| The mail below was forwarded to the WC-list by a participant on it,
(as I[Sune Nordwall] was unsubscribed from the list by one of its moderators
for allegedly having argued against him with an ad hominem argument. See
here for more
on this.)
Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 17:51:26 -0400
Peter Zegers wrote: I [Sune]: The example you refer to is "Adler und Rose" ("Eagle and rose") published 1992 by a Bernhard Schaub, at the time of the publication (probably) teacher at a Waldorf school in Switzerland. He is mentioned in the first propaganda article by Staudenmaier, published at the site of PLANS and other places but not at the site of SIMPOS.Peter Zegers: Well, check again at: http://www.stelling.nl/simpos/steiner.htm On the bottom of the page you will find three links to articles on Bernhard Schaub. His book was published in October 1992, he was sacked from the Rudolf Steiner school in Adliswill, Switzerland in January 1993. He had been teaching history at this school.I did not express myself exactly. What I meant to write was: He is - as far as I have seen when searching - only mentioned in the first propaganda article by Staudenmaier. The article has been published at the site of PLANS and other places, but not at the site of PLANS.(ON BERNHARD SCHAUB) I [Sune]: What you don't tell in the article is that he had to leave his work at the school because of the book, by not telling it giving the opposite impression than the truth.Peter Zegers: I did write *former* Waldorfteacher, didn't I? How does the fact that he was sacked by the school change anything?I [Sune]: It changes everyting. Your argument is that he, as a Waldorf teacher, wrote a book denying the Holocaust, implying that the two in some way should be related to one another in some positive way. That is also the way Peter Staudenmaier untruthfully mentions him his anti-anthroposophical propaganda article at the site of PLANS. That he was sacked by the Waldorf school because of his book or the views expressed in it shows that your implied argumentation is untrue and that the opposite is true; People who develop anti-Semitic activities tend to be expelled from Waldorf schools, one way or another. That you only tell that he is a *former*
Waldorf teacher, seemingly aware of, but concealing that
he now is *former* because of the things you argue against him for,
demonstrates the twisted nature of your argumentation
(ON GENNADIJ BONDARAEW) Peter Zegers;Some half sung song. The few who have argued expressly in one way in support of anti-Semitism have been been expelled as representatives of the anthroposophical movement, to the extent they have been representatives of it when doing it. You probably(?) know it, yet for some reason(?) don't tell that you do. (Comment Oct 2001 by Sune Nordwall: Bondaraew
was expelled from the Anthroposophical
Society by its executive board on the grounds of his publically argued
views on Holocaust)
(ON HAVERBECK) As to the third example mentioned in the context, except Schaub and Bondaraew, Haverbeck: Göran Fant comments on him at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Fant1-eng.htm 'The book by Haverbeck 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 (6.) (Note 6; telling: Already the head lines of the the reviews say most of it. "A book too much" (Christengemeinschaft, Stuttgart nr 9 1989), "Misuse and distortion - how Haverbeck puts Steiner quotes in the service of his Nazi ideology" (Christoph Lindenberg in Die Drei 89:12), Whose advocate is Haverbeck?" (Sergei Prokofieff in Die Drei, Stuttgart, 89:12). ) Staudenmaier claims that we not may regard Haverbeck as a marginal anthroposophist, since some of his earlier books have been published by anthroposophical publishers. This again is an example of Staudenmaier's method. He decides what is typical and representative for the anthroposophical movement- the total rejection by the anthroposophical movement itself doesn't mean anything to him. Haverbeck came to anthroposophy after the war (of course not "converted by Hess"!!!) and became a priest in the anthroposophical Christengemeinschaft (Christian Community). He was excluded after a few 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 this book. I agree that it is damaging for anthroposophy that someone so well informed of the thoughts of Steiner wrote such a book, but it is obvious that the content is an absurd distortion of central motives in Steiner and a misuse of his words. In that sense he really is marginal.' I [Sune]: Using all three examples as arguments against the anthroposophical movement and telling half truths about all three, while knowing(?) but not telling how all three have been 'expelled' as representatives of the different anthroposophical or waldorf- contexts and the reasons for it being the same for which you criticize the anthroposophical movement of I think fully demonstrates the propaganda nature of your and Peter Staudenmaier's articles. Sune Nordwall
|