Subject: On untruths
Date: Tue, 26 Jun 2001 20:13:23 +0200
From: Sune Nordwall <Sune.Nordwall@home.se>

Dan, you write:

Sune Nordwall, you described me as someone:
- who admittedly still consciously lies in describing the basis of WE at the site,

I presume you mean the sentence:
"For example, promoters will say that Waldorf is based on child development, but Steiner's theory of child development, based on reincarnation of "the etheric body," "the astral body," and "the I" differs significantly from the consensus of child development specialists."
which you complained was not exactly correct and therefore a "lie."

'Not exactly correct'. Nice euphemism. I'll put that in a notebook as nice language for future use on the list.

What you wrote and still keep at the site of PLANS as description of 'Steiner's theory of child development' is about as truthful as saying:

'Steiner's theory of child development is based on reincarnation of the garden flowers, the pets and the personality one had in one's former life'.

[Dan:]
When we discussed this months ago, I proposed alternative wording, and you shut up. I presume (again) that you found the alternative wording correct but still distasteful, so you were loath to make any further comment on it.

On February 10 of this year, the proposed text was
"For example, promoters will say that Waldorf is based on child development, but Steiner's theory of child development, based on reincarnation in three seven-year periods marked by the births of the *etheric body* at age seven, the *astral body* at age fourteen, and the *I* at age twenty-one, differs significantly from the consensus of child development specialists."
Will you call that a lie if I post it?

In February you argued that:

* ... Steiner's theory of child development, based on his alleged understanding of man as a spiritual being, reincarnating through repeated lives on Earth and his development through three 7-year periods from birth to adulthood, differs significantly from the consensus of child development specialists.* 

Actually, it is shorter in terms of number of words than your present description.

You also argued that it 'misses the point I was trying to make, the wacky belief in "fourfold man.'

I can understand that you, as one form of humanist and a fan of the 'three-world'-concept of Popper want to make the Aristotelean 'four-world' concept of man in anthroposophy stand out as 'wacky'.

It's an old argumentation between Aristoteleans and Platonists.

The debate and polemics, but also cooperation at times between Platonists, more often stressing 'three-world'concepts and 'ideals', and Aristoteleans, more often stressing a 'four-fold'perspective of the world, is Millenia-old. I think anthroposophy makes it possible to in many senses get a picture and understand how the two relate to one another.

(One aspect it during the Middle Ages was how the four 'mathematical' subjects of arithmetic, geometry, astronomy and music as 'quadrivium', and the three 'logical' subjects of grammar, rhetoric and dialectic as 'trivium' were combined into the 'Seven liberal arts', encompassing the basic tools of both the natural sciences and the humanist sciences into a balanced totality at one stage of the cultural history of wo/man.)

Lack of time prevents me from commenting more on the point now. (Have spent some time on the comments on PS below.)

[I, Sune:]
- who untruthfully up to last year at the site of PLANS described it as if what was presented at the site represented all the views of people who were not actively engaged in anthrop. or WE, only changing it after I complained >exemplifying the untruthfulness of it,

[Dan:] 
So I improved the language at your suggestion, and now you blame me for it having been inaccurate previously. Geez.

[I, Sune:]
- who being pointed to the untruthfulness spread in contributions at PLANS' site, does not take away the contributions in question, but keeps them and only washes his hands and says he takes no reponsibility for the untruths that can be found at the contributions he puts at the site of PLANS,

[Dan:] 
The Journal for Anthroposophy, offical organ of the Anthroposophical Society in America, contains the following disclaimer: "Authors' opinions do not necessarily reflect those of the Anthroposophical Society or those of the editor." So I guess Anthroposophists wash their hands, too.

ONE is telling the truth in the simple sense of that what you say actually corresponds to what can be found by everybody using their normal eyes, ears and hands.

Peter Staudenmaier describes and says things about the lecture series 'Mission of Folk Souls' in the introduction to his first article at the site of PLANS. I have put up the lecture series for everybody to read for themselves. It shows Peter Staudenmaier is clearly lying and giving a seriously distorted picture of the lecture series, based on untruthful secondary sources and his own imagination.

When I point this out he says there exists another lecture, not contained in the published lecture series, that corresponds to his description. When I tell him that everything points to that the 'lecture' that he refers to does not exist (Thu, 24 May 2001 17:29:29 +0200), he simply plays dumb and says 'innocently' (Thu, 24 May 2001 20:21:29 -0500): 

I don't understand what you mean. What doesn't exist?

LONG SIDE NOTE ON STAUDENMAIER:

[On a side note, he still never as far as I'm aware of has described the primary secondary source for his untruthful description of the lectures. (In a posting Fri, 09 Feb 2001 17:15:04 -0800I he says 'I relied primarily on an anthroposophist source for what little I did have to say about them'.) 

When criticized for giving a faulty title of the lecture series, he mentions a work by Hans Mändl as a source (first in note to his article describing him as a 'German anthroposophist', then on this list as a 'Norwegian anthroposophist', when Jew and 'Swedish anthroposophist' probably would have been more correct).

It is correct that Mändl once in the text of the work mentioned by Staudenmaier gives the incorrect title too, but a note on the same page points to the reference list giving the correct title. Also, the sentence before the one giving the incorrect title clearly describes that it refers to a lecture series held in Oslo, not a lecture starting lecture tour around Norway, as Staudenmaier writes in the article.

Both things indicate that the work by Mändl isn't Staudenmaier's primary 'anthroposophical' source, but something else that he does not mention.

A hunch is the basic source for the untruths by Staudenmaier about the lecture series is a work by the critic Peter Bierl, that Staudenmaier in his article refers to as an 'extremely thorough' 'independent scholar'. 

Actually telling that Bierl is the basic source of his untruths about the lecture series would show the degree of 'extreme thoroughness' of Bierl, making him questionable too. 

That Staudenmaier does not do. Neither has he taken two minutes to use the internet he has had access to all the time he has participated in the discussion here to find out at http://www.amazon.de that he could order the original German version of the lecture series, that he describes in his article, in paperback from them for some 10 bucks and, having no problem reading German, see for himself what it says.

Instead he still, more than a year after the original discussion on his article on this list, plays innocent and dumb when pointed to the untruthfulness of his source, and in his answer to Waage still describes the three cases of mistranslation of 'main races' with 'root races' in the 1971 English edition as: 'The term "root race" is used throughout this book'.

But who wants to be caught not only making up untruthful stories, but on top of it also having so misjudged ones (probable?) primary source on it; the 'research' done by the 'extremely thorough' (critical) 'independent scholar' Bierl, Staudenmaier's own 'anthroposophist source'(?)]

Some few other untrue points in PS' article concern Lippert and Weleda.

Staudenmaier writes:

*The Weleda factories, on the other hand, continued to operate throughout the war and even received state contracts. In fact Weleda supplied naturopathic materials for 'medical experiments' (i.e. torture) on prisoners at Dachau.[36] Weleda's head gardener, Franz Lippert, was an SS member who in 1941 asked to be transferred to Dachau to oversee the biodynamic plantation that Himmler had established at the concentration camp. Thus anthroposophist collaboration with Nazi barbarism persisted until the bitter end of the Third Reich.*

(See http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Granly1-eng.htm)

The most thorough documentation of the work of anthroposophists during the time of National Socialism, the work by Werner, that Staudenmaier says he has studied, makes it clear that it is completely untrue to say that Weleda ran a garden in Dachau, as PS alleges.

When he started working at Dachau, Franz Lippert, who had led the work in the garden of Weleda in Schwäbisch Gmünd had retreated from his position at Weleda. That took place during the summer of 1940, when he left Weleda to take up a new position as gardener in Trittau, Schleswig-Holstein. The CEO of Weleda then angrily noted that his good friend Lippert had been caught by the national socialist ideas, to which Lippert answered 'Well then, you clearly also belong to the footsore ones, who don't come along in the great start' [into the future]. According to the autobiographical noted of the CEO, the comment almost made the him fall off his chair (Werner p. 285).

Only one year after he had left Weleda, on 1 September 1941, Lippert
started his work as gardener in Dachau, where he worked until March 1945.

- On the 'naturopathic materials', that is the antifreeze cream that PS alleges that Weleda consciously should have supplied *for 'medical experiments' (i.e. torture) on prisoners at Dachau.*:

As has been made clear on this list, Racher, staff physician at Wehrmacht; the German armed forces, made cruel freezing experiments on prisoners at Dachau. In 1943 he ordered 20 kg protective anti-freeze cream from Weleda to be delivered to his private address in Munich. This was done. That this creme was intended for another use that the ordinary, that is, for protecting soldiers against cold wheather, was not possible to know for the people at Weleda as the experiments and work of Rascher at Dachau were kept strictly secret (Werner p. 361).

Both points point to the superficial nature of the research on a number of points upon which Staudenmaier bases his article.

Staudenmaier also writes on a number of other personalities:

- On Haverbeck:

PS:
*The younger generation of radical right-wing anthroposophists is represented above all by Werner Georg Haverbeck. A leader of the Hitler Youth during the Third Reich, Haverbeck was converted to anthroposophy by Hess. After the war he became pastor of an anthroposophist congregation and founded the far-right World League for the Protection of Life (WSL in its German acronym)*

*In 1989 Haverbeck authored a biography of anthroposophy's founder under the title Rudolf Steiner &endash; Advocate for Germany.[44] The book portrays Steiner, accurately enough, as a staunch nationalist, and even uses Steiner to deny the facts of the holocaust.*

*Many contemporary anthroposophists nonetheless maintain that figures like Haverbeck are marginal to their movement. This argument overlooks the fact that several of Haverbeck's books are published by the largest anthroposophist publisher in Germany, and ignores the substantial overlap between Haverbeck's positions and those of Steiner and classical anthroposophy.*

What PS doesn't mention is:

Haverbeck became an anthroposophist after the war and became a priest in the anthroposophical Christian Community. He was excluded after 9 years due to his political stupidities, but when he had reached his pension age, he on human grounds was accepted in the pastoral fellowship, but without getting a job. 

1989, at the age of 80, he published the book that Staudenmaier mentions; "Rudolf Steiner - Anwalt für Deutschland" ("Rudolf Steiner - advocate of Germany") is really terrible. But it was not published by any anthroposophical publishing company. (Langen Müller is a large, "normal" publishing company) and it was harshly rejected by all the nine anthroposophical reviewers and regarded as a severe attack on anthroposophy, with reviews like "A book too much", "Misuse and distortion - how Haverbeck puts Steiner-quotes in the service of his Nazi ideology" and "Whose advocate is Haverbeck?".

This rejection of the work by Haverbeck by the anthroposophical movement however doesn't bother PS in his use of him as a bulding block in his propaganda campaign against anthroposophy.

I won't continue here, but for the time covered by Werner's work; 1933-1945, Staudenmaier adds probably nothing important that cannot be found more in full and more seriously documented in the work by Uwe Werner, head archivist at Goetheanum.]

Back to the implied argument by Dan that the disclaimer at the site of PLANS' does not differ from the disclaimer by The Journal for Anthroposophy, offical organ of the Anthroposophical Society in America:

ANOTHER thing (the FIRST relating to untruths) is is expressing opinions and views.

What my comment on 'washing the hands' referred to was the FIRST thing; to you clear lies and manipulations of quotes in contributions at the site. 

With the 'veracity' part of disclaimer at the site ('PLANS does not necessarily agree with or vouch for the veracity of everything posted in this section') you at present reject taking any responsibility for what you know to be untrue in the articles posted at PLANS' site.

That is neither the case for what I have at my site, nor for what The Journal for Anthroposophy publishes. If I find something that I know is untrue, I either don't put it at my site, or put in a correcting comment on it before putting it there. When will you do that at the site of PLANS?

[I, Sune:]
- who's own main contribution to the site consists in depicting Steiner and anthrop. as racist and anti-Semite and centrally responsible for contributing to the development of Nazism and the holocaust in Germany.

[Dan:] 
My main contribution to the site is being its editor. I do indeed depict Steiner and Anthroposophy as racist and anti-Semitic by quoting their publications that express those sentiments. "Centrally responsible for contributing to the development"  is sort of a self-cancelling statement. I usually say "helped lay the foundations of the holocaust."

- Waldorf schools can be found in ever more parts of the world (http://www.waldorfschule.de/frameset2.htm), and that for example in the Waldorf schools in Australia you find aborigines both among the students and the teachers and with their culture and their myths they having given a considerable contribution to the local formation of the pedagogic there. (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Fant1-eng.htm)

- many outstanding anthroposophists founding anthroposophical institutions have been Jews, that there probably are loads of more Jews working in or supporting the anthroposophical movement; the fact that Steiner a few times also expressed criticism of some aspects and forms of Judaism gives you a hook to hang secular humanist bigotry about anthroposophy on.' ;-\

As I've mentioned, your argumentation in perspective stands out as as 'valid' as making what has developed as the Social Democratic movement responsible for the atrocities of Pol Pot, the Khmer Rouge and Stalin.

[Dan:]
Don't blame the messenger.

They use the same quoting technique as you do. Shall I write to them telling that you think 'Don't blame the messenger' is something they ought to use as disclaimer at their site?

Me [Sune]:
Your expressed opinion is 'interesting', in view of the expressed opinion by former German Chancellor Willy Brandt that "The advent of the Wald. Schools" in his opinion are "the greatest contribution to world peace and understanding of the {20th] century." (http://www.waldorf-sandiego.org/wdhistory.htm).

Dan: 
People who come into contact with Waldorf schools rarely have any contact with the racial doctrines. I guess I was just lucky to open a Steiner book to such a page.

Me [Sune]:
One may also get a perspective of it from what Tarjei pointed out on 21 May on this list: 'During the apartheid regime in South Africa, the Waldorf schools were the only ones where black and white students attended the same classes,

Dan: 
Sharon, who was in South Africa at the time, challenged Tarjei to back up the assertion that this was anything more than tokenism. No back-up data has been forthcoming.

Me [Sune]:
and the school for Waldorf teacher training in Cape Town, The Novalis Institute (http://www.ideas-net.de/novalis/), was praised by UNESCO as an organization of tremendous consequence in the conquest of apartheid. (Tolerance: The Treshold of Peace. A Teaching/Learning Guide for Education for Peace, Human Right and Democracy, UNESCO 1994.)'

Dan: 
They probably haven't seen the racist publication from the Novalis Press that is still distributed by Anthroposophists in the U.S.A. We should send it to them.

"The Aryan type works through the European race in general althrough he may incarnate within another race as a sacrificial gesture to assist in the destiny of that race. This can happen to assist the individualizing of personalities in that race so that their unique qualities are freed to contribute towards mankind's future. The immediate cultural task lies with the Aryan. " [Downer, Graham. "The South African Paleolithic Age." Invisible Africa: A search for the Grail in Africa--Selected Essays. Kenilworth, Republic of South Africa: Novalis Press, 1987, p. 188. p. 189]

[I, Sune:]
Your argumentation on the subject is as a valid as arguing that Swedish Social democracy is responsible for the atrocities of Stalin or Pot Pol because they grew out of the same 'ideological basis'. But then there are bigots in Sweden who argue that too.

[Dan:] 
Lacking any substantive defense against the charge of racial bigotry, the Anthroposophist responds by saying that the critics are bigots for pointing it out. Kindergarten rhetoric.

Me [Sune]:
My description of PLANS:
What PLANS adds to that, except for personal articles like that by Sharon, is little more than secular humanist propaganda and smearing.- that you call 'bigoted' and implicitly ask that I correct -

Dan: 
That would be wise, given that secular humanists, mainstream religious people, and evangelical Christians form a united front in their criticism of Anthroposophy's deceptive tactics.

ME: 
is a soft summer breeze considered as rhetoric in comparison with the propaganda and smear campaign you stand out as the main driving force behind and responsible conductor of against WE and Steiner at the site of PLANS, in articles and on this list.

Dan:
Your injured squeals indicate that our informational campaign is achieving some success.

Sune Nordwall
Stockholm, Sweden

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments
- some comments on PLANS