritual evolution, of Christ Michael, of the New Wine being
poured into New Bottles. Racists identify themselves entirely
with their own Old Jerusalem. That is why racial identity is
so important to them.
Diana says something to the effect that using
the word "race" is racist, regardless of how you try
to define it. I've been through that dance with Diana before,
on the WC list in 2001. The problem is that anthroposophists
let themselves be bullied to the point of forced agreement by
the likes of Diana.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 11:30 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Race
I must agree that the issue of race, culture
and theosophical-anthroposophical epochs is complicated. Further,
it is peculiar to me as well that in most circles today there
can be no discussion of race whatsoever, that even the word is
prohibited. And I understand why we find ourselves in this position
today. I would further agree that anyone who says that Steiner
"has nothing to do with race at all" is either ignorant
or intelectually dishonest.
At this point I should point our that what
I wrote, that "The epochs of the "the theosophical-anthroposophical
theory of evolution are cultural, and not racial." does
not state that Steiner has nothing to do with race at all. I
am arguing that the epochs - the division of time into seven
cultural epochs - is primarily a distinction of cultural characteristics.
Steiner himself called them "cultural epochs" and he
most certainly never called them "racial epochs." That
race and culture very often coincide, especially in ancient times,
does not make Steiner a racist or his division or time into epochs
a racist doctrine.
Of the Indian Cultural Epoch so little is
known in history that the question of whether race and culture
were exclusively a unit cannot be answered. The same is true
of the Persian Epoch. The Third Epoch, usually called the Egypto-Chaldean,
and sometimes called the Egypto-Chaldean-Assyrian-Semetic definately
encompasses more than one race. Likewise the Greco-Roman, which
extended into the late middle ages and thus included all the
various peoples who migrated through Europe during that time.
And of course our Fifth epoch is most definately multi-cultural
and multi-racial, though perhaps this is less evident in Norway
than in California.
It is on these facts that I base my claim
that epochs of the "the theosophical-anthroposophical theory
of evolution" are cultural, and not racial. Race may or
may not play an important role in the world, but it does not
play a role in the division of time.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 12:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Race
At 20:30 04.01.2004, Daniel wrote:
At this point I should point our that what
I wrote, that "The epochs of the "the theosophical-anthroposophical
theory of evolution are cultural, and not racial." does
not state that Steiner has nothing to do with race at all. I
am arguing that the epochs - the division of time into seven
cultural epochs - is primarily a distinction of cultural characteristics.
Steiner himself called them "cultural epochs" and he
most certainly never called them "racial epochs."
Fair enough.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 7:28 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Race
At 20:30 04.01.2004, Daniel wrote:
That race and culture very often coincide,
especially in ancient times, does not make Steiner a racist or
his division or time into epochs a racist doctrine.
Quite the contrary. Frank Thomas Smith has
collected a few RS quotes for Southern Cross Review at http://southerncrossreview.org/steiner-race.htm
The entire text from that page is worth quoting
here:
Some of Rudolf Steiner’s statements concerning
race
“... we can understand
that in future ... we shall have to travel other routes than
those involving race. We must be clear about the fact that soul
development and race development are two different things.”
Die Welträtsel und die Anthroposophie (The riddle of the
universe and Anthroposophy) (GA 54), Dornach 1983, lecture of
9 November 1905.
“It was improper to talk
in Theosophy about races as though they would last forever ...
Races came into being in the same way that everything else comes
into being, and races will pass away just as everything else
passes away.”
The Theosophy of the Rosicrucians (GA 99), London 1953, lecture
of 5 June
1907.
“...whereas there is
no question of the earliest humanity of the post-Atlantean era
[from approx. 10,000 BC], the ancient Indians, being so different
from ourselves that one could use the term ‘race’ to
describe it. One always has to hold fast to the continuity in
‘theosophy’ and thus can often not avoid linking [what
one wants to say] with the old concept of races. But one all
too easily generates the wrong picture by using the word ‘race’
because one fails to notice that the theme according to which
humanity is divided up is today far more intimate than that which
is linked with the expression denoting race.”
The Gospel of St John (GA 103), New York 1962, lecture of 30
May 1908.
“For this reason we speak
of ages of culture in contra-distinction to races. All that is
connected with the idea of race is still a relic of the epoch
preceding our own, namely the Atlantean. We are now living in
the period of cultural ages ... Today the idea of culture has
superseded the idea of race. Hence we speak of the ancient Indian
culture, of which the culture announced to us in the Vedas is
only an echo. The ancient and sacred Indian culture was the first
dawn of post-Atlantean civilization; it followed immediately
upon the Atlantean epoch.”
The Apocalypse of St John (GA 104), London 1977, lecture of 20
June 1908.
“When people speak of
races today they do so in a way that is no longer quite correct;
in theosophical literature, too, great mistakes are made on this
subject ... Even in regard to present humanity, for example,
it no longer makes sense to speak simply of the development of
races. In the true sense of the word this development of the
races applies only to the Atlantean epoch ... 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 race is losing its validity.”
Universe, Earth and Man (GA 105), London 1987, lecture of 16
August 1908.
“While many people certainly
believe they have freed themselves fully from all tribal and
racial connections and are simply “human” and nothing
else, we have to wonder what made this possible for them. After
all, were the not given their place in the world by their family,
and have not their lineage, nation and race made them what they
are? Their lineage, nation and race have taught and educted them.
The owe their ability to transcend tribal and racial prejudices
to this education: lineage, nation and race have enabled them
to become the light-bearers and benefactors of their tribe and
even their race. Thus, even though these people claim to be “simply
human”, they owe the ability to make these claims to the
spirits of their communities. In fact, only when we follow the
path to inner knowledge will we experience what it really means
to have left behind all tribal, national, and racial connections
and to be abandoned by the spirits of nation, race and tribe.”
How to Know Higher Worlds New York 1994 (GA 10)
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 7:41 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Race
Wonderful job! Thank you Tarjei! : ) Christine
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
