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 ca