weleda and wala paying for ‘journalism’

You need to read this blog post by Andy Lewis on how German homeopathy and alternative medicine companies pay a journalist, Claus Fritzsche to smear academics (Edzard Ernst being perhaps his main target), critics of alternative medicine and journalists. Among the companies paying were Weleda and Wala Arzneimittel. Weleda wisely pulled out of the agreement last week, when faced with questions and criticism. Why they ever got involved is still a relevant question though. Wala — a company producing anthroposophical medicines, but also the owner of a more well-known brand of cosmetics, namely Dr Hauschka — is still involved in the deal with the journalist.

The story was first published by a newspaper in Germany and has been discussed on blogs and on facebook. I wrote a post in Swedish the other day, but Andy Lewis says it all much better in English, so head over there!

About these ads

454 comments

  1. Steiner fan Jan Luiten appears in the thread over at Quackometer and wonders why Andy does not put focus on the ‘independence clause’ Fritzsche had with the companies that paid him and why Andy does not present more of the statements made by the companies in their defence. I replied:

    Why do anthroposophical (I’ll focus on them) pharmaceutical companies even need to pay a ‘journalist’? (Can’t they make do with an ordinary PR consultant, preferably one with at least one decent bone left in his body?)

    And, if you have a splendid answer to the question of why they need it, why this particular one? Do you think they’d pay just anyone, perhaps a real journalist, working objectively and independently, perhaps even a proper journalist who knows medicine? Independence, my arse. What does it matter as long as the person they’re paying is heavily biased in their favour already? As you know, reading German and all, the Süddeutsche Zeitung rightly doubts Fritzsche’s independence — despite the existence of that contract clause. That’s the point — nobody would or should take his independence seriously. They’re paying him because they know what kind of stuff he produces. They know he’ll write things they agree with (or believed they wished to agree with, until this PR disaster erupted).

    The statements Andy has left out don’t reflect very well on the good judgement of the companies presenting them, so perhaps you ought to be happy he left them out, Jan… They come off as rather dimwitted, actually. Perhaps they wanted to pretend ignorance and incompetence, what do I know.

    ***

    I think that’s an important question — why do anthroposophical companies need to pay for ‘services’ like that? Even from a PR point of view, it seems pretty disastrous. They should have known better, I think.

  2. The Steiner Fan · ·

    Hi Staudenmaier Fan Alicia, appearantly I missed your comment at the quackometer.
    I will react on it later on (I have to go now).

  3. Hello Jan!
    There were two comments — one about Fritzsche and one about the Sonnenberg article!

  4. Jan Luiten · ·

    Alicia,

    Canard Andy Lewis should have brought the fact that there is a contract between Fritzsche and the companies regulating his journalistic independancy. May be a farce such a contract, but he should have mentioned it.
    Secondly he should have mentioned the reactions of the companies. May be “open doors” but let the reader make up his own mind.

    I will also react on the quackometer (probably not tomorrow, but later).
    I now see Pete’s reaction too. I will react on him too. A lot of anger , but no convincing arguments. I should accept things just because PK said so. ( And PK said so because PS said so.)
    No way.
    The game is over.

    PS. I will look for Sonnenberg, but I think you can easily find it yourself (google)

    1. That there is contract between

  5. Hello, just a rather sloppy comment from me, I must sleep.

    I actually think that if he had mentioned it, Weleda and the other companies would look even more ridiculous!

    He did mention that Weleda pulled out; that’s the one relevant reaction, and, in these circumstances, a mildly positive one. And so far, they’re alone.

    For what it’s worth, I wrote a very short blog post in Swedish and (as far as I can now remember), I mentioned both the existence of the contract and the reactions. None of it, in my opinion, makes the companies look any better. But any time you write a post, you make a choice.

    As for the racism, has it occurred to you that you’re trying to use a definition of racism that isn’t necessarily the most appropriate one, and that, perhaps, you’re using this particular definition because it’s the only one that let’s Steiner off… at least sort of? (I know Pete argues that it doesn’t. But it’s the best chance, nonetheless.)

    As for Sonnenberg, I did google very quickly but I realized I didn’t have a clue what to look for. I guess it’s in German? Do you remember the title or something of it? Keywords?

  6. B t w, I haven’t had time to look at the threads over at the Quackometer yet. So I’m not sure what’s happened there.

    (The big question — and the only really relevant one — is: why did Weleda and Wala enter this contract with Fritzsche in the first place? Whatever Andy Lewis did or didn’t include in his blog post, there’s the fact: they did this. Why? That’s the big ethical question, and it was there before Andy even considered writing that post.)

  7. Remember Steiner’s meditations Jan… fingers in your ears… now repeat after me… “la la la la la la la la”

  8. Jan Luiten · ·

    Do you know that movie “Anger management”, Pete ? Together with the reading of the books of Albert Memmi and the articles of Marcello Truzzi I want to recommend this movie to you.
    Attention with the above response you are behaving like Andreas Lichte..

  9. I’m more into “anger channeling” Jan. Anger, properly focused, can be a very powerful motivator… and I’m VERY motivated to expose Waldorf education. BTW, I think Peter Staudenmaier has recommended Memmi’s book to YOU! Apparently, you haven’t read it – or if you have, you have misunderstood it. That would be a little embarrassing, wouldn’t it?

  10. According to Peter, that seems to be the case.

  11. Worth reading, by Edzard Ernst:

    http://www.thetwentyfirstfloor.com/?p=4424

    And Andy Lewis has a new post on biodynamics.

  12. Jan Luiten · ·

    Alicia, this my comment on canards new post:

    As I have showed earlier Canard is a pseudoskeptic. What is pseudoskepticism? Pseudoskepticism (or pseudoscepticism) refers to arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional scientific skepticism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudoskepticism.
    In other words they are selling nonsense, fried air, as again confirmed with this post about biodynamic farming.
    But Pseudoskepticism is not an innocent belief. It has zealous adherents who fanatic and fundamentalist represent this belief. They pretend they have the only true ideology , and are not doubting that ideology which is very unskeptical. Under the mask of science but in reality on the feable basis of pseudoskepticism they give themselves the right to belittle an suppress other convictions. This makes this ideology dangerous. It is a neo-reactionary totalitarian ideology. It does not accept other ideologies beside it. It will suppress these other ideologies and is therefore not democratic. Canard , exposed as pseudoskeptic, is now running around as a mad dog to bite everything that is anthroposophical.
    Too long these pseudoskeptics, calling themselves skeptics, have dominated public opinion.
    To all who have been attacked by speusoskeptics:
    Fight Back!!! Visit : http://www.debunkingskeptics.com or cantact me: luitenjan@hotmail.com.

  13. Jan Luiten · ·

    Pete, this is interesting. Maybe Peter did that, but I bought the book already in 1985 and read the book in Dutch translation. It lays just in front of me now, with the old price in Dutch guilders still on it 23, 75. Of course guru Peter has understood the book and I did not. May be like he understood the social threefolding?
    In 1985 we founded a training for social threefolding. Great Dutchmen like Dieter Brüll and Mouringh Boeke were our teachers. I study these ideas over 30 years now. It is totally irresponsible what Peter has made of it. As I understood Peter is an anarcho-socialist. Normally I sympathize with anarcho-socialistst (thera are not many of them). I think it is remarkable that many of his followers are bourgeois neo-reactionary pseudoskeptics.

  14. Hello Jan — I’ll be back later. Just wanted to say I’ve seen your comment and it seems it got stuck for a while in comment moderation and I had to release it manually (happens sometimes when there are links). If you wondered where it was.

  15. Melanie · ·

    Jan, that’s a 9/11 Truther site.

  16. “Pete, this is interesting. Maybe Peter did that, but I bought the book already in 1985 and read the book in Dutch translation.”

    Well, it appears something got lost in translation, or you’ve missed something serious, or it’s just been too long since you read it because, according to Peter S, it says the opposite of what you claim it says. Maybe now would be a good time to go back through it – you know… just to be sure you’re not as full of crap as everyone claims you are.

  17. I think you’re trodding down the wrong path there, Jan. And not only because of the nature of the site you linked to, although that is certainly bad enough.

    I’m still interested in *any* argument for Weleda’s and Wala’s involvement with Fritzsche and their buying ‘journalism’ aimed at tainting the reputation of academics and critics. It’s unethical and counterproductive. Stupid, in other words.

  18. Tom H-S · ·

    ” buying ‘journalism’ aimed at tainting the reputation of academics and critics. It’s unethical and counterproductive. Stupid, in other words.’

    I couldn’t agree more!

  19. Jan Luiten · ·

    Pete, it is not so easy to accept that the game is over, I understand.
    I read the book over and over again, I read many comments in English and of course the definitions in English.
    “Peters S said…..”, I know it is important to you what Peter S. said, but why not read the book yourself, think about it yourself, and form your opinion yourself.

  20. “I know it is important to you what Peter S. said, but why not read the book yourself, think about it yourself, and form your opinion yourself.”

    To what end?

  21. Jan Luiten · ·

    To be a citizen who indepedently is developing his own opinion is an end in itself.

  22. So why not develop an opinion on the actions of Weleda and Wala? I’m beginning to think you don’t see a problem in their choices.

  23. “To be a citizen who indepedently is developing his own opinion is an end in itself.”

    I can certainly develop my own opinion about what constitutes racism without reading Memmi’s book. Are you looking for someone to settle your dispute over what you think you understood when you read it in 1985, and what Peter S. claims it says? This may come as a shock to you, but I don’t care much about Memmi’s definition – especially since it doesn’t absolve Steiner of racism (which is all I’m really interested in). You’re invested in it – trying to make it say Steiner wasn’t a racist – so you are the one who needs to satisfy your own understanding of it.

    Meanwhile, there is no question at all about Steiner being a racist… he absolutely was, by ANY definition – even though not everything he said about the races was specifically racist – and not everything he said was said with the intention of causing harm. He felt, in many cases, that he was explaining how things really are. That doesn’t excuse him or his works in the least.

  24. “Jan, that’s a 9/11 Truther site.”

    My jaw is on the floor. Jan – have looked at the site you recommended to us? stunning.

  25. It’s one of those “open your mind until your brain falls out” sites.

  26. Probably better if your brain has fallen out before visiting that site. Or else, it hurts.

    Anyway. I guess Jan actually thinks Andy Lewis is the one who did something wrong — not Weleda and Wala. Perhaps Jan doesn’t think Weleda and Wala are companies with a reputation to lose? In the case of Weleda, the Anthroposophical Society is still the main shareholder. At the same time, it’s a company which sells its products to lots of people who aren’t anthroposophists and which — at least on a superficial level — goes on about ethics and stuff.

    How could buying the services of Fritzsche ever be conceived of as a good idea? And how come, Jan, you focus on the entirely wrong thing? Weleda is shooting itself in the foot, and you’re blaming the person pointing out that this foot-shooting has happened? If I were bothered about the anthro society, I’d be worried about Weleda having any feet at all in the future.

  27. Jan Luiten · ·

    Pete. The first time I reacted on Peter Staudenmaier was on February 24 2010, as I commented on his article anthroposophy and ecofascism. In that comment I mentioned Memmi. Of course you are not interested in the definition of a leading scholar in this area.
    You are interested in damaging anthroposophy.

    Alicia. Wala and Weleda and other companies should have paid a journalist for maintaining a website. On this website one could read critique on regular medicine and on the person of Edzerd Ernst. What is the source of this claim: The “Süddeutsche Zeitung”. What is the source of the journalist of the Süddeutsche Zeitung? We don’t know. What is in the contract between the firms and the journalist we don’t know. Has he really received orders? Do we really know the facts?
    May be it is not so elegant of these companies, is a fraction however of the corruption of regular pharma-industry. I googled e few seconds and I found horrifying cases of total corruption by the regular pharma-industry. Don’t we see selective indignation here?
    I wouldn’t be surprised when this whole thing was set up to divert from the real questions. What kind of a person is Edzerd Ernst? I read he was criticized by Richard Horton of the Lancet. Horton: “Professor Ernst seems to have broken every professional code of scientific behaviour by disclosing correspondence referring to a document that is in the process of being reviewed and revised prior to publication. This breach of confidence is to be deplored.” Referring to a report of which Ernst was co-author. http://www.absoluteastronomy.com/topics/Edzard_Ernst
    Why did the university of Exeter want to get rid of him?.
    CAM lays under attack of regular medicine/pharma-industry. In this strategy it is apparently important for them to neutralize Fritzsches website.

  28. Melanie · ·

    Jan, you’re completely out of your depth.

  29. “You are interested in damaging anthroposophy.” More accurately, I’m interested in how Anthroposophy is damaging itself, children, parents, taxpayers and other people.

  30. Hi Jan,

    You’re quite active in defending Steiner, his teachings and the anthroposophical community in English. Is this because Dutch anthroposphists nor critics take you serious anymore?

    I believe last time I saw you debating the topic anthroposphy and racism on a Dutch site, you left with slamming doors because things didn’t went like you wanted to. Your main opponent then was Floris Schreve, a fellow Dutchmen who did his homework pretty good. Too bad for the readers of this blog he only wrote one of his many essays about anthroposphy and racism in English: http://fhs1973.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/neo-nazi-elements-sold-as-anthroposophy/ . A well known anthroposoph like Michael Eggert published it on his website: http://www.egoisten.de/pixx/schreve.pdf) So it seems that even a critic has a better perception in the anthroposophical cult than you as an anthroposoph (although you are no longer a member because you didn’t agree with the Dutch Anthroposophical Society when they published the Van Baarda Report, in which is stated that Steiner made some statements which could be understood as racist).

    Like other readers I’m also interested in what you think about Weleda and Wala paying for journalism? Or do you see this as a form of pr?

    A bit like the ‘famous’ German anthroposophist Lorenzo Ravagli http://rudolf-steiner.blogspot.be/2009/05/der-anthroprosator-lorenzo-ravagli.html or the Dutch anthroposophist Michel Gastkemper, who is is in the board of the Dutch Anthroposphical Society, writes for two anthroposophical magazines (on medicine) and declares himself in one breath an independent journalist. :-) http://weblog.steinerscholen.com/2012/07/19/antroposofische-monitor/ (

    I’m sorry, but the link guides to my weblog, which is in Dutch, so probably only Jan (who speaks Dutch) will have a reason to follow Pete K’s advice tot lalala…. ;-)

    To all who have been attacked by speusoskeptics:
    Fight Back!!! Visit

  31. The two last lines aren’t mine, but Jan Luitens. It was not my intention to copypast them. So please ignore them.

  32. That link is not to an article published by the lancet, Jan.

    I rest my case: you don’t seem to be able to detect an unethical smear campaign when it stares you in the face.

    I’d say that such difficulties and attitudes among anthroposophists are far more damaging to the Weleda brand than any criticism. The company was wise enough to pull out of the deal, but I’m afraid anthroposophy as such is lost to stupidity.

    What does it matter what Suddeutsche Zeitung wrote? Weleda and Wala could easily read Fritzsche’s websites before paying him anything. Long before any newspaper wrote about it! After reading them, it should be obvious to most reasonable people that you should not enter a contract with that person, no matter the phrasing of specific clauses in it. B t w, Fritzsche is not a journalist, much less a medical journalist, he’s a crank with a smear campaign and lots of ugly shit on his hands.

  33. Ramon — astonishing! The Dutch report was fairly ‘mild’ as far as I’ve understood it. Limited in its focus.

    Is it true, Jan, that you couldn’t accept that either? Are those anthroposophists out to harm anthroposophy too?

  34. I’d like to say something more about the stupidity of it later, because perhaps it makes little sense to say anthroposophy is lost to stupidity without elaborating on it.

    But there’s no doubt that if these companies had put the money on ordinary PR, instead of smear ‘journalism’, there wouldn’t have been reason to doubt their brains and ethics.

    I agree that an anthroposophist who writes for an anthroposophical publication is hardly an independent journalist — other than possibly in a very limited sense, he’s not employed and not paid — but somehow that doesn’t seem ethically compromised in the same way. But maybe that depends, too, on the results of the writing.

  35. Ramon, I borrowed your link for Andy’s blog… Thanks

  36. luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Hi Ramon,
    The discussion you are referring to was on your own website. It started nicely, but I could not agree with you nor with Floris that Steiner was a racist. You (Ramon) were moderating my comments in a way I didn’t like. In fact you abused your power as a moderator. At the end you made my emailadress public, which was not OK for me at that time.
    You and Floris also have to deal with theories and definitions of racism that say that we can only speak of racism if there is an intention to dominate or to exploit, or that the theory is forged to justify an act of aggression or to legitimate a relation of domination from which one would expect to profit. Memmi’s definition is such a definition.
    I went out the anthroposophical Society in 1996.
    The Van Baarda Report is of 2000.

  37. Jan — just quickly before I go to bed… you entered your email address in the space where you normally enter your name. Was it deliberate or do you want me to edit it? (If you catch this within ten or fifteen minutes, I probably will be awake still!)

    I’m interested in why you left the society, by the way. Only if you like to tell us, of course.

  38. Ah, you’ve included it in a comment in the thread above too (I suddenly remembered I’d seen it in a comment), so it probably doesn’t matter or was deliberate. (The email.)

  39. luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Alicia.
    Horton sent a letter to the Times.
    I quote from Wikipedia:
    “Ernst was, in turn, criticized by The Lancet editor Richard Horton for disclosing contents of the report while it was still in draft form. In a letter to The Times Horton wrote: “Professor Ernst seems to have broken every professional code of scientific behavior by disclosing correspondence referring to a document that is in the process of being reviewed and revised prior to publication. This breach of confidence is to be deplored.”[11]
    Footnote number 11 says the letter mentioned above appeared in the edition of the Times of Monday 29 august 2005.

  40. luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Very attentive of you Alicia, but it is OK with the email address
    Sleep well!

  41. Ok, but your link was not even to wikipedia — can you provide the wikipedia link then? And what are we to make of this? A reference to a letter sent to a newspaper and we don’t even have the letter?

    It isn’t exactly anything odd about academics criticizing each other anyway, it’s part of the process — to scrutinize methods and findings and interpretations and so forth. That’s absolutely normal. Moreover, what’s in that letter, supposedly, has nothing to do with the smear campaign of Fritzsche against Edzard Ernst. Whatever this letter was about, it seems to be about one very specific event. That’s, again, nothing like the wide-ranging smears coming from Fritzsche.

    I have not even googled, but I guess there might be more to this. — Oh, did quick google of Ernst and Horton, ended up with several of Fritzsche’s websites! What a surprise! —

    I have to add another thing: as for wikipedia, perhaps the situation is like the situation with waldorf/steiner/anthroposophy articles. Perhaps Pete has the energy to explain that to you. So I hope the wiki article has a link to the original Times letter, if you manage to dig it out.

  42. Jan — good (about the email)! And thanks and good night! (I’m usually very optimistic about how fast I’ll be in bed and asleep… I notice ten minutes have turned into 30.)

  43. Horton appears to be a rational man and an unlikely ally of guys like Fritzsche so I’d be very interested to read that letter to the Times! I am, in fact, very curious! See this other letter he wrote, for example:

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/society/2005/oct/08/health.lifeandhealth

    (Ok. NOW I’m going to bed…)

  44. http://www.bmj.com/rapid-response/2011/11/02/reckless

    (NOW I’m REALLY going to bed though. I promise.)

  45. “Perhaps Pete has the energy to explain that to you.”

    There isn’t a whole lot to explain… and yes it’s ALL about energy. The way Wikipedia is set up (anyone can post just about anything anonymously), literally ANY controversial issue will see lots and lots of controversy and the articles may change slant from one day to the next – depending on the energy of the participants from each side.

  46. Yes, energy really is the keyword… You also need some of it for using wiki, as you have to double-check everything. Well, if you want to find out how many centimeters there are in a meter, maybe facts like that can be trusted. But with altmed, it wouldn’t surprise me if its proponents, perhaps people like Fritzsche, enter information such as that quote without acknowledging the fact that the alleged wrong-doing has been investigated.

    Which is taking things out of context. In a much worse manner than, e g, leaving some irrelevant contract clauses out of a blog post!

  47. hello Alica and others (some of you I know from earlier discussions). I saw you also referred to my article, which was published on Egoisten.de. Well I see the main topic is Weleda sponsoring ‘propaganda’. What about Demeter sponsoring anthroposophical Holocaust negationism? It happens on a Belgian anthroposophical site, http://www.vrijgeestesleven.be (Vrij Geestesleven means ‘Freies Geistesleben’). See: http://users.telenet.be/antroposofie/diabasis/ . Although this site publishes a lot of texts of Steiner and several anrthroposophical views, it is also a platform for Holocaust negationism. The Belgian anthroposophical magazine ‘de brug’ (means ‘the Bridge’) and the website ‘vrij geestesleven’ are making a lot of propaganda for hardcore Holocaust negotianists and Neo Nazis as David Irving, Ernst Zündel and Robert Faurrisson. I think it’s very bad. But till now there were just a few anthroposophists in the Netherlands and Belgium who criticized or distanced themslevs from this. For the most this medium is still considered as a part of the mainstream anthroposophy. Or even worse. The Dutch anthroposophical magazine on Social Threefolding, Driegonaal (Jan Luiten, who gave some comments above, is one of the editors) published even an article of Jos Verhulst (the most important contributor of vrijgeestesleven.be ) on the issue of Holocaust negationism, alowing him quoting neo-nazi David Irving. But Driegonaal is also completely into the ideas of the Russian anthroposophist Gennady Bondarew, who is a notorious antisemite himself.
    It is quiet a mess. But I think it is remarkable Demeter is sponsoring anthroposophical Holocaust Negationism.

  48. ‘I think it’s very bad.’

    That’s an understatement…!

    I had thought that anthroposophists had become unwilling or reluctant to publish stuff like that on more official anthroposophical websites. I mean, you can always find the odd individual, but usually not — I assumed — in such places nowadays.

    Of course, an article on holocaust denialism can be critical of the phenomenon (and of course quoting, in such a context, may be legitimate) — but I guess this one wasn’t?

  49. Vrijgeestesleven (mainly by Jos Verhulst) is a complte website which promotes these ideas. The say because of freedom of speech, but they are just interested in Holocaust deniers. Why on a an anthroposophical website, which is sponsored by Demeter? For me it is still a mystery and even more why the Dutch speaking anthroposophical world is so willing to accept this. Also it is a mystery to me why Jos Verhulst was invited to wriote an article on this issue in Driegonaal, the magazine on Social Threefolding (Jan Luiten is or was one of the editors, maybe he can explain).
    For the anyone who can read Dutch, here is a small compilation of these artciles (although everyone can understand the advertisements of the books of Bondarew). See here: http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/neonazisme-in-driegonaal-eerste-lichting.pdf Or, in a special booklet, published by Driegonaal, allowing Jos Verhulst arguing that the gas chambers of Auschwitz nevber existed, see here http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jos-verhulst-in-het-verbod-op-denken-driegonaal-2001.pdf
    SMaybe this is a littlebit off topic, but I thin it is remarkable Demeter is sponsoring stuff like this.

  50. indeed we need to hear what jan has to say about this.

  51. I agree, Diana.

    I’ll be back later, but I noticed that Andy Lewis has published the entire german newspaper article in translation:

    http://www.quackometer.net/blog/2012/07/the-dirty-tricks-of-alternative-medicine.html

  52. Jan,

    Although you’re no longer an member of the anthroposophical club, you still debate like an anthropsophist.

    Holding back the truth you say:

    ‘I went out the anthroposophical Society in 1996.
    The Van Baarda Report is of 2000.’

    The anthroposophists of the Van Baarda Commission started their ‘research’ in 1996, and as a reaction hardcore anthroposophists like you – who were astonished that the statements of their beloved ‘master’ would become subject of research by theit peers regarding racism – left the anthroposophical society.

    That’s just what I was refering to when I pointed out you left the anthroposophical society because the board even dared to take in account Steiner did racist statements.

    @ Alicia

    I think a yesterday post of mine came down the spambox. At least it isn’t published.

  53. Ramon — I have checked the spambox and it was not there. Something must have gone wrong. Usually if there are links, two or more (or perhaps three or more, I don’t remember now), the comment is held for moderation, but there’s nothing in that folder either.

    I suppose you don’t have a copy of the comment and could submit it again?

  54. Then probably I forgot to click ‘post comment’, Alicia. But no problem.

    I just wanted to reply at Jan ‘s accusation that I published his e-mailadress, because I never publish personal information without permission.

    It is always sad to see anthroposophists denying wath they do and playing the role of victim when they, their community or their companies (like now Wala and Weleda) are discussed in the media.

    It’s like a little kid who has been steeling some chocolates and with the chocolate still on his lips and cheeks hysterically cries out: ‘I didn’t do it! I didn’t do it!’

  55. It is – like floris mentioned himself – off topic, but in respons to his question why an anthroposophical website sponsored by Demeter is completely into holocaust deniers and the anthroposophical community is willing to accept this, I would like to refer to the newest article of Andreas Lichte, in which he refers to Peter Staudenmaiers research on Demeter and nazism.

    (…) ‘Demeter‘ feierte die militärischen Siege Deutschlands in den ersten Jahren des Zweiten Weltkrieges und lobte Hitler. Die Ausgabe von September 1939 wurde mit folgender Erklärung eröffnet: ‚Die Stunde der Bewährung ist angebrochen! Der Führer hat die Verteidigung der Ehre und der Lebensrechte des deutschen Volkes übernommen.‘ Ein Jahr später hieß es: ‚Das soll unser Ziel und unsere hohe Aufgabe sein, gemeinsam mit unserem Führer Adolf Hitler für die Befreiung unseres lieben deutschen Vaterlandes zu kämpfen!‘“(9) (…)

    http://hpd.de/node/13812?page=0,2

  56. I have forgotten that a couple of times too… highly annoying.

    I completely agree with you, and I can’t help but wondering if that behaviour is in line with the ethical aspirations of anthroposophy… And it’s not just sad, these attempts to deflect attention — by pointing to minor things somebody else has done (e g, not including some irrelevant contract clauses in a blog post) to avoid the real big issue (e g, Weleda and Wala entering the deal in the first place). It’s sadly very typical — and silly. And childish. It’s avoiding not only responsibility but avoiding to take in that something went wrong at all. (Weleda — and now one of the other companies, I learnt recently — apparently realized *they* could not continue to ignore the criticism entirely — I wonder what truly apologetic anthroposophists feel about that?)

  57. What constantly surprises me is that they — meaning the movement at large, not individual anthroposophists (though, obviously, this applies to some of them too) — don’t manage to deal with the past and conclude it is the past. The past would be much less of a problem in the present if they didn’t act so silly around their own past in the present.

  58. Yet we have not heard again from Jan.

  59. I’m surprised.

  60. At least Jan didn’t left the room with slamming doors. As far as I know that’s quite an improvement. :-)

  61. I guess unless he replies, we must assume he’s cut his losses here, with what’s been revealed about his involvement with Holocaust deniers. He would have a hard time saying anything that would have any credibility, unless it was to tell us that he had re-thought these past involvements, and that he regretted and repudiated all such associations.

    Which is perfectly do-able, of course, and would be admirable. It is sad that this is usually the point in these conversations where, instead, the anthroposophist simply disappears.

    I hope that I’m wrong and he’ll still come back and offer an up to date accounting of these activities.

  62. He could try to explain if there are any misconceptions re this. I guess there aren’t, but I almost assumed he’d give it a try.

  63. Speaking of things like these, prominent NPD activist and former waldorf teacher Andreas Molau has sought assistance becase he wants to leave the far right movement. (NPD is a far right party in Germany.)

    http://www.faz.net/aktuell/politik/inland/verfassungsschutz-programm-frueherer-npd-stratege-andreas-molau-steigt-aus-11837796.html

    I’m sure Molau has been mentioned on the critics list too, but I quote the Bierl article:

    ‘At the town of Rauen in Brandenburg, Andreas Molau, a leading official of the Nazi party NPD[6], is planning the establishment of a Waldorf school. The project already faces opposition from the Association of Waldorf Schools, invoking proprietary rights to the name. For years, Molau was a teacher at a Waldorf school in Braunschweig, until he gave his notice in the autumn of 2004, allegedly due to his desire to work for the new NPD faction in the state parliament of Saxony as well as with the NPD periodical »German Voice«.[7] On that account, the Waldorf school, in turn, discharged and banned him.’

    http://www.waldorfcritics.org/articles/BierlFinal.htm

  64. ‘Kontakte zu rechtsextremem Gedankengut hatte Molau bereits in frühester Jugend. Dennoch war er, auch äußerlich, kein typischer Rechtsextremist. Sein Erscheinungsbild und sein Lebenswandel sind bürgerlich. Seine rechte Karriere führte ihn zur “Jungen Freiheit”, in die Redaktion der NPD-Postille “Deutsche Stimme” und vor allem an die Spitze der im rechtsextremen Milieu einflussreichen “Gesellschaft für freie Publizistik”. Sicherheitsbehörden hatten ein besonders waches Auge auf ihn, denn Molau verstand es, seine rechtsextremen Botschaften rhetorisch so zu verpacken, dass sie auch bürgerliche Schichten zu erreichen drohten. Manchem szenekundigen Beobachter galt er deshalb als eine Art politischer “Wolf im Schafspelz”. Molaus Abkehr von Rechtsaußen gilt deshalb als ein Schlag für die rechte Szene, in der er jahrelang als Denker und Stratege wirkte.’

    He realizes he can’t get a new teaching job immediately.

    http://www.ndr.de/regional/dossiers/der_norden_schaut_hin/molau101.html

    (Sorry to spam this thread with this, but perhaps this stuff is somehow relevant? Note in the quote above that it says Molau had far rights sympathies since his youth. Yet he managed to combine this with anthroposophy and a career as a waldorf teacher. When he was eventually sacked, he wanted to open his own waldorf school.)

  65. I don’t think you can spam your own blog …

  66. That’s what saves me!!

    I wonder if Molau is just a fringe phenomenon or if the waldorf movement’s tolerance of him (initially, I believe until bad publicity occurred) is symptomatic of something more than ignorance? (I don’t claim to know a whole lot about Molau’s political views, but… it’s interesting they can’t have seemed incompatible with anthroposophy to him.)

    Wala / Dr Hauschka still hasn’t cancelled their support of Fritzsche. We still haven’t heard Jan say anything about that publication. I feel it should be unthinkable for Demeter to sponsor holocaust denial — so is it a case of them just blindly supporting because the publication is anthroposophist? I suppose we won’t hear Jan’s view on this stuff?

  67. “wonder if Molau is just a fringe phenomenon or if the waldorf movement’s tolerance of him (initially, I believe until bad publicity occurred) is symptomatic of something more than ignorance?”

    It is just speculation, but my take is this: yes, Holocaust deniers and others with really extreme, repellent views are a “fringe” phenomenon in anthroposophy. Were Steiner alive, would he be denying the Holocaust? Of course not, at least, there’s no reason to think such a terrible thing.

    The problem for anthroposophy is that while they know they should repudiate these individuals clearly and publicly, the conversation itself calls attention to the actual beliefs of Steiner that the “fringe” folks draw on and find solace in. Unfortunately, the “fringe” interpretations of Steiner are perfectly valid. If you even open this discussion, you call public attention to these beliefs – stuff like how the Jews in our time should exit the stage of world history. Eeeeeeeek. An honest appraisal of the material leaves one wondering if it isn’t the “fringe” interpretations that are closest to Steiner. Mainstream anthroposophists may not agree with such interpretations, may even be very upset by them, but they simply can’t risk that kind of publicity.

    So while the vast majority of anthroposophists aren’t Holocaust deniers, spending even 5 minutes working on the “problem” of Holocaust denial in their movement is very, very, very bad PR.

    This is why people like Jan just shut up, at this point. Damage control. Duck out of sight. And it’s why we keep talking … were Holocaust deniers promptly and unambivalently “handled” by the movement overall, in a consistent pattern, we’d have nothing much left to talk about in this regard. We could not accuse the movement of being sympathetic to Holocaust deniers if they’d stop ACTING sympathetic to them. Holocaust deniers would see that they would have no welcome in anthroposophy, would be ejected, lose their jobs, face contempt, etc., the trend of Holocaust deniers hiding out in anthroposophy for years, unmolested, would stop.

  68. Exactly. You put into words what I would have liked to say.

    And then there’s that inane idea that you should not pass judgement, you should not criticize. Which, of course, anthroposophists do, they usually just reserve judgement for people in world outside (and their own but only when it suits them). Handy excuse though.

  69. “Were Steiner alive, would he be denying the Holocaust? Of course not, at least, there’s no reason to think such a terrible thing.”

    I must be one of those “free thinkers” I keep hearing about… because I have NO problem imagining Steiner denying the holocaust, or coming up with ‘spiritual’ reasons why it needed to take place. For all we know, Steiner could have decided that Hitler, heavily influenced by Ahriman, may have been doing Jews a favor – freeing their souls to incarnate upward. Hitler, like Judas, probably sacrificed himself so that the Jews could advance spiritually. There’s literally NO way to guess how Steiner may have twisted the holocaust to fit his ridiculous ideas. I think we give Steiner a huge benefit of the doubt when we suggest he wouldn’t have been a holocaust denier.

  70. Well, Pete, I can picture those things too, but giving a spiritual explanation for the Holocaust would be different from denying it actually happened. I’m not sure which is worse … but I don’t think Steiner would have been on board with some of the extreme conspiracy stuff a particularly unstable subset of anthroposophists are drawn to, including not just Holocaust denial but also believing the moon landing was a hoax or 9/11 was staged or Barack Obama is a Muslim who was born in Africa. Steiner was not really into altering the historical record in fanciful ways, just inventing karmic explanations for everything.

    Maybe best way to sum it up is, Steiner may have been a little “off” mentally, but he wasn’t STUPID. People who honestly believe there was no moon landing are, well, intellectually challenged.

  71. Didn’t Tom Mellett put forward the idea at one point that Waldorf critics are reincarnated Holocaust victims? (That would be supposed to explain why we get our panties in a twist over Holocaust deniers; I mean, why else would anyone worry about something like Holocaust denial …)

    I mean, to him it’s all just a joke, but yes, I think there probably are anthroposophists who really do believe a lot of things about the Holocaust’s “spiritual meaning” that I would consider extremely uncomfortable. But it’s still just a tiny subset that thinks the Holocaust didn’t actually happen (there were no gas chambers, most of the victims died of disease or malnutrition, and/or the numbers are deliberately inflated or fabricated, in a diabolical Jewish conspiracy).

  72. Call it open-minded, Pete!

    I’m willing to give Steiner the benefit of the doubt here, though. I don’t think he would have been a holocaust denier. He would have known better and if you want to be anything but a fringe phenomenon, it’s an impossible stand to take anyway. I can’t say with equal certainty that he wouldn’t have attempted to offer spiritual explanations.

  73. What Diana said while I was typing.

  74. Again, this is just speculation; I am not highly knowledgeable about Holocaust denial. But it has occurred to me that maybe one of the appeals of Holocaust denial is simply wishful thinking; it’s easier to believe such a horrible thing just didn’t happen. Those who organize this, the opinion leaders, shall we say, are actively involved in inventing groteseque explanations that basically point a murderous finger at Jews. To believe such a thing was actually INVENTED requires a conspiracy of hellish proportions, masterminded by Jews. Maybe even THIS is wishful thinking on my part, but I can’t help giving even some Holocaust deniers the benefit of the doubt that they haven’t thought this all the way through, they just would rather believe such an awful thing didn’t actually happen, so they are open to hearing from people who want to tell them it simply wasn’t true or has been exaggerated. At this juncture, some who defend Holocaust deniers will start telling you there are good Jews and bad Jews and they certainly don’t want to implicate ALL JEWS in the terrible conspiracy; “good Jews” are ordinary people who are powerless to stop the “bad Jews” who are masterminding world domination etc. Some Holocaust deniers cling to the notion that they themselves don’t dislike all Jews; it’s just “some Jews.”

    I don’t know – maybe it is really wrong to try to separate out bad Holocaust deniers and good Holocaust deniers …

  75. Yes, Steiner wouldn’t deny that it happened, but rather that it was necessary in human evolution. Given the fact that he SAID Jews had outlived their purpose, their eventual extermination would have been verification of this to Steiner (IMO).

    Off topic – but as an engineer, I have problems with 9-11 too. If high-rise buildings fell that easily, nobody would ever set foot in one. The evidence doesn’t support what we all witnessed – and yes, I read the Popular Science articles which are very thin on facts. Steel 30 floors below the impact was not compromised – yet it turned to dust instantly. Steel just doesn’t do that. Connecting this to moon-landing denial, UFO’s and other nonsense doesn’t make sense to me. The use of false flags is a real fact of history.

  76. The paradoxical thing, it seems to me, is that although there seem to be(I’m not exactly knowledgeable either, so don’t take this too seriously) several kinds of holocaust deniers (what they actually deny seems to differ some — from total dennial to a belief that history has been exaggerated), they’re often folks who seem at the same time willing to justify the holocaust, willing to say, well, there were reasons this had to happen.

    ‘But it has occurred to me that maybe one of the appeals of Holocaust denial is simply wishful thinking; it’s easier to believe such a horrible thing just didn’t happen. ‘

    That is actually the one part of it that is humanly possible to understand. It would not surprise me if there’s an element of this in some people’s unconscious motivations.

  77. ‘it’s easier to believe such a horrible thing just didn’t happen.’

    How about when it involves OUR government?

  78. I have to say that, as a non-engineer, I’ve never been at all surprised that the buildings fell down. It’s exactly what I would have expected, based upon amateur thinking of course, but nonetheless. Yet, I wouldn’t be too concerned about being in high-rise buildings. After all, 99.99% of the time, large passenger aircraft filled with fuel don’t fly right into them. Before 9/11 it was almost impossible to even imagine it, at least that it would happen intentionally.

  79. Yes, you have to get into the technical details before it makes sense… melting temperature, shear strength, construction techniques that were used, stuff like that. The jet that hit the pentagon disintegrated instantly (according to the reports)… the jets that hit the towers, however, took out steel columns… they must have been much sturdier jets, right? To an engineer, it’s almost comical.

  80. I would assume the buildings were entirely different types!

  81. Sure, but not the jets (according to the records). I just now had a peek on the web of images of wreckage to see for myself if I could see anything suspicious. Here’s an image I found: https://publicintelligence.net/wp-content/uploads/2010/09/FF_Debris7.jpg – zooming in, below and to the left of the worker, marked by caution tape is a red beam with burn marks on it. Look at the edge of that beam and tell me if you think it was ripped apart, or cut with a torch. Waldorf has taught me to be suspicious of things people tell me with great confidence. ;)

  82. “If high-rise buildings fell that easily, nobody would ever set foot in one. ”

    Seriously Pete? The buildings were hit by two jet airplanes (both of which had just taken off, meaning their fuel tanks were full).

    I work on the 19th floor and I don’t really worry the building is going to fall down, but that’s because I just don’t expect the building to be hit by an airplane (let alone two airplanes), on a given day. I imagine if this building were hit by a jet plane, there might not be much left afterward.

  83. “That is actually the one part of it that is humanly possible to understand. It would not surprise me if there’s an element of this in some people’s unconscious motivations.”

    That is what I mean, yes. Some people are susceptible to conspiracy theories for this reason? It’s just a theory. It’s easier in some way to believe in vast, bizarre conspiracies to than to believe that humans could really do such horrifying things to each other.

    So Pete – along the same lines – I’m not an engineer so when people show me pictures of rubble and say “That couldn’t have happened the way they say,” I usually have no idea what I’m looking at. I couldn’t possibly tell you how steel behaves at what temperature, though it makes sense to me that 1) if you ram a jet plane with a full fuel tank into a skyscraper, you can start a catastrophic fire and 2) when the upper floors start collapsing like a pancake, eventually pretty bad things will happen to the lower floors, too. And then: 3) if you repeat this process with a second plane just a few minutes later, you can be pretty sure you’ll demolish the building and kill scores of people.

    But in the end, I could not offer an educated argument about the building materials. What I DO know is the conspiracy that would have been required for our government to pull of something like that – and to be still getting away with it 11 years later – is just too vast and bizarre to be plausible. There would be literally thousands of people – right at this minute – who know “the truth” and yet for some reason, haven’t told. It just isn’t possible. You’re talking about not just the government, but the airlines, the families and friends of hundreds of people on the planes, etc. How would you have a conspiracy of that magnitude at that level that was never revealed? I’m always willing to believe our government is up to no good, but this one is too far fetched. Our government under GWB was far too INCOMPETENT to pull off something like that. All you have to do is remember the look on GWB’s face when he was informed about the first plane hitting the towers – he didn’t know.

  84. I’m not sure if it matters whether it was ripped apart or cut with a torch. Would someone had gone into the building before the planes hit and cut beams off, so that they would fall if the planes hit?! To buy an explanation like that, I would certainly require more than a photo, from which we can’t tell what the beam was doing or when it was severed or why.

    I still don’t get why the twin towers would not fall, and this quite apart from what happened at pentagon and the fact that the planes in both locations were similar or the same type. Even if the basis of my argument is common sense rather than the knowledge of an engineer — these buildings were hit by large airplanes, with the floors above the places of impact collapsing.

  85. Those buildings were built to withstand a hit by a jet. Besides, there could have been a dozen times more jet fuel in the buildings… it doesn’t burn hot enough to melt steel… it would have to burn 1000 deg hotter… that’s not just a trifle. You could soak the buildings in jet fuel and set them ablaze… it wouldn’t make them collapse like that. Your building is MUCH safer than the 9-11 film would indicate. That’s exactly my point. So, what collapsed building 7? Small fires spread throughout the building? Aren’t you worried somebody’s lunch might catch on fire in the microwave and your building might collapse? There wasn’t enough fire to collapse a whole building. We have lots and lots of examples of high-rise buildings on fire… burning for much much longer than the twin towers or bldg 7, but only 9-11 has examples of them collapsing like this – after a couple of hours. It’s too remarkable… statistically.

  86. ‘What I DO know is the conspiracy that would have been required for our government to pull of something like that – and to be still getting away with it 11 years later – is just too vast and bizarre to be plausible.’

    I would agree with that. And i find it quite bizarre that the government of a democratic country would do a thing like that. It’s worthy of a mad man’s administration, like Khadaffi’s or someone’s. Possibly.

  87. ‘Those buildings were built to withstand a hit by a jet.’

    Apparently not or they would still be standing.

  88. I don’t think THAT many people needed to be involved in the conspiracy. We have organized groups who do covert stuff all the time. They keep secrets pretty well… and personally, I don’t think they did a very good job keeping this one. 9-11 questions are abundant. Will we find a smoking gun tying 9-11 to GWB? No… but if some person or group wanted to take away our Constitutional freedoms – with our permission, they sure accomplished it with 9-11. Too many Americans have lost their lives defending that Constitution for me to just sit by and watch.

  89. “I’m not sure if it matters whether it was ripped apart or cut with a torch. Would someone had gone into the building before the planes hit and cut beams off, so that they would fall if the planes hit?!”

    Right. You are looking at a pile of rubble. It would be extremely difficult to construct a reliable theory of what happened when in such a massively confused event. Even if I looked at a beam and could agree it would appear to have been cut, what in the world would that show? You rip a building apart like that, I’m sure you’ll find a lot of crazy things – perhaps the buildling has a history of shoddy workmanship, or haphazard repair, for instance, or repairs or renovations that were done different ways at different times by different contractors – I’m sure the inside of most every building is a total tangle of idiosyncracies. I bet many buildings, if they could talk, could tell a story of sabotage by disgruntled employees, too. If engineers are anything like editors, I imagine they’re constantly looking at each other’s work and thinking, “My God, why was it done THAT way.” :) – and then if they get the chance, tinkering with this and that and later no one can figure out who did what when, or why. And then you look at everything your predecessors did and think, “Not on MY watch.” Or maybe it’s just ME who works like that :)

  90. “Apparently not or they would still be standing.”

    I’m suggesting they had help falling.

  91. If engineers are anything like editors, I imagine they’re constantly looking at each other’s work and thinking, “My God, why was it done THAT way.”

    LOL! You’ve certainly got THAT right!

  92. “Aren’t you worried somebody’s lunch might catch on fire in the microwave and your building might collapse?”

    Actually we frequently have little microwave fires on our floor, and I am definitely more worried about that than about an airplane hitting the building! What actually increases our safety here is that there are experimental animals in the building, and GOD FORBID anything should happen to them – the precautions and regulations for their safety are incredible!

    “There wasn’t enough fire to collapse a whole building. We have lots and lots of examples of high-rise buildings on fire… burning for much much longer than the twin towers or bldg 7, but only 9-11 has examples of them collapsing like this – after a couple of hours. It’s too remarkable… statistically.”

    Well right, but so was the event that started the fire. I’m quite sure we don’t have a big enough sample to accurately test what happens to buildings that are hit by airplanes! at least not jet planes – I know there are occasional cases where a small plane hits a building, but nothing else on the scope of the twin towers. n = 1

  93. ‘Even if I looked at a beam and could agree it would appear to have been cut, what in the world would that show? You rip a building apart like that, I’m sure you’ll find a lot of crazy things – perhaps the buildling has a history of shoddy workmanship, or haphazard repair, for instance, or repairs or renovations that were done different ways at different times by different contractors – I’m sure the inside of most every building is a total tangle of idiosyncracies.’

    It’s impossible to know what the beam was doing. Perhaps it always looked like that. For some reason. It can’t be easy to account for every beam in a pile of rubble. Another hypothesis might be that the beam was cut as a part of the rescue work.

    ’9-11 questions are abundant.’

    Questions are abundant in many areas where conspiracy thinking is rife. All the question about the safety of vaccines could make anyone go mad instantly. Lots of people still don’t believe vaccines don’t cause autism, and thus continue with their ‘questions’. And they think, well, we’re just asking questions! Which is good, but the presence of abundant questions is certainly no clue to the power of the minds posing the questions.

  94. Here’s probably a 911 truther sight – but it lists buildings that have been in flames for hours and hours with no collapse. http://911research.wtc7.net/wtc/analysis/compare/fires.html The jet fuel would have burned very quickly, as one might expect, leaving the combustible components of the building to burn. One of these buildings in Philadelphia burned for 18 hours without collapsing. The Mandarin high-rise fire engulfed the entire building… still, no collapse. This is what we can expect from the engineering that goes into these buildings… not that they would turn to rubble within a couple of hours of a small fire being lit. The science disagrees with the official story of 9-11, in my opinion.

    The edge of the beam in the picture could indeed have been torched for any number of reasons, and the caution tape identifying it to the clean-up crew could have been a coincidence. Nobody officially investigating 9-11 was looking for evidence of explosives (by their own admission). If they had been, we may have a completely different “truth” today.

  95. “I’m not sure if it matters whether it was ripped apart or cut with a torch. Would someone had gone into the building before the planes hit and cut beams off, so that they would fall if the planes hit?!”

    That is what I’m saying, too – if you suggest the beam was cut, then an individual cut it. Who was that person? Some construction worker? Where is he today, and why is he keeping silent? You’d need quite a few “someone’s” like that person – ordinary workers, basically, who would have had to be told to do things that made no sense to them. Some of them would have been suspicious – workers are always suspicious anyway – and after the catastrophe, some of them would have talked, at least to each other. It took way more than cutting one beam. Then think about the workers at the airline who had to either be in on it, or somehow be forced to keep quiet. There would be hundreds of people at dozens of organizations who would have had to be either bought off, or would have had to be expected not to talk. That’s not likely. They wouldn’t all be silent now. In my office at least, everybody gossips about absolutely everything and if anyone is asked to do something they don’t like or don’t understand, you might as well have told Oprah, it will be all over the floor in 45 minutes.

    There certainly is such a thing as a conspiracy and there are ways to keep people silent. But not on this scope – it simply defies common sense.

  96. Oh, yes, the Meridian building in Philly – that’s about a block from where I’m sitting, and I remember the fire very well – the building that replaced it was just completed a few months ago! (the fire was in the early 90′s).

    Again, I am no engineer, so I can’t dispute your opinions there. I would point out though, that although it didn’t totally collapse that night, it was indeed destroyed, and whatever remained was pulled down. And it was a hazardous site that you couldn’t get anywhere near for quite some time – I assume that’s because they thought it might fall? I can’t imagine it’s easy to pinpoint exactly what might make one building fall and not another, though I’m sure engineers have a better idea than I do. (Gee, I hope they do.)

  97. There’s a material called “thermite” that cuts steel like that. It comes in a cord and is placed on the surface of the steel. When ignited, it cuts through the steel like a torch. As the story goes, the elevator shafts of the twin towers were serviced shortly before the incident – workers were in the building at night doing the work – giving them plenty of access to the structural members they needed to destroy. The twin towers were constructed with the main structural members at the interior of the tower (near the elevators).

    Are there people in the government who could do this? Sure! We don’t need to hire construction workers off craigslist for this type of project. The government *trains* demolition people. Eventually, somebody speaks out, true… and some people have indeed come forward and have been labeled as kooks… (maybe as Waldorf critics, we can appreciate how this feels…). People spoke out when Kennedy was assassinated too… hell, people spoke out at Roswell. We normally don’t listen to them for good reason, but we shouldn’t suggest that they don’t exist.

  98. I assume most of these other buildings that burned for hours without collapsing weren’t a hundred stories high and had large aircrafts, on fire, lodged somwhere in the middle. To compare the attacks with a ‘small fire being lit’ seems very odd to me. This is a huge and sudden impact that destroys several floors — which, in itself, must have a destabilizing effect — more or less immediately and starts a pretty massive fire. It’s an enormous thing, everything taken together, and not a small fire.

    And common sense, again, and no engineering expertise, tells me that a high, gangly building must be much more sensitive an object, too. It’s easier to floor a tall and thin person, like me, than a short and fat one.

    I do wonder how many buildings in New York would withstand an attack like the 9/11 attacks.

    While I’ve never heard about the fire in the Meridian building, the small fires in the twin towers had us gasping for air in absolute horror all the way over here on the other side of the atlantic. I suppose that’s more of an emotional argument, but seeing those planes fly into the buildings and coming to a stop inside them, the very visible and huge gashes and wounds in the buildings, the fire, the flames… It’s way easier to believe the load was too heavy for the building to carry than to believe in a conspiracy — all those people keeping silent! are they robots? nothing leaking out, even by accident? and why on earth…? — that would require a hell of a lot of beam-cutting and Dog knows what else. Imagine all the people working in the twin towers who must have been witnesses to the suspicious behaviour of these conspirators! I think I would wonder if someone came into my office, if I had one, and began sawing off steal beams or doing similar odd things. And, looking back afterwards, I’d probably report my sightings. The silence of all the people needed to prep the buildings. Everybody witnessing them. And all the people — as Diana points out, airline employees, et c — who had to know the government was sending lots of people to their deaths that day. Really!?

    That fundamentalist evil morons would orchestrate such an attack, now, that, sadly, is entirely believable. They didn’t have to rely on the silent co-operation of many, many americans.

  99. Why would a single airline representative needed to know anything in advance? I don’t get this argument. Very few people would need to be “in the know” – almost nobody. A small team of people could have set all the explosives in one night. In the plans, I count 24 steel columns that would have to have been cut – presumably every few floors. It doesn’t take long to wrap a column in thermite (about like wrapping it in scotch tape). Six people could do a floor in 10 minutes. It isn’t as impossible as it sounds. Again, there was construction going on at night just prior to 9-11.

    Yes, an airplane (admittedly much smaller) hit the Empire State Building – and it’s still standing… not condemned, not torn down, not structurally unsafe… the building is just fine. I’m not saying jets shouldn’t have caused lots of damage, they should have… but I’m saying is the damage that is claimed they caused is not adequately explained by science – again in my opinion.

  100. When you talk about the large aircraft in the building – you’re talking about added weight right? The fuel would have burned instantly (that’s what the fire-balls were)… so the weight is the important factor here. And, while planes are heavy, they aren’t nearly as heavy as they look. Everything on a plane is made extremely light (for obvious reasons). If a plane were made of steel, for example, it would weigh 7 times as much. So while it appears there’s a lot of mass in a plane, this can be deceiving.

  101. Well, presumably it is known what that construction work was about. And people who saw it going on knew it too, i e, it didn’t appear strange, such as sawing off iron beams holding up a building. But now — explosives too? In addition to sawed-off beams? (That beam doesn’t look like it was severed by an explosion any more than it looked like it had been ripped apart under a collapsing building, for what it’s worth…) And for an explosion — you need another post-explosion conspiracy! All those who have examined the site and the building remains looking for information and evidence would have to be involved in a cover-up too!

    Yes, the airplance that crashed into the Empire State Building was indeed not just smaller — it was *a lot smaller*. Compared, it was miniscule.

    I have no idea how quickly the fuel would be gone, but surely by the time it is, the entire plane must be on fire.

    Also, even in an ordinary building, like the 6 story building I live in, it’s important not to meddle with supporting walls. I imagine the planes simply must have destroyed quite a few supporting iron beams that carried the floors above the place of impact.

    But basically, technical details aside, I find the entire idea completely silly. A democratic nation sending its citizen to die in the most awful and evil stunt ever. That truly is an astounding idea, even if I certainly don’t count on people, much less many of the political leaders, for goodness.

  102. Well, we’re pretty sure Hitler did it. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reichstag_fire
    Wouldn’t I be nothing more than a bliss-ninny if I automatically assumed the US would never do such a thing? I’m not joining Alex Jones’ group… I think for the most part they’re full of crap and dishonest… but burning jet fuel and melting steel are still 1000 degrees apart… and science has to be the bottom line for me. Something doesn’t add up – and that’s a sign something is wrong.

  103. “Why would a single airline representative needed to know anything in advance? I don’t get this argument.”

    You’re saying you DON’T believe that the events were the work (solely) of Islamic terrorists who hijacked a series of planes for use as missiles against selected US targets – the WTC, the Pentagon and the White House – right? Then what actually happened with those planes, and the hundreds of people who died on them that day? Who organized all THAT? There’s no way an operation like that, involving the hijacking of four huge passenger aircraft, is arranged by just a small handful of people, Pete. If terrorists didn’t really take all those people totally by surprise – crew, passengers, air traffic controllers, baggage handlers and hundreds of personnel on the ground – then the implication is that the conspirators must have had help at the airlines, too.

    I’ve heard some people say the hijackers weren’t even on those planes. I remember the “truthers” complain that some documentation the lead guy – can’t even remember his name now – Mohammad Atta? – should have had on him, should have been retrievable in the rubble but could never be found.

    Some truthers insist that a plane never hit the Pentagon at all. So why don’t any of the hundreds of people at work at the Pentagon that day, speak up and tell us they never saw a plane hit the building, or any parts of the plane lying around, or damage to the building consistent with an airplane hitting it? There are also at least a few dozen random observers who claim they were close enough to see that plane coming in. Hundreds more people who have either been completely brainwashed or must be somehow in on it, or paid off to be silent?

    Sorry to “hijack” your blog, Alicia – ha! – just tell us to stop if you’ve had enough 9/11 conspiracy theory …

  104. Well I do not know what an airliner weighs, but if it is carrying several hundred humans, it is not a light object. And also aren’t we forgetting the speed at which the planes struck the buildings? It’s not like the pilots put on the brakes. In the event of such an accident, the pilot would have done everything possible to slow the plane as much as possible; even if knowing the jet was doomed, he/she would probably be thinking of minimizing impact to save lives in the building and below. This was MANHATTAN, at the height of rush hour, on a busy workday morning, one of the crazy-busiest places on the planet. The pilots deliberately did the opposite of stepping on the brake; in order to maximize destruction, they hit the buildings with optimum accuracy and at incredible speed. I just don’t see why it would seem questionable that this would do catastrophic structural damage.

    For a conspiracy, what’s always puzzled me is that MORE people didn’t die; given the number of people in the buildings and on the streets below, 3000-some is a fairly small number in the end.

  105. Yes, I also apologize for…um… hijacking the blog… and will happily stop if asked.
    Diana, I’m not in the truther camp. I’m shouldn’t have tried to posit an explanation for what may have happened, what type of devices may have been used, etc. That, I’ll happily leave to the truth “investigators”. What I’m asking for… OK demanding, is an explanation from our government that doesn’t require that I abandon the laws of physics.

    Sure, hijackers could have simultaneously taken the planes without anyone in the airlines being complicit. No conspiracy required there.

  106. I kind of like (blog) hijacking. This topic has made me wonder what kind of 9/11 conspiracies the anthroposophists buy into (I mean the small or large — I wonder how large? — subset of anthros who tend to occupy themselves with such things).

  107. Oh, yes. Top of that list is Bradford Riley, who never met a conspiracy theory he didn’t instantly believe, the more outrageous the better. He believes the US govt, in collusion with Israel, shot down the planes.

    http://rileybrad.wordpress.com/?s=WTC

    “Planes had to be rigged with remote guidance systems to over ride the pilots and most importantly the most dramatic spiritual impression to be burned into the memory banks of a population, the full collapse of the towers timed to the pre-set militarized thermite on every ‘I’ beam, every support strut of the Towers.”

    A few quotes will never do this justice. I urge you to familiarize yourself with this document :) There is no substitute for reading it yourself. It will make most of anthroposophy look like tame stuff.

  108. Alicia, and all readers, if you haven’t discovered Terry Boardman, anthrozealot extraordinaire, you really must. He has lately taken to the airwaves. Here’s a nice one:

    Here’s a “way in” to his collected writings on the web:

    http://www.monju32.webspace.virginmedia.com/index.html

    and here’s his 9/11 stuff:

    http://www.monju32.webspace.virginmedia.com/911&After.htm

    http://www.monju32.webspace.virginmedia.com/911&After2.htm

  109. just fyi, I have a comment awaiting moderation, apparently due to multiple links.

  110. Another favorite of course is the whole “no Jews were killed at the World Trade Center; they all stayed home that day” and the hoary myth of Israelis “dancing” in NYC as the towers burned.

  111. Yup, it was the links. It’s been let through now.

    I got brain pain just from that Brad Riley quote. I knew he was into various conspiracy theories, so I guess I should have been able to imagine… Or perhaps not.

  112. I guess Pete, if I had to put forth a theory, in my cynical way I would say I’m not surprised if the WTC towers were shown, after they fell, to have not been the amazingly awesome unsurpassed feats of modern engineering they had been touted to be. Would that really be surprising? I always end up thinking, though I guess it’s deeply cynical, that most such gargantuan projects would turn out to be riddled with incompetency and probably corruption, cut corners, inadvisable safety shortcuts or compromises in quality, from start to finish if only we ever get a chance to hear the inside story. Usually we don’t, because most buildings don’t get hit by airplanes. But of course those towers were touted as virtually indestructible, able to withstand the fires of hell without falling, how else would you justify the costs, and persuade ordinary people to feel perfectly comfortable working on the 100th floor? (Maybe it’s irrational, but I don’t have any problem spending my days on the 19th floor, but I really don’t think I would take a job on the 100th floor of any building. It just boggles my little mind too much.)

  113. Seriously Alicia, you MUST peruse that site.

  114. I keep expecting to hear about some design flaw in the building… that somebody used inferior materials or some part of the original design was altered in the field. This is the kind of thing engineers expect when something collapses unexpectedly. So far, nothing. I was looking at the pictures of the beams after the Philadelphia high rise fire – after 18 hours of burning they showed damage and sagged considerably, but still held together. That the debris was removed and destroyed so quickly from the twin towers is a huge loss for scientists and engineers who may have learned something more about what happened. It should have been examined carefully BECAUSE it fell so easily. Remember, the twin towers withstood a car bomb attack back in the ’90′s – sure, not the same as having a jet hit it, but still, a car bomb took down the federal building in OK. The twin towers were indeed pretty decent feats of engineering.

    Diana, if the weight of 300 people could bring down a high rise, you’d think a lot of office Christmas parties would be cancelled. The buildings can take it… really.

  115. >Diana, if the weight of 300 people could bring down a high rise, you’d think a lot of office Christmas parties would be cancelled.

    well, you have a point there … seriously, I am not the person to have an intelligent conversation about this with, I don’t know what I’m talking about.

  116. But wait, I meant not the 300 people, I meant that the plane itself, which HOLDS the 300 people, can’t be light. wasn’t it kind of like asking the buildling to tolerate the weight of another building, added to it? Of course the building could hold 300 extra people, but could it hold what amounted to another building sat on top of it, or rather, inserted in its midsection.
    I’d better shut up …

  117. I would say that’s got to do with the size of the car bomb and with the impact it had. The government building in Oslo sustained heavy damage by Breivik’s car bomb. Yet, luckily, much of the impact was ‘redirected’ because of some space underneath where he had parked. Ie, it was said that had there not been a basement space, the impact on the building would have been much greater.

    Now, I only say this because such considerations make direct comparisons between the bomb in the 90s and a bomb in another building somewhere else rather impossible.

    ‘… if I had to put forth a theory, in my cynical way I would say I’m not surprised if the WTC towers were shown, after they fell, to have not been the amazingly awesome unsurpassed feats of modern engineering they had been touted to be.’

    I would agree with that. And nobody thought something like that would happen anyway. Even if they were basically what they had been touted to be, what’s to say they could withstand an attack like that?

    Am going to look at the anthro conspiracy links now…

  118. ‘Of course the building could hold 300 extra people, but could it hold what amounted to another building sat on top of it, or rather, inserted in its midsection.’

    Exactly. And that insertion in the midsection destroyed a lot of this midsection which was supporting not just the plane now inserted into it but the rest building above the place of impact.

    (The plane that crashed into the Empire State Building had three people on it.

    When I said this:

    ‘Now, I only say this because such considerations make direct comparisons between the bomb in the 90s and a bomb in another building somewhere else rather impossible.’

    I meant: impossible without having all the details and without knowing how to interpret them. But I can see why such comparisons fit very well into conspiracy thinking.

    It’s like the comparison with the plane that crashed into Empire State Building. The comparison seems rather invalid when you know it was a tiny plane which wasn’t even deliberatly crashed so as to cause greatest possible damage.

  119. Oh dear Dog… Boardman and Riley.

  120. If I’m recalling correctly the ’93 attack on the WTC was, after the story totally played out, found to have been quite incompetent.

  121. The point I was trying to make, even with the small plane, is that these buildings aren’t a house of cards waiting for a breeze to blow them down. Sure, an airliner is huge, but relative to the building, it’s tiny. And very light. Airplanes aren’t built to withstand impact (like cars are). I’d like proof that the jets’ impact severed even ONE interior structural steel beam.

  122. According to Wiki, the damage was “severe”. (big grin)

  123. I think the “deliberate” factor makes a huge difference. Whoever planned the attacks, they knew what they were doing, and the plans were many years in the making (probably about 8 years – the ’93 attack was so disappointing, they regrouped to figure out how to get it right the next time).

    So for one thing, the “deliberate” factor means we must remember the buildings were ATTACKED. There was no precedent, nothing for comparison – comparisons to other incidents where a plane has hit a building aren’t valid, the pilots would inevitably have been at least TRYING to minimize the impact, rather than basically aiming at the building, picking the structurally weakest points etc.

    Second, the “deliberate” factor has to be considered in the planning involved. Of course Bradford Riley’s stuff is fruit loops – conspiracies involving archangels etc. But any conspiracy theory for 9/11 has to be incredibly elaborate; any way you look at it these attacks were many years in the planning and organizing. Literally hundreds of people would have had to be, if not completely “in the know,” at least privy to enough details to become suspicious. It simply defies reason that the US government did such a thing – evil intentions aside. It would have been uncovered – the US media LOATHED George Bush.

    I am no fan of Dick Cheney – believe me. But even I don’t believe he would authorize shooting down planes full of American citizens so that he could oversee the systematic dismantling of our civil liberties. (Even though, that is pretty much what has happened.)

    Conspiracy thinking makes people feel a little better that the world is not completely irrational, that horrifying things happen for SOME reason.

  124. Pete, I just wonder – haven’t read enough of the conspiracy theories to know – but has anyone considered that, if there is evidence of tampering with elements of the building prior to the attacks, couldn’t that have been done by people in collusion with the terrorists? i.e., why would we assume Dick Cheney sent people in to sever beams or treat them with thermite, couldn’t it have been bin Laden who sent them (simplistically stated).

  125. “picking the structurally weakest points etc.”
    Most of the evidence indicated the “pilots” barely knew how to point the planes. Considering how poorly they did in flight school (despite not wasting time learning how to land) that they hit the buildings at all was incredible. The notion that they aimed for and hit structurally weak points doesn’t hold water for me. They *may* have hit structurally weak points, but I doubt that they were able to guide the jets into them deliberately.

  126. I can’t be the first person to have thought of that, so I’m sure the conspiracy theorists have an answer …
    The talk of “workmen in the building” the night before is silly. There are workmen in the building every day of the week, I’m sure. There are certainly workmen every day in MY building so I’m sure there would have been in the WTC. Or maybe my building is in danger of falling and they’re working frantically to shore it up! The point is, once you are suspicious, everything you see going on around you looks suspicious. Most “oddities” and irregularities discovered in the aftermath are simply the result of the fact that the whole world is odd anyway. I bet if you sliced into the midsection of the building I’m sitting in, you’d find some equivalent of the “severed beam” that looked suspicious. Nothing is put together right.

  127. As for reasons… In this case, horrifying things did happen for a reason, a reason itself too horrifying to grasp.

  128. “Most of the evidence indicated the “pilots” barely knew how to point the planes. Considering how poorly they did in flight school (despite not wasting time learning how to land) that they hit the buildings at all was incredible. ”

    Ok good point. I’m saying everyone is incompetent, so I guess the terrorists were incompetent, too …

    Keep in mind, my actual knowledge of this situation comes mainly from the movie “Flight 93″ :)

  129. which is a good movie, by the way, though I have no idea how accurate it is.

  130. They were certainly competent to know how to fly them to the right place and hit the buildings somewhere ‘correctly’, not to high up, and in the middle, sort of. In a stressful situation, never having operated planes like this before on real life, much less in a similar situation. I think it’s quite competent, and the pointing sufficed…

    There are building workers everywhere all the time. The presence of building workers alone tells us absolutely nothing.

  131. I’m trying not to assess blame. It indeed could have been Bin Laden who tampered with the buildings – but why? To what motive? To watch them fall completely? And why risk the entire mission to ensure the buildings are *completely* destroyed?

  132. I’ve seen that movie too. And some documentaries. But that’s it, pretty much.

  133. “The point is, once you are suspicious, everything you see going on around you looks suspicious.”

    It’s Waldorf’s fault…

  134. It does seem like they must have been at least minimally competent. Three out of four planes hit their targets, killed thousands of people and did colossal damage, even if they missed the White House.

  135. “It indeed could have been Bin Laden who tampered with the buildings – but why? To what motive? To watch them fall completely?”

    Isn’t that the conspiracy theorists’ argument? that they wouldn’t have fallen without “inside” help – the planes weren’t enough? I’m just saying, if so, it makes just as much sense to assume the terrorists (rather than the US govt) planted people to do inside damage to the buildings before the planes hit them.

  136. “It’s Waldorf’s fault…”

    Ah, there’s a conspiracy theory we can all get behind :)

  137. I haven’t told you yet, but the other day I found a tiny anthroposophical plot of land in a dead-end street in a posh suburb of Stockholm. I’m sure it’s the true headquarters of anthroposophical movement, the center, from where all the immense anthroposophical POWER emanates. An invisible, underground Goetheanum, turned upside down. There will be a blog post (I must see what happened to the photos first). No, I’m not joking. It’s a true mystery, that plot.

    Perhaps we can even fit this into a grander conspiratorial scheme?

    9/11!?!

  138. “Isn’t that the conspiracy theorists’ argument? that they wouldn’t have fallen without “inside” help – the planes weren’t enough?”

    Yes, if the goal was to make them fall completely to the ground into a pile of rubble… then yes, Bin Laden would have had to have planted explosives. I don’t think that would have been Bin Laden’s goal. And, if he HAD wired the towers with explosives, why bother hijacking jets?

  139. I suppose, to a man with a hammer, everything is a nail… but I can’t make the science work, so I’m open to other explanations. I don’t think the “false flag” concept is implausible considering how quickly and effectively our Constitutional rights were taken away immediately following the attacks… it’s like playing follow the money. Do I think GWB could have masterminded anything – not in my wildest dreams… but GHWB?

  140. http://rileybrad.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/dick-cheney-judas-and-the-etheric-christ-part-ii-by-bradford-riley Dick Cheney, thermite from inside the buildings were pre-set from within. Bush the little frat boy and the lower ended agenda of Ahriman brought down the house.

  141. “This is part II in our examination of how immense Divine Beings prepare for their incarnations into the historical stream of human evolution.”

    Brad, you’ve lost me already… Thank Dog!

  142. Well that was easy. Too easy to throw anyone off the track. But we gave it the good ole college try. Better luck next time Pete.

  143. I have no idea why Brad’s signature comes through like this:

    ‘http://zooey.wordpress.com/author/rileybrad/’

    but I changed it to his own blog address on his first comment, and will do it again now.

    I assume it’s some new idiotic idea wordpress has gotten. Presumably this happens when someone hasn’t entered their own blog address and has a wordpress/gravatar account. Or something like that.

  144. No worries Brad. I’m fairly certain I’m not missing out on much worth knowing.

  145. Probably nothing at all. But it’s an interesting experience to read little of that stuff. One marvels, and wonders if it’s for real.

  146. So Brad, while you’re here… what do you think of companies like Wella and Weleda paying people to smear scientists? And for that matter, what about companies like the SWSF paying disinformation officers to twist Steiner’s words and reproduce them out of context in order to smear critics of Waldorf? You represent a side of the Waldorf movement we don’t get the pleasure of hearing from too often.

  147. The disinformation officers are prone to imagining that the Brads of the anthroposophical world don’t exist. So perhaps one of the disinformation officers can help us out and tell us Brad is not a true anthroposophist.

    I wonder if Brad believes that were Steiner alive he’d agree with him.

  148. Well, I’m pretty sure Steiner, if he were alive today, would tell Sune to STFU.

  149. Oh, I’m sure of that…

  150. You got me. We are all disinformation freaks at the fast food fun house. I don’t expect anyone to agree with me. I tag and trail out my own intuitions. Right now I am taking a break on Victor Hugo. I am following a piece that Hugo wrote that I have always loved. My thing with Hugo is seeing clearly into Saturn Destiny reality in Les Miserables and how the Karma pursues relentlessly the guy who stole a piece of bread. Hugo, and just to let you know how not safe for prime time or the easy to lose set, easy to have them uncover their own trails and tracks, Saturn is curious and it does slam each of biographies every 29 1/2 years. Saturn is in a certain position when you are born and it comes back to that position every 29 1/2 years. I trust I am way, way outside your limited paradigms and that brings us to Victor Hugo. The poem I am transcribing “Called the vision from which this Book arose” Hugo April 26, 1857 can’t be found in many places and the copy I have, has extremely small print. So Hugo, (I’m just giving you a sample of interests that grab me) enters the vision of Saturn stuff. So I am of the conviction that we are not supposed to be, we can do what we want, but the human being has the capacity to penetrate these inner worlds of the Planets, not in their physical bodies in tin cans in space, but it has always been part of the expanded depth of human spirituality to voyage out. At the moment I am hot on the trail of Saturn. Hexagon’s interest me. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jCBwwZs7IB4 But Hexagons are just foundational to Life in general, but to know how to research those who have penetrated beyond Saturn, just as Wormwood, I could be wrong here but the plant Wormwood is a Saturn plant. (I could be wrong about that but you see it interests me) Weleda the ancient Celtic Priestess of medicine and herbs knew far more about which herbs were connected to which planets and they still bear healing forces in them. Nuf said!!!!

  151. Um… OK… so back to science…
    Here’s an MIT engineer who is basically saying what I said earlier in this thread. I’ve never seen this video before… but using my common sense as an engineer, saw the same flaws in the official story. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z8W-t57xnZg&feature=related Also, here’s a scientist who discovered nanothermites in the dust of the twin towers. I’d like to know the custody trail of the dust, personally, but assuming that obvious question has been asked and answered, here he is claiming to have more than a smoking gun. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0Odg8nDgMQQ

  152. Well Thermite is a big, big clue, but my intent, I haven’t spoken about this at all, but the movie that I see like Stanley Kubrick or Oliver Stone, my movie on 9/11 would take this Beethoven 5th symphony that I have indicated, we would see Dick Cheney going to a real dressing room, lights around it, putting this fabulous whig on and makeup and then going into the situation room, with big LIVE screens, after Dick with a Kubrick touch of powder and this whig over his balding head, his glasses, a tux, all the trimmings gets ready for the big moment. He gets up and taps his baton on the podium, now we have full flash back and live shot scene cuts of the slow motion arrival of the planes, the passengers boarding, nice stuff, and inter-cut all of it with stills of people in the street, and choreographed and timed with the Beethoven piece we are brought into the most surreal inward fantasy of the Dick Cheney mind, as he conducts the whole EVENT, but we really watch this mad man at the podium in the situation room, and then we recapture the events punctuated by shots of Cheney conducting with his whig, like the conductor I linked to. Now if we all were smart we could knock out one of the greatest films ever. And that is the core scene.

    On 9/11 Cheney was running the largest war-games exercises ever in the U.S:
    1. Northern Vigilance – mock cold war hijack
    2. Vigilant Guardian – insertion of false radar blips on radar screens.
    3. Vigilant Warrior – live fly hijack drill
    The FAA had more than twenty ‘hijacked aircraft” blips on their radar on 9/11.

    The diversion exercises Cheney ran on 9/11 ensured confusion when the planes hit the WTC & Pentagon. It is also reported that Cheney ordered as many possible scramble fighter jets as he could to partake in exercises in Alaska so as to ensure the planes were not shot down.
    In May 2001, by Presidential Order, Richard Cheney was put in direct command and control of all war game and field exercise training and scheduling exercises especially FEMA. This also extended to all of the conflicting and overlapping NORAD exercises. Standard scramble and shoot down orders for hijacked aircraft were specifically removed from NORAD generals and placed in the exclusive control of Vice President Richard Cheney.
    Vice President Richard Cheney’s conductors baton was in his hand. His pre-planted media shills, his control over the New York Times, his well trained orchestra, a nation at his command, a media well trained in Washington whispers and matters of national security, his shills grovelling at the stinking kitchen dumpster for scraps from the masters table, their secret access to the rotting stench of farts and lies from the halls of power, the orchestra was rehearsed and ready for the curtain to open.
    Backstage the word was ‘READY’ was ‘GO‘ was ‘GREEN LIGHT’ the audience were in their seats, the technicians, sound crew and live broadcast system over the world were readied. The details for such a one time performance were amazing. Planes had to be rigged with remote guidance systems to over ride the pilots and most importantly the most dramatic spiritual impression to be burned into the memory banks of a population, the full collapse of the towers timed to the pre-set militarized thermite on every ‘I’ beam

    “Three months before the attack of 9-11, Dick Cheney usurped control of NORAD, and therefore he, and no one else, had the power to call for military sorties on the hijacked airliners on 9-11. He did not exercise that power, and consequently, the Pentagon, WTC2 and WTC7 were left unprotected, and then destroyed, resulting in the death of thousands of innocents. Three months after 9/11, he relinquished command of NORAD and returned it to military operation.”

    http://rileybrad.wordpress.com/2011/12/18/dick-cheney-judas-and-the-etheric-christ-part-ii-by-bradford-riley

  153. That’s all very entertaining. Why don’t you reproduce your entire blog here?

  154. Wow, um …. sorry, Alicia.

  155. Nuf said!!!!

    I’m in total agreement with you there!

  156. Tom H-S · ·

    ‘What I DO know is the conspiracy that would have been required for our government to pull of something like that – and to be still getting away with it 11 years later – is just too vast and bizarre to be plausible.’

    I am with Diana on this one.

  157. Brad is certainly a special character. Very dramatic account of the events there.

    Do you get any positive or negative feedback from the anthroposophical community, Brad?

  158. Brad: “I trust I am way, way outside your limited paradigms”

    You’re way outside conventional sentence structure in English, that much is sure. I’ve always admired your writing, I consider you the poet of anthroposophy.

    Here is a small piece of editorial advice: The single most overused word in the English language, at least among the chattering classes, has to be “paradigm.” Many publications’ style guides have come to ban the word entirely. Round-the-clock paradigm shifts simply became too predictable; major “shifts” simply can’t happen as often as all the wannabe cultural and philosophical revolutionaries would have it. As an editor, I come to know the usage and syntax idiosyncracies of authors I work with regularly, and though I don’t edit your work, I’ve read enough of it over the years to feel like I have that sort of relationship with you. I would not tamper with your creative syntax, but I’d search and flag the word “paradigm” wherever it occurred in your pieces, hoping to inspire you to, maybe, have some sort of paradigm shift in your own thinking about paradigm shifts.

  159. Diana’s statement assumes they’re “getting away with it”? I wish we critics had these kinds of numbers questioning Waldorf!

    http://www.anarchist-developments.org/index.php/adcs/announcement/view/3

    The official 9/11 narrative (Osama bin Laden and the al-Qaeda network, without any external intervention, were solely responsible for the attacks) was disseminated within hours of the attacks, and a state investigation of any kind would not begin until over one year later. The 9/11 Commission Report was published in July 2004, and scepticism over its contents has been widespread. A Zogby poll in May 2006 showed 42% of Americans believe “that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks.” A Scripps Howard/Ohio University poll in August 2006 showed 36% of Americans believe their government was in some manner complicit with the 9/11 attacks. A New York Times/CBS News poll from October 2006 showed only 16% of Americans believe members of the Bush Administration are telling the truth about pre-9/11 intelligence, while 81% believe the government is either “hiding something” or “mostly lying.” A September 2007 Zogby poll found 51% of Americans want Congress to probe the actions of President George W. Bush and Vice President Dick Cheney regarding their “actions before, during and after the 9/11 attacks.” A 2008 poll of 16,000 people in 17 countries found only 46% believe al-Qaeda was solely responsible for 9/11.

    I don’t think they’re getting away with it – I think they’re busted and nobody knows what to do about it.

  160. Also, one can’t help feeling you really admire Dick Cheney.

  161. (that was directed at Brad -Pete’s comment intervened as I was posting)

  162. Look, Pete, I think the numbers regarding these polls may be misinterpreted, as to what Americans actually believe. If a pollster asks me, do you think our government is getting away with something? do you believe our government told you the truth?, NO MATTER WHAT topic, I would probably be among those answering that our government is lying and/or getting away with … something. I would not doubt for a moment that official government statements about 9/11 contain lies. The question is what are they lying about. In the aftermath of any catastrophe, people start covering their butts, and this is one of the biggest catastrophes in recent history. Everyone’s got something to hide, yes … but WHAT? I don’t believe they’re hiding a monstrous conspiracy to stage what would appear to be terrorist attacks but were in reality deliberate attacks by the US govt on its own citizens. Everyone is covering their butts about SOMETHING and I suspect that general distrust of the govt is what such poll numbers represent. They don’t indicate that most of the American public believe the sort of fantasy Bradford Riley has spun with Dick Cheney as the evildoer in a James Bond movie.

  163. Specifically: ” 42% of Americans believe “that the US government and its 9/11 Commission concealed or refused to investigate critical evidence that contradicts their official explanation of the September 11th attacks.”

    It’s a question of how you word poll questions. I would be among those 42%. I never doubt the government has withheld something in virtually any “official explanation.” And it was doubtless something “critical” or why bother withholding it – it’s a truism. It would be naive to think otherwise.

    But re-word the poll question to ask if people think the evidence withheld indicates that “9/11 was an inside job” and you’ll get a lot lower response than 42%.

  164. And then there’s that phrase “refused to investigate” – I’ll never doubt it when you tell me the government refuses to investigate. But that makes that 42% number even more ridiculously convenient for “truthers’” purposes. They might “refuse to investigate” something that is totally ridiculous on the face of it, and rightly so. They might also “refuse to investigate” something for countless, tangled political reasons – maybe not admirable at all, but also not reflecting the kind of conspiracy the truthers have in mind. Probably trying to hide the mundane, everyday wrongdoing that goes on at all levels, in every government and most every organization.

  165. Heavens no… I’m certain Brad is the only one who believes his fantasy. Let me ask you though… does $600,000 seem like enough to spend on investigating 9-11? We spent $40 million investigating Clinton’s sex life. I suspect we, the general public, don’t have any clue what questions we should be asking. We’re just left with a sense that a crime has been committed against us by our government. Families, soldiers, veterans and the American people deserve a LOT more in the way of investigation on this subject.

  166. “does $600,000 seem like enough to spend on investigating 9-11? We spent $40 million investigating Clinton’s sex life.”

    LOL, no, but that’s the way we roll. I definitely think the American people overall FAR more want dirt on Clinton’s sex life than more info we probably can’t understand on 9/11. Sad but true. And I think maybe that’s not a bad thing after all, because you’re probably right that we don’t know what questions we should be asking, so more money would be misspent. And again, I think the dreary outcome would be that while crimes have no doubt been committed against us by our government, they’re not the James Bond-style crimes that some people are imagining – they’re the ongoing misuse and abuse of funds, of trust, accountability, etc. I honestly don’t think we should research further whether someone cut steel beams in the WTC – I think that’s a fantasy, and even if we could prove steel beams were cut, there’s just as much reason to suppose that terrorists in cahoots with the hijackers did it.

    There is PLENTY to be investigated regarding the abuses our government undertook in the name of “protecting us from terrorists” afterward. You don’t NEED a conspiracy beforehand, to be enraged about that.

  167. Furthermore, Pete, the dreary truths that actually matter are all “out” and can’t be changed, and that’s what people can’t stand. People like Brad would rather amuse themselves with science fiction plots than face the dreary but quite well-known fact that GWB wanted a reason to attack Iraq, and found one. Do we think he WOULDN’T have attacked Iraq if 9/11 hadn’t happened?

    I for one do not think it would be that much worse if the attacks were staged to allow him an excuse to attack Iraq. Does that sound shocking? See, unlike a lot of people, I remain enraged that he attacked Iraq; I don’t need to keep getting artificially pumped up about it by continually extending the soap opera plot. See? The “truther” stuff is elaborate moral and imaginative masturbation after the sad facts are all told.

    9/11 conspiracy theories, for one thing, divert attention from the shenanigans that put GWB in the White House in the first place. Remember THAT conspiracy, involving the US Supreme Court? Didn’t involve NORAD or archangels, but fucked us up for years, to billions of dollars and hundreds of thousands of lost lives. No posts with zodiac and archangels on that one on Brad’s blog.

  168. Seems like a massive overspending on Clinton’s sex life, if you ask me.

    ‘…they’re the ongoing misuse and abuse of funds, of trust, accountability, etc.’

    Oh, absolutely.

    ‘There is PLENTY to be investigated regarding the abuses our government undertook in the name of “protecting us from terrorists” afterward. You don’t NEED a conspiracy beforehand, to be enraged about that.’

    Absolutely, again.

  169. “I think that’s a fantasy, and even if we could prove steel beams were cut, there’s just as much reason to suppose that terrorists in cahoots with the hijackers did it.”
    Then why bother with hijacking planes? Just hit explode the charges and let the building come down. Why put on a “show”? That doesn’t make sense to me.

    I read that GWB’s younger brother Marvin was head of the company that provided security for the WTC and that work on the elevator shafts had been going on for at least nine months before 9-11. I know, all coincidence. Just like it’s a coincidence that NORAD happened to be running 3 different hijack simulations on the same morning as 9-11. An airliner goes down and we dive to the bottom of the ocean to recover EVERY PIECE for investigation… but… the twin towers go down and we get rid of the evidence BEFORE the investigation even starts. I know, it’s the way we roll.

  170. Well, see, they really might be coincidences. People don’t like such explanations because it is actually much more depressing to think about how the world really works – we all fumble along, and dramatic events are rare.

    I would say to those questions – though I don’t know the answers – that I would need to know the regular patterns of maintenance and repair work on those elevators – and again I can tell you that I work in a building with 19 floors and there is very nearly ALWAYS something wrong with one of the elevators – I’ve worked in the building for 4 years and been stuck in an elevator THREE TIMES. They all have peculiarities – there’s one that periodically decides it will go to the 18th floor but not the 19th, and we who work on 19 are used to that, we routinely ride to 18 and then walk up to 19 … another one, if you see it standing open, you know not to get on it, because it’s telling you it’s not happy today, so you go back and tell the security guard, and he rolls his eyes and calls maintenance for the umpteenth time.

    At any rate, I’m always happy to see the guys working on the elevator, they’re my buddies. I imagine that maintaining the elevators in the WTC was a full time job for a number of people.

    Then I would like to know the patterns of the war games and hijack simulations that NORAD or whoever undertakes, before I would have any idea if anything was unusual in the patterns. Obviously, someone like Brad takes a look and his critical reasoning powers do not work over time – he has identified a dozen “unusual patterns” that really aren’t unusual patterns, six times before breakfast, is my guess.
    Really I have no idea but I would assume that hijack simulations are pretty routine. and I’m glad of it, since my husband flies so often.

    Again the problem is that the truth is rarely so sexy as conspiracy thinkers like.
    Anyway gotta run … they actually do pay me here.

  171. I keep thinking of the Fawlty Towers episode when they’re having a fire alarm rehearsal and the kitchen catches on fire for real.

  172. Fawlty Towers? Coincidence? I think not! (My favorite is when the Germans visit)

  173. Another building I was in in center city recently, in the elevator I overheard a man who was apparently a dentist telling a friend that he was losing clients because the elevators are so unreliable, they freak people out, and he was going to complain to the building management for what was evidently not the first time. So I think either elevator work keeps repair crews pretty busy in a lot of high rises, or else we have extremely poor elevators where I live …

  174. Oh, Alicia, I think you’ve nailed it LOL.

  175. I think there was no elevator in Fawlty Towers; too bad, they could have had an awful lot of fun with elevator escapades.

    My favorite is the scene they replay in the openings (at least on the DVDs – we own all 12 episodes …) where Manuel is hiding in the laundry cart, and Boris is trying to drag him out and Manuel is insisting No, I stay in here, is nice and quiet, I like it, is nice.

  176. http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2002-09-04-elevator-usat_x.htm

    wow – just thought I would quickly google for some info on the WTC elevators – this article is really harrowing. for my immediate purposes, however, I noted that there were 198 elevators in the WTC. I would guess, there was probably never a day the elevators weren’t being serviced.

    Furthermore, there were EIGHTY elevator mechanics in the building on the morning of 9/11. EIGHTY!! Unfortunately, they evacuated soon after the first plane hit, and 200+ people died in the elevators.

    It was a really complicated system of elevators, with express cars going to different floors in with schedules that were nearly as complicated as the NY subway system. I rode those elevators many times myself. It’s still bizarre to imagine the whole thing is gone.

  177. Mm, not Boris, Basil.

  178. Oh, I love the episode with the Germans. Apart from that, my favourite is the one with the talking moose. Also the laundry cart episode — it’s the one with the dead guest, isn’t it?

    Of course, mr Fawlty fails spectacularly all the time, but his failings are basically very human. And I can certainly see smaller mistakes and mishaps and psychological melt-downs accumulating on a grander scale and contributing to disasters.

    I’ve never been stuck in an elevator, but I’m kind of afraid of it. Some years ago, we installed an emergency telephone in the elevator in the building I live in, and I remember some horrifying stories about people being stuck in elevators. (That was the reason we installed it.) Awful.

  179. ’198 elevators’

    Oh wow.

    ‘Furthermore, there were EIGHTY elevator mechanics in the building on the morning of 9/11. EIGHTY!!’

    Oh wow, again.

    ‘Unfortunately, they evacuated soon after the first plane hit, and 200+ people died in the elevators.’

    This is so awful to think about.

    There might not have been much they could have done at that point though.

  180. I sometimes wonder what would have happened if Dan Quayle took over NORAD for a day. But seriously, are we supposed to believe that that many hijack exercises are run on any given day by our military? “False blip” tests? Really? And how often do we do this kind of exercise? Once a month? That would explain our huge defense budget, I suppose… but the notion that this is a coincidence falls under *miraculous* to me.

    How is the 9-11 Commission any different than the Dutch Commission of Anthroposophists? They were all hand-picked by the Bush administration. They were instructed on exactly what they could look at – and came up with a very predictable conclusion. The similarities are striking to me.

  181. The Twin Towers, I had a study group on the 47th floor of the Towers with Dean Witter. My arts studio and theater center was down by Canal St. and B’way and one of my students had offices and a nice conference room to meet and study Occult Science, on their request, in the Dean Witter offices. I would drive my cab, still had to pay rent, drive my cab and park it below the Towers because cabbies could, when it wasn’t a rush hour. We all would meet up at the top where the restaurant was and then go down to the 47th floor for our study group. Sure I should follow your advice ‘too many paradigms in paradigms’ Learning is a slow curve. Here we are heading to 11 years past this event that rattled the known universe. We are long, long, long over due for skepticism of those events. Frankly glad that some morsel of soul and spirit left at the bottom of the drain, finally forces some distracted, unfocused and sanguine chirps and chitters out of the clear cut residue of facts. No fire has ever brought down Steel Beamed Sky Scrapers. Free Fall Science and this chit-chat of thoughtlessness where, why not just plant the thermite and explode the buildings and call it an inside terrorist job? Gee, ya mean that terrorists slipped into the big bad United States long enough to set up I-beam slicing thermite? What’s the need for planes? Because, well this is going to cut into measuring our current dithering with UH, isn’t it exciting 11 years after the fact we can flip these insights around in our brains but at the time we had all to be mum because American Flags were in every yard and if you weren’t blabbing the party line and Orwell Speech patterns of Big Brother the entire neighborhood and today think we are stark raving bonkers for raising any issue that WE – that WE had anything to do with this. The planes had to really be seen, eye catchers, an enormous event was planned to launch the entire Mid-East conflagration, which every general like Wesley Clark has revealed clearly that the take down of the entire middle-east domino by domino, Libya, Syria, Yemen, Afghanistan, Iraq, Iran were all part of THE GRAND CHESSBOARD. Our brains, most of our brains, had to be so shocked and I confess to the shock as much as anyone else, but these ARE EXAMPLES OF free fall demolition of three buildings, one not even hit by any plane and to have brought such a building down, the term PULL IT by Silverstein no one. No ONE had time to set the charges in building number 7 unless they were set before everything happened so that we see the results of all three buildings going down, BUT we get the brainwashed Orwellian Oh MY God Look At those Planes, planned psychological experience that Oh My God no one could imagine airplanes ramming into buildings. LIE – LIE – LIE-. So then we do, as we should a great big step back and get ready to see what a fiction, what a lie, what a hypnotic bunch of braying asses of stupidity and how this lie is perpetuated and taught in every class room. Some of us pull up our socks and grasp the whole staged financial collapse and the great sweeping agenda and when we step into the shoes of major think tanks, our puny, skinny, mouse like thoughts on 11 years after the fact, and our tiny faint chirpings and scurrying behind the cupboards IS WHAT IT IS. The scrawny, undernourished little intellectual titterings of propaganda fed mice. The intellect still chirping and hopping from one branch like tiny sparrows, from one branch to the other but never landing long enough to face the issue squarely and feel it all the way down to our souls.

  182. ” but at the time we had all to be mum because American Flags were in every yard”

    No. Speak for yourself, big guy. I was not mum nor were a LOT of other people. That is not a way to convince an intelligent person that the whole thing was a conspiracy.

  183. Pete, I would probably agree with you about the commission – but it’s an unrelated issue to what they would find exactly if they did look further. What Bradford Riley is describing? No, plainly not, he’s a lunatic. Frauds, cons, abuses, incompetence, corruption? That’s it.

    As to the hijacking exercises, I have no idea how often they are done, but honestly, why don’t you look into it? I suspect it would prove to be similar to the elevator issue. It turns out not to be at all unusual that there were elevator repairmen in the building “recently” – well, it turns out there are 80 of them on an average Tuesday morning.

    I don’t feel it is the slightest coincidence that a hijacking exercise – or dozens of them – had recently gone on. Wasn’t the Bush administration criticized for not having paid attention to intelligence reports that Muslim terrorists planned to, um, fly airplanes into buildings? Well, we can’t have it both ways – apparently they should have been doing MORE hijack simulations, not fewer. I seriously doubt if you look into it that you would find that there was some mysterious increase in simulations or war games or what-have-you. The entire United States culture is one huge war game.

    And Dick Cheney? No doubt he is a mad man, but that really doesn’t have any relation to whether he IN REALITY ordered US passenger jets shot down. Fantasy isn’t fact, unless you’re Brad Riley.

  184. Brad: “Sure I should follow your advice ‘too many paradigms in paradigms’ ”

    Well, I’ll be tickled if you follow my editorial advice. Seriously, use the search function in Word. If “paradigm” occurs more than once per blog post, you’ve overused it.

    Can you put me in touch with Sune Nordwall? I’ve tried to help him with his, er, prose style, also, but he’s less receptive.

  185. I begin to think Brad’s paradigm is a bit too limited for me. It seems to shy away from reason and paragraph division.

    I sure hope they train different terrorist scenarios every now and then. And I’m not sure why, if there was a conspiracy behind this, they would place this training on that very day.

  186. Here’s a nice timeline of the military exercises before, during and after 9-11. Diana’s right – we had lots of them leading up to 9-11… Lots with scenarios just like 9-11… commercial jets hijacked… have a look…

    http://www.historycommons.org/timeline.jsp?timeline=complete_911_timeline&before_9/11=militaryExercises

    I’m starting to wonder, if we had THAT many exercises for EXACTLY this scenario, why we goofed up so badly. Ya gotta wonder… Did any of those exercises suggest, perhaps, that in the event of an attack on the US, Bush might be a target? His visit to the school had been announced… Obviously, the best thing to do when you’ve been told we’re under attack is to surround yourself with school children, right?

    If we were SO concerned about this – enough to run so many military exercises at $20 million a crack, why didn’t we tighten up airport security a bit? We had no problems doing so AFTER 9-11.

  187. “And I’m not sure why, if there was a conspiracy behind this, they would place this training on that very day.”

    I thought you worked this out… Fawlty Towers – false alarms = fire in the kitchen… remember?

  188. But there was no plan behind that unfortunate coincidence of events in Fawlty Towers! Or, well, there was, but only because it was a television comedy episode.

    ‘I’m starting to wonder, if we had THAT many exercises for EXACTLY this scenario, why we goofed up so badly. Ya gotta wonder…’

    Because reality is, after all, a different thing and people are human?

  189. “I’m not sure why, if there was a conspiracy behind this, they would place this training on that very day”

    Well, according to the conspiracy theorists, to sow confusion.

  190. Confusion among conspiracy theorists! Most people, I would think, would note the coincidence and disregard it… So much for sowing confusion. If these conspiracists are any good, they need to work on sowing confusion more widely.

  191. broadly? more generally, is what I mean. Everywhere. (It’s certainly no major challenge to sow confusion among the Brads of the world…)

  192. “I’m starting to wonder, if we had THAT many exercises for EXACTLY this scenario, why we goofed up so badly.”

    Pete – and Bradford, I do hope you’re listening, though I doubt reason would get through to you – but that is EXACTLY it. That is the story in a nutshell. “What they don’t want you to know” is not some fascinating tale from a John LeCarre novel or black ops or “occult” intrigue. It’s a tale of BUNGLING. It’s a tale of the Bush administration’s incompetence. That’s what they don’t want you to know. Bush really wasn’t Voldemort – what he was was an IDIOT.

    It’s a story of a guy who graduated from Yale by the seat of his pants, with “C’s” in all the easiest classes and probably couldn’t even READ the intelligence reports.

  193. You guys are both cracking me up.
    Have been waiting for my mother in the dentist’s office and this has been highly entertaining. Can’t say I got much done today though.

  194. That’s it. Human incompetence and stupidity is usually the most likely explanation for mess ups and screw ups and disasters of all kinds. You don’t really need Ahriman or impressive, intelligent plots.

  195. The elevator company making the repairs received an award for the effort – which was a HUGE renovation. http://911research.wtc7.net/cache/wtc/arch/wtc_elevator_renovation.pdf
    From the article we got some interesting numbers: “Towers A and B consist of a total of 46 shuttle elevators, capable of moving up to 460,000 pounds, at speeds of 1,600 feet per minute.”
    I know that’s for both towers, but a 767 only weighs 450,000 lbs gross. So, if the ELEVATORS ALONE for each building could lift half the weight of the fully-loaded plane at a rate of 1600 feet per minute, do you still think the building would have any problem sustaining the additional weight of a jet without collapsing?

  196. “Bush really wasn’t Voldemort – what he was was an IDIOT.”
    No argument there. That doesn’t necessarily mean there wasn’t a Voldemort somewhere in the mix. I said way back, and I’ll restate – I don’t think Bush was even in the room when this was planned (if it was). His daddy may have been… and he definitely isn’t an idiot. Who gained from all this? The terrorists?

  197. So, as cover-ups go… can we agree that the cover-up of “Bush is an idiot” can be considered a failure?

  198. http://www.usatoday.com/news/sept11/2001/12/19/usat-mechanics.htm

    “When the World Trade Center was bombed in 1993, Otis Elevator’s mechanics led the rescue of 500 people trapped in elevators. Some mechanics were dropped onto the roofs of the twin towers by helicopter. Others, carrying 50-pound oxygen tanks on their backs, climbed through smoke to machine rooms high in the towers. On Sept. 11, the elevator mechanics — many of the same men involved in the rescues in 1993 — left the buildings after the second jet struck, nearly an hour before the first building collapsed.”
    “The departure of elevator mechanics from a disaster site is unusual. The industry takes pride in rescues. In the Oklahoma City bombing in 1995, elevator mechanics worked closely with the firefighters making rescues.”

    Nope… they didn’t know a thing…

  199. Jan Luiten · ·

    Hello all,

    No, I am not sneaking away from this discussion.
    I was a few days abroad on a short holiday and I have no mobile internet.
    I haven’t read all the comments yet, but it looks interesting.
    Of course I will take up this discussion. Tomorrow however I am in Rotterdam and will not have time. So I ask for a little more patience.
    A short reaction on Ramon: Take care with stereotyping Ramon, stereotyping is the first step towards discrimination and racism.
    After the meeting of 1996 in Utrecht I left the anthroposophical society.
    The meeting was on March 30 (!!) of that year, the commission was formed in July 4. I had at that time no idea how the commission wanted to work.
    The reasons for me to leave the society are more complex. What happened on that meeting was in a way the endstation of a longer process.
    At the moment I have no formal ties to anthroposophical institutions.
    Anthroposophy cannot be identified with anthroposophical institutional life or the anthroposophical subculture.
    I think a lot of critics and adversaries had bad experiences with anthroposphical institutions.
    This is of course deplorable, and many things that happened are indeed indefensible.
    Please don’t think I do not understand that !!
    For me it is not a priority to defend anthroposophical institutions. Sometimes I am doing it yet, but it has not priority for me. I do it now in the Fritzsche case, because it seems part of a battle between skeptics (partly GWUP) and representatives of CAM.
    Priority for me is to make clear what anthroposophy is, and indeed to defend Steiner.
    I was critical on the Van Baarda report, but there are surely good things in it too. The report is referring to scholars and definitions on racism which are useful for me.
    I think when you criticize Steiner on racism you should have read this report, no matter that it was written by anthroposophists. Critics should know about what they are talking.
    I think a few people have read this report, but many have been criticizing it.
    Floris Schreve, I will also react on you in my next comment, but it is a long time ago that I was involved in Driegonaal other than writing an article.
    I cannot very much appreciate the attempt to get me in the camp of Holocaust deniers.
    “See” you all soon.

  200. Jan Luiten · ·

    No, I do not want to stay Anonymous
    But I think I think it is clear enough

  201. I fixed it, Jan. The anonymous issue.

    ‘For me it is not a priority to defend anthroposophical institutions. Sometimes I am doing it yet, but it has not priority for me. I do it now in the Fritzsche case, because it seems part of a battle between skeptics (partly GWUP) and representatives of CAM.
    Priority for me is to make clear what anthroposophy is, and indeed to defend Steiner.’

    Hm. I think hiring Fritzsche is more of a case of bad judgment on the part of Weleda and Wala. Regardless of the activities of skeptics, I would say. If smear ‘journalism’ is part of a battle, then it’s a dirty one. (And certainly not a good help in the defence of either anthroposophy or Steiner.)

    ‘Anthroposophy cannot be identified with anthroposophical institutional life or the anthroposophical subculture.’

    Depends on what you mean by identified with, depends on how narrow your definition is. They are anthroposophy applied to practical activites, with varying degrees of success… But anthroposophy is not alone in having both a theoretical side and a practical side.

  202. ““The departure of elevator mechanics from a disaster site is unusual. ”

    So the implication is now those eighty elevator repairmen were also in on it – or were somehow persuaded to be silent? It simply makes no sense, Pete. Obviously, a bunch of mechanics at the WTC were not in on some outrageous plot at high levels. So, if they were somehow told AFTER the first plane struck the building, you can hardly blame ‘em for getting the hell out of there immediately. Elevator mechanics can’t rescue people from a conflagration. People were leaping from the 80th, 90th floors. And if they were told something terrible was going to happen BEFORE the attacks, do you really think they’d have shown up to work that day? For a terrorist attack? C’mon! It does not make sense.

    Fine, elevator mechanics pride themselves on rescues. But nothing about that morning bore any resemblance to the kind of rescue elevator mechanics are trained or prepared for. Like I say, i’ve been “rescued” from stuck elevators three times in the past four years. I can assure you the scene was not comparable to September 11. Elevator mechanics are trained to help silly ladies who are hollering that the elevator is stuck between floors. “Stay calm m’am …” This was a terrorist attack for god’s sake, not an ordinary fire or mechanical breakdown. Even Oklahoma City is not a comparison. A bomb went off, that’s upsetting enough, but it really doesn’t compare to lower Manhattan that morning. Our largest city was basically under missile attack, and the entire United States was in a state of terror – remember just a few minutes later, two more planes were known to be hijacked, and other planes were unaccounted for for several HOURS. The Pentagon was hit a short time later, and not long after that we knew that a fourth plane aimed at the White House had crashed in Pennsylvania. In Philadelphia, less than 2 hours from NYC, and not much farther from the site of where the fourth plane crashed, we ran to collect our children from school and then hunkered down. We had no idea if there might be other targets. In NYC many people fled on foot or in any way they possibly could, some walked and ran for hours to get out of the city. The fact that some low-paid elevator mechanics left the scene of a terror attack does not suggest a conspiracy.

  203. The article said even an elevator mechanic from a building down the block came to the towers to help… and died in the wreckage. Do I think they were all in on it? Some maybe. After all, George Bush’s brother was CEO of the company in charge of the security for the WTC. I think, it’s more likely they discovered the charges in the elevator shafts, put two and two together, and high-tailed it out of there.

  204. I have to admit. I am sitting here at 12:30 in the morning looking at videos of the planes’ impact. The people jumping. The towers falling. Well, this is not so good for insomnia.

    Some of the stories are really crazy. I found one site that claims that there weren’t actually people in the buildings. Some people are crazy.

    But I have to admit, when you watch these buildings seemingly turn to dust in front of your eyes, you do have to wonder if we have the full picture of what happened. Maybe we never will. It does seem to me like it would have been more plausible if they had burned to the ground – they do appear rather to implode.

    But there’s so much ridiculous commentary, I think it’s impossible it could ever be sorted out. Many of the “truther” videos will slow things down and repeat a sequence umpteen times while solemnly informing you that there is “clearly” a piece of equipment strapped to the underside of the plane – there, can’t you see it? um, no – or some claim the second plane fired a missile right before impacting the building. Well, you see a bright red flash so that proves it!

    All I know is I can’t sleep :)

  205. But see, I don’t think a sane person would have had to discover “charges in the elevator” to conclude they’d better high-tail it out of there. There are bodies crashing through the glass around them and people are shrieking that it’s terrorists. I’ve been reading all about the elevator repair team, too, and basically, they evacuated. That makes sense to me. The plan was for them to come back later to assist with elevator rescues. Doesn’t that make sense? You need police and fire crew to first assure you that the building isn’t coming down. In ’93 people were trapped in the elevators for hours. Elevator repairmen did not rush into the building to rescue people, they waited for police and fire to clear it first. Presumably they’d have done the same on 9/11 if there had been any buildings to go back into.

    Also, the WTC elevators had recently gotten “safety upgrades” that paradoxically made it basically impossible for people to get out of the elevators without professional rescues, in an emergency. It was controversial, but it was concluded that it made more sense to completely prevent people from being able to get out of the elevator cars on their own, for the obvious reason that the far greater risk is they will fall down the elevator shaft. In a building with 100+ floors, this seems a sensible decision – it just doesn’t prove very helpful in a terrorist attack. If people had been able to get out of the elevator cars on their own, at least a few more might have lived. But I’m sure from the conspiracy POV, this “safety” feature was installed on purpose to ensure more people would die. Basically if you were in an elevator with the doors shut at the moment the planes hit, you were screwed.

  206. One more thought and I will really seriously try to turn off my brain. (I know, some would argue it hasn’t been on in some time anyway …)

    I see you are saying that even the elevator repair team was not just ordinary workers – if they were “in on” the plot, they were hired specially for the job.

    But this shouldn’t really be all that hard to research. It’s easy to find the name of the elevator repair company that fielded I think it was 83 repair technicians to the WTC. Find out if they are a legitimate company, if they had been around for years before this. If not, that would be quite suspicious. But if so, then presumably their regular workers would have all or mostly been let go, to be replaced by the government’s team of “fake” workers, or workers bent on a terrible sabotage. This alone would be very difficult to keep secret. Where are the workers who were fired from their jobs, shortly before 9/11 and replaced with these government plants?

  207. Same would have to apply to the security company. If you’re claiming they were all in on it, what happened to the real security company – the one that must have been fired right before George Bush’s brother’s company was brought on. Where are all those people, and why haven’t any of them spoken out? If none of them was suspicious at the time, or wondered why they were abruptly fired ne masses, surely they would have become suspicious in the aftermath, especially hearing “truther” accusations. Can those people be found and interviewed? Haven’t the truthers tried this?

  208. @ Jan Luiten, I am not saying that you are a Holocaust denier, or that you are even a sympathizer of this trend in anthroposophy (see Bondarew, and for the Netherlands/Belgium Jos Verhulst and the editors of the anthroposophical magazine/website ‘De Brug’ (especially Francois de Wit) and http://vrijgeestesleven.be . In the long discussion I had with you in the past I never noticed you are, so there is no reason for me to think you are.
    But I had some questionsmarks on this new trend of Driegonaal (now almost a platform for Bondarew and Verhulst). But good to know you were not involved with Driegonaal during that time..

  209. Just to drag this vaguely back on topic for this blog – here is an anthroposophist who has written a book about 9/11 – Thomas Meyer, “Reality, Truth and Evil”:

    http://books.google.com/books/about/Reality_Truth_and_Evil.html?id=das43hsInVIC

    (haven’t read it; just putting out the information)

  210. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/21147

    ‘Many of the “truther” videos will slow things down and repeat a sequence umpteen times while solemnly informing you that there is “clearly” a piece of equipment strapped to the underside of the plane – there, can’t you see it? um, no – or some claim the second plane fired a missile right before impacting the building. Well, you see a bright red flash so that proves it!’

    I just think, oh, ok, well, seeing it or not, what does it matter? The first question is to establish what really happened, not just what we see or think we see or what might even be distortions (intentional or unintentional). The second is how to interpret the fact, once we have the fact. Instead it’s just a whole lot of blah blah blah, detail after detail thrown about, as if thousands of allegedly suspicious details (which have not, as far as one can tell, gone through the steps 1 and 2 above) compiled make any difference.

    ‘ it’s more likely they discovered the charges in the elevator shafts, put two and two together, and high-tailed it out of there.’

    and they all kept silent about it. I don’t believe that at all. They are still alive, can be interviewed, and can sell their story for lots of money. It’s much more reasonable that they did not want to die and didn’t feel that their work description required them to die on the post.

    I think Diana is right — it’s not a normal rescue situation. It’s absolutely abnormal. They might even be instructed to evacuate when the situation is so grave that they risk their lives — and to wait for emergency services to declare the place safe enough before they go in. Be that as it may, experiencing the situation, I think it’s quite reasonable that they evacuated. They saw awful things that aren’t exactly the kind of things you deal with normally as an elevator repairman. Sure, you help people who are stuck in elevators. Not often when there’s a passenger plane lodged in the building, there’s fire, people are jumping from windows, everything is complete chaos and nobody can assess the safety situation properly.

    The firefighters went in, but in retrospect, they shouldn’t have.

  211. (The link at the beginning was about Meyer, and had nothing to do with the rest of my comment… which reverted back to the non-anthro conspiracy stuff. But maybe that’s been sufficiently covered by now…)

  212. Anyway, I think I’ll leave the topic of 9/11 for now.

    If anyone’s interested, there aren’t only conspiracy sites out there, but also sites that commit themselves to debunking various conspiracy claims. Here’s one: http://www.debunking911.com/index.html

    There are also books. (E g: http://www.amazon.com/Debunking-11-Myths-Conspiracy-Theories/dp/158816635X)

    (Also, hm… http://southerncrossreview.org/41/9-11.htm)

  213. “Find out if they are a legitimate company, if they had been around for years before this. ”

    The company was called ACE – the Ace of spades is their logo (this is well known as the death card – would you use that as YOUR logo?). Check out their website – http://aceelevatorcompany.com/ even TODAY, the web pages are unfinished. The elevators were built OTIS, which is the company you’re looking for. It is an VERY old, VERY reputable company. ACE, not so much.

  214. “Can those people be found and interviewed? Haven’t the truthers tried this?”
    You should probably google witnesses of 911 who have died mysteriously.
    I’m taking Alicia’s hint and dropping this topic. I’m more than happy to discuss it by email.

  215. Funny, this is a discussion about Weleda and Wala paying journalists, but a lot of reactions (probably by anthroposophists) are like ‘yes but 9/11 was a conspiracy’. I personally believe it was Ahriman who did it ;)

  216. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Pete, I really like your critical approach of 9/11, Alicia and Diana, I think you are pretty naive in your thinking towards authorities, government and western mainstream media. This naiveté you have in common with many “skeptics” (although they are supposed to be critical) and many anthroposophists. Western mainstream media have the tendency to give an one-sided picture of events , a picture that’s is not too much critical on the government policy. I therefore consult other sources to get a more complete picture.
    I watch Russia Today: RT.com
    I consult independent journalists /publicists :
    Webster Tarpley: http://tarpley.net/
    Thierry Meyssan: http://www.voltairenet.org/_Thierry-Meyssan_?lang=en
    F. William Engdahl: http://www.engdahl.oilgeopolitics.net/
    Professor Michel Chossudovsky/ global research : http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home
    Try it out now in the Syrian case.
    See also what the follow up of 9/11 has done to: cavil rights in America and Europe, and to the geo-political situation (wars , creating chaos) in the far and middle east.

  217. Sorry, Jan. I think it’s the conspiracy perspective that is naive. Bringing up detail after detail to create adventure where there is none — where there is nothing but stupidity and ignorance and incompetence (because, believe me or not, those things I consider authorities, politicians and media fully capable of!).

  218. Floris — I like Ahriman, he’s a good guy, deep down. I think it’s more likely to be that stuck up, impulsive Christ figure.

  219. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Floris,
    As I said before I am not responsible for what other people do in the name of anthroposophy. I am responsible for my own words and deeds so are other people, and so are you.
    My position on the Holocaust: I read many books on it. e.g. “J.Presser: Ondergang, De vervolging en verdelging van het Nederlandse Jodendom 1940-1945″., about the persecution and destruction of Jews in the Netherlands. I saw many documentaries , e.g. the documentary “Shoah” by Claude Lanzmann, I read many personal horrifying stories of persecuted Jews. I wanted to know it all. I have no grounds to doubt all I read and saw. My feelings are corresponding with the famous last strophe of a poem of Leo Vroman called Vrede (Peace).

    Kom vanavond met verhalen
    hoe de oorlog is verdwenen,
    en herhaal ze honderd malen:
    alle malen zal ik wenen.

    Come tonight with tales
    how the war has disappeared
    repeat them a hundred times
    each time I will weep.

    Nevertheless : Do people have the right to deny the Holocaust and express their views ?
    They have, but they will not find me on their side.

    You came here on a moment I declared the game is over . The game “Rudolf Steiner is a racist” is over. My argumentation is the following: Steiner has NOT developed his general theory about races with the intention to dominate or to exploit, or has forged his theory to justify an act of aggression or to legitimate a relation of domination from which one would expect to profit.
    This intention is a condition to speak of racism in according to the theory and definition of Albert

    Memmi . which in a way is a leading definition.
    Please note that I am referring here to Steiners

  220. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    The last sentence of my comment above did not come through. Here it is:

    “Please note that I am referring here to Steiners “theory” as a whole, not about loose standing, separate quotations.”

  221. Jan, nobody has said holocaust deniers don’t have the right to express themselves. At least not I. But as you note, the rest of us (incl anthroposophists!) don’t have to buy that crap.

    As for the duscussion about racism in Steiner’s work — consider forgetting that it’s going to be over before anthroposophists take it seriously and stop pushing it aside!

  222. Best I can tell (I read only English), Jan’s explanation for his involvement with the web site that supports Holocaust denial is that “it was a long time ago.” I don’t find that a sufficient explanation. I’d like to see just what they published when, and the actual dates of his tenure there. Floris says he was an editor; Jan says he basically just published one article there and doesn’t give dates. That’s a pretty big discrepancy. An editor of a journal or web site isn’t a person who once published an article there. An editor has an official connection to whatever the journal publishes; he or she TAKES RESPONSIBILITY for the content in some fashion.

    How about some facts here.

    Following up such a wholly unimpressive explanation with a plea about the self-expression rights of Holocaust deniers really looks bad.

    Jan, re: 9/11, if you think I’m uncritical of my own government, then I don’t think you read what I wrote. Basically I feel my government is guilty of greater crimes than the 9/11 “truthers” posit; they’re talking about child’s play. The conspiracy theories are a distraction from the horrors of what actually happened. Roughly three thousand people died in the 9/11 attacks; our government followed that up with a war on Iraq, sold to the American people with blatant lies about “weapons of mass destruction” that did not exist, and at least a hundred thousand Iraqis died. (Thanks to Alicia for the debunking web sites; I’ll pipe down on this topic now.)

  223. Whoops – I am anonymous (Diana). Not sure why that happened.

  224. Jan also worries about civil rights; anthroposophy and “civil rights” is a topic I’d find hard to wrap my mind around. What do anthroposophists think about “civil rights”?

  225. “Pete, I really like your critical approach of 9/11.”
    Thank Waldorf for that. I realized during my Waldorf experience that people can lie through their teeth and will go to great lengths to cover up those lies. I came face to face with the type of people who have no regard for the cost in human lives, they just want to push their agenda. If people can harm innocent people in the name of Anthroposophy, then they can do it for other ideas too.

    “Steiner has NOT developed his general theory about races with the intention to dominate or to exploit”
    Seriously, Jan, how do you claim to know Steiner’s intentions? Steiner’s stated *intention* was to develop a higher society of Anthroposophists in which the lower Anthroposophists knew one part of the overall plan and the higher levels knew more of the plan (intention). He published materials for the “first class” – and there were to be at least three classes. He never finished revealing the “true” intention of Anthroposophy to his disciples… all we have to go by is what he wrote up until the time of his death… and that material was extremely racist! Why? Because Steiner never ever felt equality among all races – neither physical or spiritual.

  226. “Intentions” have nothing to do with anything, Jan, that’s a childish argument. I doubt any critic disputes that Steiner was a nice man who meant no harm to anyone. We can easily argue the contrary – he believed every individual was of equal worth, spiritually, and his theories and his methods offer a means for every individual, regardless of race, skin color, etc., to progress spiritually.

    It’s just that he believed progressing spiritually would, um, lighten your skin color, over several lifetimes. That’s racist. Get it? Doesn’t mean he wasn’t a real nice dude. If you had darker skin, he thought he could help you overcome that little problem.

    All the talk of Memmi’s “requirement” that a racist be someone who aims to “dominate” etc. is completely ridiculous and not on point.

  227. ” I like Ahriman, he’s a good guy, deep down.”

    There’s a lot to be said about this. Just because Steiner was against materialism and intellectualism doesn’t mean it is a bad thing.

  228. My final word on 9/11: I was just talking this morning to a neighbor and good friend who is a (highly decorated) Philadelphia firefighter. He fought the Meridian fire in 1991. He pointed out to me the obvious: the Philadelphia fire department FOUGHT that fire, HARD. Which might have something to do with why the building did not collapse!

  229. ‘All the talk of Memmi’s “requirement” that a racist be someone who aims to “dominate” etc. is completely ridiculous and not on point.’

    Agreed. And as long as Jan et alia keep using arguing from that position, using that definition to ‘exonerate’ Steiner, the discussion is not over. It simply can’t be. It is to ignore the racial hierarchy that is there — without desire to dominate, harm, persecute…

    And, as I’ve said before many times, this is all quite ridiculous. An anthroposophy that dealt with these things honestly and with integrity would not have these problems anthroposophy currently has. (Or, actually, although it is a problem for anthroposophy, it becomes a more tangible problem for waldorf education, since waldorf education wants to attract non-anthroposophist families too.)

    ‘Floris says he was an editor; Jan says he basically just published one article there and doesn’t give dates. That’s a pretty big discrepancy.

    I wondered about that too. I thought I had perhaps misunderstood something and had had too litle time to go back in the thread to take a second look.

  230. “the Philadelphia fire department FOUGHT that fire, HARD. Which might have something to do with why the building did not collapse!”

    In reality, it doesn’t. The only factors we need to consider is how long and how hot the fire burned and how that affects the steel structure. Not to diminish the efforts of the fire-fighters… they absolutely did a fantastic job on the Meridian fire… but how “hard” they fought the fire has nothing to do with the science. And that can be my last word on the topic too…

  231. Well it seems to me a fire that is actively fought generally wouldn’t burn as long and as hot as one that isn’t fought. I wasn’t trying to say their good intentions made a difference :)

  232. I suppose if conditions are exactly the same (the fire, the building, etc), fighting the fire actively should make the fire not burn as long and as hot as if the fire weren’t fought. That would be the point of having firefighters at all. But… if the firefighters are in on a conspiracy… no, sorry…

  233. Why are we talking “could”, “should”, “would” and “wouldn’t” here? We have the facts.

    http://commandsafety.com/2009/10/remembering-the-one-meridian-plaza-high-rise-fire/

    “A fire on the 22nd floor of the 38-story Meridian Bank Building, also known as One Meridian Plaza, was reported to the Philadelphia Fire Department on February 23, 1991 at approximately 2040 hours and burned for more than 19 hours.”

    “It was one of the largest high-rise office building fire in modern American history –completely consuming eight floors of the building –and was controlled only when it reached a floor that was protected by automatic sprinklers.”

    Here’s the FEMA report: http://www.usfa.fema.gov/downloads/pdf/publications/tr-049.pdf
    p2.
    “Origin and Cause: The fire started in a vacant 22nd floor office in a pile of linseed oil-soaked rags left by a contractor.”

    “Structural Failures: Fire-resistance rated construction features, particularly floor-ceiling assemblies and shaft enclosures (including stair shafts), failed when exposed to continuous fire of unusual intensity and duration.”

    (Note the words – “unusual intensity”?)

    Read the details in “Initial Attack” “Fire Development” and “Water Supply Problems” on p9.

    p13 “After the fire, there was evident significant structural damage to horizontal steel members and floor sections on most of the fire damaged floors. Beams and girders sagged and twisted–some as much as three feet–under severe fire exposures, and fissures developed in the reinforced concrete floor assemblies in many places. Despite this extraordinary exposure, the columns continued to support their loads without obvious damage.”

    p23/24 ” In this fire, the steel columns retained their structural integrity and held their loads. Experience in 24 U.S. Fire Administration/Technical Report Series this and similar highrise fires suggest that columns are the least vulnerable structural members, due to their mass and relatively short height between restraints (floor to floor). Major damage has occurred to horizontal members, without compromising the vertical supports.

    I’ll summarize… Meridian plaza – Big fire, very hot (firefighting notwithstanding), burned 19 hours without compromising the structural integrity of the building. Twin towers – big fires, very hot, burned less than two hours yet BOTH buildings (one after only an hour)… collapsed.

  234. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Alicia, I was in the editorial office of Driegonaal from mid 1980’s till at the latest 1988, when I moved to Germany. I want to mention here that both gentlemen, Floris Schreve and Ramon de Jonghe have expressed themselves positively about Driegonaal not so long ago. Ramon de Jonghe is still quotating from it with approval.
    Of course the Memmi definition is to the point. But not so convenient for critics and adversaries.
    Of course there are more theories and definitions in which INTENTION plays a crucial role (see below)
    But there is more. There are also reputations at stake now. E.g the reputation of Peter Staudenmaier.
    He said on WC yahoo groups that no anthroposophist has come up with a definition of racism. This is, as all participants of this blog know, untrue. We all know that I have been coming up with Memmis definition for years now. Then the story was launched Peter Staudenmaier tipped me about Memmi. Untrue again , because I first named Memmi to HIM on February 24, 2010 in a reaction on his article “Anthroposophy and Ecofacism” .
    Still there is more. Also in the Van Baarda report there is definition of racism. The definition of the Van Baarda commission:
    “Uitingen die voortkomen uit een gevoel van superioriteit van het eigen ras ten opzichte van andere rassen, met OOGMERK personen of groepen te beledigen of achter te stellen wegens ras” (Van Baarda et.al. Antroposofie en het vraagstuk van de rassen, Zeist, 2000, page 607)
    Expressions originating from a feeling of superiority of the own race in relation to other races with the INTENTION to offend persons or groups or to disadvantage them.
    The commission is referring to
    John L. Hodge, Donal K. Struckmann & Lynn Dorland Trost, Cultural basis for racism and group aggression, Berkeley 1975
    When you are a main critic of Steiner saying he is a racist you should have known that in the year 2000 anthroposophists came with a definition of racism.

  235. I’d like to point something out briefly: I have not said ‘steiner is a racist’, I said — ok, I’m not going back to look up the exact words, but I’ve said similar things on many, many occasions — that Steiner’s work contains elements/teachings that are racist.

    I know you’re talking about Peter, though, and perhaps you could provide a link so that we can see, clearly, that he says Steiner ‘is a racist’, which you claim. Usually, his argument is a bit more nuanced than that.

    I’d also like to see a link for this:

    ‘He said on WC yahoo groups that no anthroposophist has come up with a definition of racism.’

    If he has said this, I’d really like to see a link, because I without it, I actually don’t believe it. (There’s another explanation: you misunderstood something he said.)

    He has said that you have misunderstood Memmi’s definition of racism. But that’s another story, however it’s a story that indicates he’s familiar with you, an anthroposophist, using a definition of racism. A far as I can remember, though this I remember vaguely, he’s also criticized the Dutch commission for using a definition of racism that exclude such statements that are clearly racist. (Was it not the Dutch commission that entirely excluded the root race theory from their investigation?)

    ‘Of course the Memmi definition is to the point. But not so convenient for critics and adversaries.’

    This is absurd, Jan. Regardless of the Memmi definition — which, for all I know, certain things indicating this, you may have misunderstood — you’re suggesting that a teaching that contains ideas about a hierarchy of races, one more developed than the other, is not racist if there’s no intention to persecute, suppress, treat in a negative way, offend, disadvantage, etc, those races that are less developed. You’re saying that such a theory — devoid of an element of intended action in the real world — is not racist. That’s just bonkers. Though, obviously, such a definition is convenient — for some anthroposophists who don’t want to acknowledge that Steiner said some (racist) things about races.

    Thanks for the info on the journal and your involvement. What you’re saying is, I take it, that during the time you were involved, no holocaust denial was published? (Obviously, I have no access to the journal and can’t verify anything.)

    I find it completely unsurprising that someone would appreciate and quote from a journal — I’ve read good articles and bad articles in anthroposophical journals, so what? One can still be critical of an editor that allows the bad articles to be published, too, especially if these articles contain such material as holocaust denial (again, I have not read this journal, and am not familiar with it).

  236. I am not able to conclude what these dates mean, since I’m unable to read any of this in the original languages. I’d think you’d be more interested in spelling it out to clear up any possible lingering doubts. I do not know what the magazine published between “the mid-80′s” and “at the latest” 1988, but fuzziness around dates is certainly not helping your argument.

    To then invoke “Peter Staudenmaier’s reputation” – apparently you have no idea how ridiculous you appear this way. You need to make real arguments, not childish ones. There’s no “there” there.

  237. “But there is more. There are also reputations at stake now. E.g the reputation of Peter Staudenmaier.”

    Yes, Steiner’s reputation be damned, it’s Peter Staudenmaier’s reputation that’s important here… LMAO!

    “He said on WC yahoo groups that no anthroposophist has come up with a definition of racism. This is, as all participants of this blog know, untrue.”

    I, too, suspect it’s untrue. Do you have a link to where he said this?

    “When you are a main critic of Steiner saying he is a racist you should have known that in the year 2000 anthroposophists came with a definition of racism.”

    Why is that important? Coming up with a definition of racism sounds EXACTLY like what Anthroposophists do REGULARLY… a definition that they feel avoids Steiner’s racism. Memmis doesn’t, unfortunately, but they haven’t stopped there have they? They’ve come up with all types of statements from various Anthroposophical institutions denying what they imagine people must be objecting to… since they haven’t a clue what racism is. They think people are talking about racial discrimination in accepting children into their schools – and release statements saying they don’t discriminate based on race… (we all know that!).

    Jan, it doesn’t matter AT ALL how racism is defined. What matters is what Waldorf institutions TEACH! And, they have been caught teaching very strange things as science! Steiner’s ideas about the races indeed proffer an “advantage” for whites and a disadvantage for non-whites… and that’s what they are teaching when they say one race is more “evolved” than other races. It advances one race and discriminates against the others. Even if we could take the “racist” label off Steiner – it wouldnt change ONE BIT what Waldorf teachers are teaching our kids. And THAT is what’s important! They don’t understand that Steiner’s ideas were racist – but they NEED to!

  238. I give Jan the benefit of the doubt that he misunderstood something Peter said, with the language barrier. Peter has very often said to individual anthroposophists in a debate that they have not offered a definition of racism. Perhaps Jan read a particular exchange like this on the critics list or some other blog, and misunderstood Peter to be talking about anthroposophists in general. Obviously, Peter would not claim that anthroposophists in general never offer definitions of racism. How could he have had hundreds of exchanges with anthroposophists about the definition of racism if the anthroposophists never offer one?

    What Peter has said many times is that anthroposophists rarely offer a *meaningful* definition of racism. They do as Jan does, pick one that is inadequate on the face of it, because it (in their minds) helps wipe some of the egg off the face of their hero Rudolf Steiner. Per Jan’s preferred definition, racists are people who aim to exterminate or persecute other races. A fifth grader could explain to you that this is not the definition of racism. Racism is ranking or evaluation of other people according to racial characteristics (whether real or imaginary characteristics).

    Peter has very recently published an explanation of Jan’s misunderstanding of Memmi. I’ll go find it.

  239. “Yes, Steiner’s reputation be damned, it’s Peter Staudenmaier’s reputation that’s important here… LMAO!”

    Yes, that was my reaction to – nice dodge! Jan, do you expect we’re going to get upset if you tell us Peter Staudenmaier’s reputation is in danger? Really – these arguments, simply, you make a fool of yourself.

  240. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/24802

    According to Peter, Jan misunderstands five decades of Memmi’s work.

    Copy/pasting the relevant parts:

    ‘Citing first his study “Racism” … “Memmi does not argue that a “mechanism of
    oppression” is built in to all forms of racism. He does not hold that racism and
    oppression are identical, or that racism is a form of oppression. Instead he
    points out that “racism is one of the best justifications of and symbols for
    oppression.” (179) Memmi argues, quite accurately, that there is an “organic
    connection between racism and oppression.” (95) He does not argue that they are
    the same thing. He explains that racism “varies subtly, emerging differently
    from one social and historical context to another, from one form of oppression
    to another.” (179)

    This distinction is crucial. It describes, in Memmi’s terms, the difference
    between racism as a body of beliefs about race and the “function of racism” as a
    legitimation and justification of social inequality and oppression. Mixing up
    the phenomenon itself with its function means completely misunderstanding
    Memmi’s analysis. For Memmi, “racism is a cultural discourse” (112), and indeed
    the opening section of the book Racism is titled “The Discourse of the Racist.”

    Memmi’s conception of racism is significantly broader, not narrower, than the
    ones used by many other scholars. He thinks the term applies not just to
    racially defined groups but to “the condition of the proletarian worker, the
    servant, and so on.” (179) Other scholars criticized his usage for being too
    broad already in the 1960s and 1970s. The central chapter “Definition” (91-121)
    provides Memmi’s own recounting of the history of his various definitions of
    ‘racism’ and their development over the years, from the 1950s to the 1990s. (He
    also has some perceptive critical remarks on what he calls the “sentimental
    anti-racist” position.)

    His 1968 essay “An Attempt at a Definition” offers the following: “Racism is the
    generalized and final assigning of values to real or imaginary differences, to
    the accuser’s benefit and at his victim’s expense, in order to justify the
    former’s own privileges or aggression.” (169) This definition plainly fits
    Steiner’s racial teachings. Memmi examines “racism as a doctrine” at length,
    specifically mentioning the “civilizing mission” and White Man’s Burden ideology
    as examples (185).
    Memmi’s 1972 essay “What is Racism?” begins by characterizing racism as “a
    collection of opinions that are, in and of themselves, quite incoherent.” (183)
    He then offers the following summary: “racism is a generalizing definition and
    valuation of biological differences, whether real or imaginary, to the
    advantage of the one defining and deploying them, and to the detriment of the
    one subjected to that act of definition, to the end of justifying (social or
    physical) hostility and assault.” (184) He notes as an example the myth of “the
    foreigner corrupting the national soul” (177), a common element in
    anthroposophist race theory.

    Racism as a doctrine, for Memmi, conjoins claims about “biological difference”
    with claims about “psychological, social, cultural, and spiritual superiority.”
    (5) These ideas, in turn, serve to legitimize various forms of “dominance and
    privilege” for the supposedly superior groups. This is exactly what Steiner’s
    racial teachings do.” ‘

    In other words, Jan, you’re mixing up Memmi’s definition of racism with his explanation of its function.

    It is hard to understand how anyone might read Steiner on the varying qualities of different races and not grasp that his views might be used “to justify (social or physical) hostility and assault.” The racist theorist does not have to add “Therefore, let’s go out and kill them” to the end of every paragraph in order to be racist.

  241. Alicia:

    “What you’re saying is, I take it, that during the time you were involved, no holocaust denial was published? ”

    Yes, we have to “take it” that this is what he’s saying, since he declines so far to state it so.

    I’m no expert on holocaust denial, but I don’t think it had really heated up in the mid-1980s the way it did a few years later. So the claim he’s making for his own uninvolvement is quite plausible – it would just be better to make the claim than to keep sort of hinting it.

    Better still would be links to the publication from that era, if any of it is available online. Maybe it’s not.

    If I wanted to show I was not involved with a publication associated with holocaust denial, I’d be popping up links or scanned documents showing my name on the masthead and clearly showing the table of contents for the issues I edited, then links and/or thorough explanations of the content of those articles.

    Just a suggestion. To have been involved with a publication that later deteriorated into holocaust denial would be pretty upsetting to me. I’d take all possible steps to clarify that I left before this happened, and/or to show that I went on record as opposed to the development when it happened. I would certainly not be saying I left “at the latest” 1988. Good grief – if you edited the publication, don’t you have copies of it lying around somewhere?

  242. Thank you, Diana. That’s a very useful link/post, and explains quite clearly why Jan is mistaken about the very definition he himself wants to use. (Might indeed be easier if you just call your definition of racism ‘Jan’s definition’ rather than to refer to Memmi, Jan.)

  243. I assumed the 80s stuff was not online anyway. It’s long ago and… Well, it’s quite plausible that there was no holocaust denial in the journal in those years. If I were Jan, I would have at least wanted to put it very clearly: when I was involved, we didn’t publish anything like what’s later been published, and I don’t agree with the direction the publication has taken since. For this purpose, that would be enough. But it was a bit obscure, to say the least, which is why I asked for the clarification.

  244. August 3: “it is a long time ago that I was involved in Driegonaal other than writing an article.”

    August 5: “I was in the editorial office of Driegonaal from mid 1980’s till at the latest 1988″

    Ok. So for an undefined period that sounds like it was 2 or 3 years, depending on how you define “mid” 1980s, you were “in the editorial office” playing some undefined role.

    LATER, if I’m understanding this correctly, you wrote an article that they published, though at that time you were no longer an editor of the publication. Could you point us to that article?

  245. “In other words, Jan, you’re mixing up Memmi’s definition of racism with his explanation of its function.”

    In other words… “game over”…

  246. “Well, it’s quite plausible that there was no holocaust denial in the journal in those years.”

    I agree, it’s entirely plausible – really I don’t doubt him. I just remain fascinated by the seemingly irresistible urge to obfuscate and to shirk clarity and resolution almost on principle. It is just a fascinating aspect of dealing with anthroposophists.

    I go back to the hypothesis that I stated upthread – that it’s not that most anthroposophists are in sympathy with holocaust denial (a small, troubling subset IS in sympathy, but the evidence would suggest Jan is NOT) – the problem is rather that the others cannot bring themselves to speak clearly about the subject. My theory is, as I stated above, they just keep hoping and hoping that speaking vaguely, and not making a whole lot of sense, will end the discussion – that the questioners will go away if anthroposophists refuse to dialogue.

    That is why I push and push. I think it’s very important to keep a focus on it, to hold their feet to the fire until they are forced – not Jan as an individual per se, but anthroposophy overall – to deal with it. Your blog is apparently read by a LOT of people, including many anthroposophists. They need to somehow grasp that the questions aren’t going away. Faced with “Weren’t you once an editor of this publication that is now pushing holocaust denial?” a reassuring response would consist of accurate names, dates, places and times, links, scans, etc. – whatever it takes. Not a seeming preference to go take a nap now, rather than have such a discussion.

  247. Agreed. One most fascinating fascinating aspect is how those who are not sympathetic to that stuff don’t want to distance themselves from it, other than in obscure ways that leave more questions than answers. For example, if there’s holocaust denial in the journal nowadays (at the time being, I have to take those who have read it on the word), what do anthroposophists think about that today?

  248. They apparently don’t think much about it at all, judging from their public utterances. (Granted: I only read what is written in English, and at least according to Peter S., this situation is changing more rapidly in the German-speaking world or anthroposophy.)

    I think they don’t think much about it because they don’t want to have discussions with outsiders about the material in Steiner that attracts holocaust deniers. They may interpret the material differently, but discussing it does not bring positive attention to anthroposophy. Much better to publish photos of children dancing around Maypoles.

  249. Better yet, children of different skin colours!

  250. According tho his own words on the weblog ‘Antroposofie in de pers’ (see link below) Jan Luiten left the Dutch Anthroposophical Society in 1996, because he didn’t agree with the AViN advertising Steiner could have said things which could be defined as racist.

    In a 1996 edition of ‘Driegonaal: tijdschrift voor sociale driegeleding’ there were many anthroposophists who reacted furious against the criticism on Steiner. Besides Jan Luiten there were: Fred Beekers, Mark Bisschot, Mouringh Boeke, Dieter Brüll, John Hogervorst, Stephan Geuljans, Arnold Sandhaus en Liesbeth Takken.

    Interesting quote of Jan on Antroposofie in de pers’: ”The mission now is: fight Peter Staundenmeier where he is wrong, and meanwhile, eventual with his own material, start in own ranks with the painfull proces to reveal the dark sides of the past.’

    http://antroposofieindepers.blogspot.be/2010/09/antisemitisme.html?showComment=1286209334305#c3337999665583895884

    Staundenmeier?

  251. I looked at the driegonaal site, and from what I could tell, they have an archive, but I couldn’t tell how far back it goes, as it is organized by topic rather than by year or issue. And it didn’t seem possible to search it by author name. But I could be wrong since I can’t actually read it.

  252. I searched for the article, wondering what it was about (I can guess myself through some dutch, at least, but it’s a process that is neither quick or very exact…), but didn’t find it or even the title of it.

    Ramon — those are certainly some interesting quotes… Perhaps Jan wants to illuminate us as to what he meant. Whose ‘dark past’, what ‘dark past’ and how and why?

  253. I found the information about the 1996 article in Driegonaal on the above mentioned weblog ‘Antroposofie in de pers’, but cannot find the article neither.

    I find it strange that Jan doesn’t point out more clearifying what his ties with Driegonaal are. I certainly know he still wrote for them not so long ago. I’ll search the date asap.

  254. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Ramon, certainly I wrote for it not so long ago. I only wish I had the time I could write more for it. Indeed, we could not agree with the advertisement of the Dutch anthroposophical society in 1996. Personally, I saw and see it as treason towards Steiner. But, as said before, this incident is not standing alone. For me it formed the end station of a process.
    I think you or Floris or both of you have to correct the image of Driegonaal that is now created here. Otherwise people have to assume that the two of you see Driegonaal as a revisionist magazine. So you have to speak out yourselves about that point.
    Alicia, of course I will illuminate Ramons quotation, but it shouldn’t be new for you, because I wrote the same things here on this blog and on other blogs on which you are, or were , participating.
    Dieter Brüll always said ( and I agree with him) that there should be no secrecy about anthroposphists who collaborated with Nazi’s or sympathize with them. The names of those people should be revealed. This is what I meant with the dark side in Ramons quotation. Therefore I wasn’t very negative about Peter Staudenmaier at first. I have no problems with investigations from outside the anthroposophical movement. On the contrary I welcome it. However these investigations should be carried out honestly. So, indeed I will fight him, not in the least because he made bull shit (sorry for the expression) of the social threefolding ideas.
    I have to look up the article Ramon is referring to myself.

  255. Jan,

    Strange you ask me to do some pr for Driegonaal?

    I didn’t and don’t create any image of Driegonaal, positive nor negative.

    I’d like to remind you that the issue here is that a journalist was payed by anthroposophical companies to build up a negative image of critics of those companies.

    Which as I already said happens to other critics of anthroposophy too.

    Let’s make a deal, Jan. I’ll take a stand in the case of Driegonaal when you take a stand about how anthroposophists (and peers) smear critics. On my site there is an example of how anthroposophical officers (and peers) handle with critics. And let me know if you find this legitime too, ok?

  256. Legitimate sounds better than legitime, I think :-) (Dutch ‘legitiem’)

    My English is a little bit scrambled, like Roger Rawlings aready pointed out when he read my English text on steinerschools.

    But I suppose it still reads easier than Steiners ‘Occult Science’. :-)

  257. Jan:

    “Ramon, certainly I wrote for it not so long ago. I only wish I had the time I could write more for it.”

    Ok, so just to be clear, you are NOT trying to disassociate yourself from a publication that publishes holocaust denial. You only wish you had more time to write for it.

    Thanks for clearing that up. That explains why it seemed to me you were not trying awfully hard to disassociate yourself.

    I’m just curious why initially you appeared to be trying to distance yourself, “It was a long time ago”-style.

  258. I wrote upthread:

    “it’s not that most anthroposophists are in sympathy with holocaust denial (a small, troubling subset IS in sympathy, but the evidence would suggest Jan is NOT)”

    I’ll take that back. The evidence is leaning the other way now.

  259. I’m just keeping score for Jan here:
    Racism denial… Check
    Denial of Racism denial… Check
    Holocaust denial… Check
    Denial of Holocaust denial… Check

  260. I do not know why these things continue to shock me.
    It simply astounds me that there are humans who might think, Well, ok, my friends publish this journal, and they publish stuff that suggests the Holocaust didn’t actually happen – or should be “questioned.” Me, why I’ve looked at documentaries and what-not about the Holocaust, and it was so upsetting.

    Me?! Deny the Holocaust?! Why of course not.

    Hm – I think I’ll send my friends another manuscript for them to publish.

    Problem? What problem?

    Mind boggling.

    PLEASE Jan do not continue to insist you are not sympathetic to Holocaust denial.

    It makes everything else you might ever say about racism simply crap.

    And you want to “fight the dark side”? What darker side? Is there a darker side than this?

  261. Just to be clear – ‘cus I keep looking back to see if maybe I’ve misunderstood – Driegonaal, according to Ramon, published this:

    “a special booklet, published by Driegonaal, allowing Jos Verhulst arguing that the gas chambers of Auschwitz nevber existed, see here”

    The journal they publish is the publication Jan wishes he had more time to write for.

    Is there any chance any of this isn’t true?

  262. Here’s Jos Verhulst, batting back criticism of the “holocaust and gay lobbies”:

    http://www.brusselsjournal.com/node/748

  263. ‘Alicia, of course I will illuminate Ramons quotation, but it shouldn’t be new for you, because I wrote the same things here on this blog and on other blogs on which you are, or were , participating.’

    Thanks for clarifying that. I think I didn’t understand what you meant — it wasn’t obvious to me that you were talking about the movement’s past. You’re explanation makes little sense though, or perhaps, again, I’m not understanding it — your ‘problem’ with Peter is not only that he somehow misrepresented, in your view, the social threefolding movement. We’ve been talking about the racist statements to be found in Steiner’s work, and they’re there regardless of social threefolding. It seems to be a separate issue. I’m glad you don’t object to investigating past actions of anthroposophists though. If what’s been said here about that journal and holocaust denial is true, perhaps there’s even more evidence this work has to continue into the present.

    As for the rest, I’d like to echo Diana’s questions.

  264. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Alicia, I don’t think Diana put any questions. It seems the case is clear for her, and I am convicted The action of Floris Schreve to attack me personally and in a way neutralize me seems to succeed.
    Wisely from his and Ramons point of view, they do not speak out about how they really think about Driegonaal. So therefore the direct question to both of them. Do you think Driegonaal is a revsionist magazine or not?
    Indeed Driegonaal is made by a highly respected friend of mine John Hogervorst. Answering the above question positively would also make clear how both gentlemen think about him.

    Think again, what is it exactly you want to reproach me (except for being unclear or making no sense)? Do you think I am a revisionist of someone who sympathizes with neo-nazi’s?

  265. I think the question here is highly relevant:

    http://zooey.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/weleda-and-wala-paying-for-journalism/#comment-17937

    Did Driegonaal publish a booklet of such a nature? If the answer is yes, what do you think of that?

  266. Jan:

    I have asked a number of questions that you did not answer. For instance, I asked you to point us to the article that you wrote for Driegonall some time recently. What is the title of the article, when was it published, and what was it about?

    I also asked you: Is there some chance that it is not true that 1) the publication you wrote for published a booklet by someone claiming the gas chambers at Auschwitz did not exist and 2) that the group that published this is the same group that you now wish you had more time to write for?

    It does seem fairly clear; I ask for confirmation because I don’t read this language and must assume it is possible there is a misunderstanding. I see thus far no desire on your part to clear this up. You can’t be too surprised if I have drawn some conclusions. Can you refute them?

    Your question to Alicia: “Do you think I am a revisionist of someone who sympathizes with neo-nazi’s?”

    My answer to that is that is what the evidence suggests at this point. Can you clear this up by answering the above questions? A reasonable person will feel that if you do not sympathize with holocaust revisionists you would not be interested in writing for their publications.

  267. One other note: Replying that holocaust deniers have a right to express themselves is not an answer to any of the above questions.

  268. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    My last article for Driegonaal? I am not very sure, but I think it was the article about Naomi Wolf. I wrote it first in German for the magazine Jedermensch , and later on request I have translated it for Driegonaal. Here you find the German version. The little article ( bookreview) is on page 7 “ Warnung vor dem Ende der Demokratie in den USA“.

    http://www.jedermensch.net/jedermensch649_web.pdf

    I have no links in Dutch
    Jedermensch is a magazine standing in the political left like myself. It was founded by the great Peter Schilinski. Who dedicated his life to the Social Threefolding ideas.

    I was clear enough about my standpoint about revisionists and Holocaust-deniers. That ought to be enough for you.

    Should an editor of a magazine have the same opinion as a person who writes an article in that magazine?
    Haven’t you called Driegonaal a decent magazine, Floris Schreve?

    Diana, are you thinking I am standing on trial here?
    Why do you think you have the right to act like a judge or a police officer to me?
    Do you think I have committed a crime? If this the case, then what exactly is this crime according to you?

  269. @ Diana

    It wasn’t me who mentioned the booklet of Jos verhulst, but Floris Schreve.

    @Alicia

    There is indeed such a booklet, as Floris already pointed out: ‘Or, in a special booklet, published by Driegonaal, allowing Jos Verhulst arguing that the gas chambers of Auschwitz nevber existed, see here http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jos-verhulst-in-het-verbod-op-denken-driegonaal-2001.pdf

    @Jan

    As far as I can judge Driegonaal is an anthroposophical magazine, promoting the social threefolding. The chief-editor, John Hogervorst, maeks the impression on me that he dares to criticize the anthroposophical society. When I saw that Driegonaal was embracing Holocaust deniers and offered them ‘freedom of speech’ I was quite astonished. And I’m curious how they think today. But regarding how you seem to refuse to distance yourself from those publications I guess nothing has changed.

  270. you wrote this earlier, Jan; ‘but it is a long time ago that I was involved in Driegonaal other than writing an article.’

    I thought that meant you had written only *one* article since you stopped being more directly involved with the magazine long ago. Thanks for the link. I’ll read it.

    you wrote to Diana:

    ‘Do you think I have committed a crime? If this the case, then what exactly is this crime according to you?’

    I don’t think Diana suggested that. It’s certainly not a crime to be involved in morally suspicious magazines (if that’s what it is).

    And you wrote to me:

    ‘I was clear enough about my standpoint about revisionists and Holocaust-deniers. That ought to be enough for you.’

    Surely, you can be or think whatever you like, and that is enough for me. The problem* is: I don’t even know if you think that Driegonaal published holocaust denial, much less how you feel about holocaust denial when it’s published by people you otherwise seem to respect. Do you agree with the claim that Driegonaal did indeed do this? What do you feel about that? (*Which is only a problem if it matters to you what I come away from this discussion thinking about your stance — whether or not I’ve misunderstood it.)

    I have seen you make an attempt to reject holocaust denial more generally. But I haven’t seen you say anything about holocaust denial in the journal in which you participate in. If you have, I have missed it, and would only be glad if you could point me to it.

  271. Jan, holocaust denial is abhorrent. This is not a small difference of opinion, or a question of left/right politics. Retreating to “Am I on trial?” is pathetic – cowardly. I have no power over you whatsoever, so please do not whimper that I am abusing you somehow. You absolutely have every right to express your opinions, no matter how filthy I find them. On the contrary – I am urging you to express them clearly, not dodge and retreat and obfuscate when your associations are pointed out.

    “Should an editor of a magazine have the same opinion as a person who writes an article in that magazine?”

    Not necessarily. But most people would realize that sending their work to a magazine promoting holocause denial was utterly despicable, unless they were actually sympathetic to holocaust denial themselves. That is clear now.

  272. Diana, ah, yes, that was the booklet.

    Now — obviously, it’s quite difficult to read it — I wonder if Jan agrees that article is of such a nature, i e, that it contains holocaust denial.

  273. Ramon, sorry for the misattribution.

  274. I have had to trust, not reading the language, that it is as Floris stated, it contains an assertion that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. I do believe if this were an error, or some kind of mix-up, Jan would be at pains to set it straight. So I have concluded there is no error.

  275. ‘I have had to trust, not reading the language, that it is as Floris stated, it contains an assertion that there were no gas chambers at Auschwitz. I do believe if this were an error, or some kind of mix-up, Jan would be at pains to set it straight. So I have concluded there is no error.’

    That is what I assume to. But I’m still fishing for an answer!

  276. Alicia to Jan – “I have seen you make an attempt to reject holocaust denial more generally.”

    I’m not sure we’ve seen that, at least in this thread. Perhaps Jan has written less equivocal responses to this question elsewhere? His response here reminded me a bit of Steve Hale’s on the critics list – when he was pressed to answer whether he believed the Holocaust happened, he spoke generally of being upset at reading/hearing about the Holocaust. I’m getting the idea that it’s not unusual for Holocaust deniers to start by talking about how upsetting accounts of the Holocaust are. This is as if to show they are human, normal, etc., so if you talk about terrible crimes they get upset, just like anyone. This then leads into the mild-sounding “right to question a historical matter” or “right to have a different opinion” etc.

    He does state he “has no grounds to doubt” what he read or saw regarding the Holocaust. That’s weasel wording; it could suggest he hasn’t seen evidence himself to suggest it happened or didn’t happen. (In other words, he personally has no grounds to doubt, but maybe others do.) I’m not feeling much more “benefit of the doubt” is called for. If you recall, with Steve Hale, we spent about 100 posts trying to get an answer to “Do you believe the Holocaust happened?” I learned my lesson there as to how holocaust denial rhetoric works.

  277. “That is what I assume to. But I’m still fishing for an answer!”

    Well good luck with that :)

  278. ‘I’m not sure we’ve seen that, at least in this thread. Perhaps Jan has written less equivocal responses to this question elsewhere?’

    No, I meant in this thread. But maybe it was I who interpreted what I thought he intended to say. It’s not exactly clear (though for some reason Jan seems to think so).

    ‘He does state he “has no grounds to doubt” what he read or saw regarding the Holocaust. That’s weasel wording …’

    I agree with that.

    ‘If you recall, with Steve Hale, we spent about 100 posts trying to get an answer to “Do you believe the Holocaust happened?” I learned my lesson there as to how holocaust denial rhetoric works.’

    Yes, I remember. Perhaps we should try that question here… Jan?

  279. Just wanted to emphasize again that Holocaust denial is not about left and right politics. There are plenty of people on the right, even the very far right, who do not deny the Holocaust, and there are also people on the left who do.

  280. And another thought: I’ve had many (hundreds of) conversations with anthroposophists who want to tell me they have no responsibility for anything “institutional” anthroposophy does, because they have no formal ties, aren’t members of the Anthroposophical Society, left some anthroposophical group due to differences of opinion, etc.

    It’s good to keep in mind that not always, but often, these people left the movement in some formal way because they are MORE radical or extreme in their views than “official” anthroposophy – not less.

  281. I guess Jan is holding back some answers because no anthroposophist judges another anthroposophist…in public.

    Or like Bryan Ferry sings

  282. Jan’s behavior here, and Steve Hales’ behavior on the Critics list isn’t unusual for Anthroposophists. Really, when’s the last time an Anthroposophist answered a tough question on ANY topic without throwing up a bunch of chaff? Does it really make a big difference if it’s Jan or Steve dodging a simple question about whether the holocaust happened or Dottie dodging her comments about “blacks overcoming their blood”? Whenever Anthros are discovered for what they truly believe, they will come up with anything to avoid answering. They have no connection to truth or honesty. If you ask a straight-forward question like, “Did YOU do this?” – their thought processes go something like – “which me is he talking about – I have an etheric body, an astral body, a physical body, a mental body, a spirit self, an I… certainly all of us didn’t do it… so the answer must be “NO”. “Did Steiner say this?” – Well, of course not, Steiner spoke in German… “Are you an Anthroposophist” – Heaven’s no – I’m behind on my dues…

  283. But it still feels strange to me that people who pretend to have so much more knowledge than ‘ordinary’ people, seem to have no voice at all when required: at the precious moments one has the chance to speak out of himself. Or out of the I, for our anthroposophical fellow human beings. :-)

    As for Jan, I answered his request about Driegonaal. My share of the proposed deal is done, although there is no agreement yet on Jans part. But anyway I’ll answer his questions. What’s the use of not answering questions? Hide something?

  284. Yes, I think “stick together” is the motto. This despite the fact that so many anthroposophists consider themselves renegades, nonconformists, etc. (most of them).

  285. They just conform to something else.

    Pete: ‘ If you ask a straight-forward question like, “Did YOU do this?” – their thought processes go something like – “which me is he talking about – I have an etheric body, an astral body, a physical body, a mental body, a spirit self, an I… certainly all of us didn’t do it… so the answer must be “NO”. “Did Steiner say this?” – Well, of course not, Steiner spoke in German… “Are you an Anthroposophist” – Heaven’s no – I’m behind on my dues…’

    LOL, so often true…

    ‘It’s good to keep in mind that not always, but often, these people left the movement in some formal way because they are MORE radical or extreme in their views than “official” anthroposophy – not less.’

    Good point. Not always. But it’s not unusual. I don’t know enough about Jan to say, but I have felt some of his perspectives have been rather extreme — for example in our discussion about schools, parental choices and the rights of children. Sometimes, I think, more extreme than I would expect from organized anthroposophists. In general.

  286. Talking with Jan is for me a typical experience talking to anthroposophists. Most of them profess to be left leaning liberals, and you feel like your head is going to explode when you learn some of what they actually believe.

  287. Considering how few Anthroposophists actually engage critics, one might think it’s unlikely that we’re getting a fair sampling. I think that may be correct. When I visit Anthro lists, where they speak more freely, I find stuff that’s even MORE out there than anything I’ve seen them engage critics about. Anthroposophy is the friend to he who has no friend… the religion of oddballs.

  288. Although to be fair, there’s a lot of doggone oddballs out there. Briefly I followed a Christian Science list, and nearly lost my will to live. It is exactly the same sanctimoniousness, spiritual superiority, pseudointellectual “debate,” in-fighting, backstabbing, petty quarreling, among eccentric individuals whom you have to suspect have some trouble getting along in the world in everyday life … yet an entirely new and different set of far-fetched beliefs, completely new spiritual dialect. (Too much, I decided; stick to the tried and true oddballs, don’t try to grok new ones.)

  289. Tom H-S · ·

    Pete says, about anthroposophists, ‘They have no connection to truth or honesty.’

    I think he can’t really know that. He ought to say, ‘In my experience…..they have no connection to truth or honesty’

    In my experience the anthroposophists who will engage in dialogue on the internet are actually not typical. Most anthros. are seriously focused on ‘the work’ and don’t have the energy or inclination to try and defend what they do in the public arena.

    Many of the people involved in trying to start ‘free schools’ are not anthroposophists at all. They are people who have fallen in love with what they think is an ideal of how education should or could be. No wonder they might appear to be dishonest as they are (rightly, in my view) being challenged by the critics to defend something surprisingly obscure which can take a long time to get to grips with.

  290. He ought to say, ‘In my experience…..they have no connection to truth or honesty’

    How about, in my experience, and in the experience of everyone I have communicated with and every review I’ve collected, and every article I’ve read?

  291. “Most anthros. are seriously focused on ‘the work’ and don’t have the energy or inclination to try and defend what they do in the public arena. ”

    More importantly, “the work” itself has no connection to truth or honesty. It’s completely made up.

  292. I have a sneaking suspicion that the anthroposophists that we sometimes come across on various completely bonkers mailing lists are not… well, Diana described it fairly well in the comment comparing such lists to a christian science list. That’s the kind of minds.

    Sure, some of these people are perhaps involved in some way in local groups or activities, perhaps even schools sometimes, but they are then surrounded by people who are, hopefully in most cases…, less nuts. I’m saying less. I can’t say my impression is that it’s always a healthy environment of sane people. But a 100% of them aren’t like, well, I won’t name names, but some people on these lists. I mean, some of these people on the lists appear to be borderline psychotic. Anthroposophy and psychosis is hardly the same thing, even if they occasionally ovarlap in the same person…

    Tom is right about the people who are involved in or go out defending the new free schools — I see the same thing with the defence of public funding of waldorf teacher training right now. There are people who know better and who don’t tell the whole truth. Then there are people — a lot more people, it seems — who know very little and who are good for various purposes. (‘Why, waldorf is not at all anthroposophical, we have never heard about it! We’re not at all indoctrinated, how could we be, we know zilch!’ — exaggerating somewhat, but you get the idea. And, as said, then there are those who do know better and who are cheered on by the ignorant bunch.)

    ‘In my experience the anthroposophists who will engage in dialogue on the internet are actually not typical. Most anthros. are seriously focused on ‘the work’ and don’t have the energy or inclination to try and defend what they do in the public arena.’

    It’s a bit of a pity though. Not just that they don’t defend what they do — that’s one thing — but that they don’t interact at all.

    But — *some* of these people who do focus on the work do sometimes express themselves, although not in discussions with ‘outsiders’ or people who are critical of what they do. They write not on crazy anthro mailing lists but in their own publications, or they hold lectures or they… well, they do lots of things that outsiders can get a glimpse of. And sometimes the reason they wouldn’t defend the stuff in the public arena is that, in the public arena, what they’re suggesting is indefensible.

  293. Alicia, says, ‘And sometimes the reason they wouldn’t defend the stuff in the public arena is that, in the public arena, what they’re suggesting is indefensible.’

    Yes, I would agree wholeheartedly. It seems that being an anthroposophist does not automatically make one into a more moral person.

    The phenomena of people wanting to disassociate themselves from the Anthroposophical society and/or from Steiner himself yet wanting to bathe in the glow of Steiner’s revelations and inspirations interests me.
    If it is true that Jan has left the society, then he has disassociated himself from the movement which Steiner deliberately attached his own karma to. jan cannot call himself any kind of anthroposophist.

    The sort of people Pete quotes who don’t ‘own up’, who are not honest and open about their relationship to Steiner and anthroposophy, are like Peter denying Christ.

    (And before anyone gets the wrong idea I am not comparing Rudi to Christ but some of Rudi’s followers to Peter.)

  294. “most anthros. are seriously focused on ‘the work’ and don’t have the energy or inclination to try and defend what they do in the public arena.

    Many of the people involved in trying to start ‘free schools’ are not anthroposophists at all.”

    Um … so what’s “the work” exactly? You make it sound like these serious anthros are on some terribly serious important mission. But the people actually starting the schools are … other people?

    I know, there’s other important “work,” but I suspect you’d make the same argument there, too. And you’d be right, because in any anthroposophical enterprise, MOST of the people doing the work aren’t anthroposophists. Just most of the people IN CHARGE.

    Of course, there’s lots of other mysterious “work,” I’m sure.

  295. Tom H-S · ·

    Diana says, ‘so what’s “the work” exactly?’

    A simple answer would be – working with all the meditative practices which Steiner thought were essential to being a waldorf teacher, a curative educator in Camphill, a eurythmist, a doctor, etc., plus he also thought serious study of anthroposophy was essential to any of the enterprises he initiated so that people would understand the essence of it and not work in a formulaic way – though the latter is a wide-spread failing. If you combine meditation and study with being a college member, sitting on various mandated groups, and doing all the other things that any good class teacher will have to do, this regularly results in working 55 to 60 hours a week. Then there isn’t time or energy left for dealing with complex communication issues. If you are a class-teacher for 24 children and genuinely follow the practice of forming an image of each one before you retire each night, how long does it take to do this? At 3 minutes per child that would be 1 hour and 12 minutes out of your evening.

    If you were a house-parent/co-ordinator in a Camphill setting, until recently in England there were no restrictions whatever on your working hours. The children/ teenagers/ adults in your care were like your family and if they needed permanent supervision/care then you had to provide it, either yourself or through the often young, often voluntary co-workers. Plus all the meditative work, case conferences, study (again), college work, committee work, festivals, normal wear and tear of life. It is interesting to read the autobiographies of children of Camphill workers. Some of them are deeply resentful of the way their parents sacrificed their lives for ‘the work’.

    ‘ MOST of the people doing the work aren’t anthroposophists. Just most of the people IN CHARGE.’
    What does that mean in an anarcho-syndicalist organisation run by a college which is not democratic and in which there is no central authority?

  296. Diana said: ‘…because in any anthroposophical enterprise, MOST of the people doing the work aren’t anthroposophists. Just most of the people IN CHARGE.’

    Tom H-S asked: ‘What does that mean in an anarcho-syndicalist organisation run by a college which is not democratic and in which there is no central authority?’

    I think this means that there are a few people who have an overview of this chaos and who always stay backstage.

    ‘Divide et impera’ like the Romans did. Divide and rule.

  297. Tom: ‘If it is true that Jan has left the society, then he has disassociated himself from the movement which Steiner deliberately attached his own karma to. jan cannot call himself any kind of anthroposophist.’

    I’m not sure that is always so. Not talking about Jan here, but I’m sure some people can have good reasons to disassociate themselves from the Society. And, hypothetically, can one say that Steiner’s karma is forever bound to the Society’s karma — no matter how the Society develops? Hypothetically, one could even ask if he would attach his karma to all future ‘versions’ of the Society, were he still around.

    One of the examples of work:
    ‘If you are a class-teacher for 24 children and genuinely follow the practice of forming an image of each one before you retire each night, how long does it take to do this? At 3 minutes per child that would be 1 hour and 12 minutes out of your evening.’

    I think this must be exhausting to a troubling degree. Even if this had (let’s even say measurable) effects, it’s simply an impossible burden.

  298. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Alicia,
    Of course I distance myself from any Holocaust denial and denial of the existence of the gaz-chambers. I find it horrifying.
    I haven’t read the articles in the booklet yet, but I will do that. I am not a reader of “the Bridge” the magazine mentioned by Floris Schreve.
    When was the first time I entered your blog here? We have had tough discussion, played it hard on each other ( and I don’t mean just me and you) directly and straight. This was and is OK to me.
    But I never thought that one of you would swallow the idea that I would sympathize with Holocaust deniers. Even the one who caused the fuz here. Floris Schreve, did not do that.
    I am shocked by the eagerness by witch Diana wants to crucify me.
    (Take care Diana you don’t have moral superiority here. I see your ideology of pseudoskepticism, as potentially totalitarian, because of its intolerance and not allowing other convictions the same rights of existence. All of the time of are JUDGING here. This says more about you than about me.)

  299. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Correction of the last sentences in the above comment. It should be:

    “All of the time you are JUDGING here. This says more about you than about me”.

  300. I’m sure she tolerates the existence of other convictions. She simply refuses to agree with them and refuses to leave them unchallenged. But I’m sure she has a better reply herself.

    Now, remember, Diana initially expressed the same view I did — seeing no reason to assume you were a holocaust denier.

    It was quite a long time ago, Jan, it must be years and I agree — it has been OK for me too. But — if I had swollowed — blindly — the idea that you sympathize with holocaust deniers, I wouldn’t have kept asking you about it. I don’t think this particular discussion is one we’ve had before, and, as you know, it’s quite difficult for me to judge what’s in the things you’ve written in dutch or the publications you’ve chosen to write in or to assess the kind of connection you have to these publications and other dutch anthroposophists (it’s much easier for Floris, and I’m sure he has a better picture of that side of things).

  301. Exactly, Alicia – I’m on record right in this thread saying I did NOT believe he was sympathetic to Holocaust denial. Nor did I “swallow blindly”; I asked several times, please sest this straight if it isn’t true – clear up the dates of your association with this journal etc. I begged, even after he kept saying I hadn’t actually asked him any questions!

    It wasn’t until he stated, regarding the publication which publishes Holocaust denial, that he wishes that he had more time to write for them, that I reversed my initial impression. Then it is no longer a matter of interpretation – it’s a matter of fact. You have stated your sympathy to this publication; I assume you wouldn’t wish to write for a publication you aren’t sympathetic to. You may not agree with everything they publish, but you are a sympathizer. (Look up the meaning of the term if you don’t get this.) You are on record.

    Whining about your right to your convictions and calling me a witch is just pathetic, Jan. No one questions your right to your convictions – it’s the convictions THEMSELVES we question. Nor do we wish to take away your right to free expression. On the contrary, in this very thread I beg you repeatedly to express yourself freely and clearly.

  302. I charitably assumed he meant to write ‘which’ and not ‘witch’ (Jan?). Interesting freudian slip if I’m right ;-) Otherwise it’s just vile.

  303. Tom H-S · ·

    Alicia says, ‘I’m not sure that is always so. Not talking about Jan here, but I’m sure some people can have good reasons to disassociate themselves from the Society. ‘

    Yes, people have good reasons to disassociate themselves from the society. I can imagine there would be circumstances where the only way to repudiate the actions of some members would be to say, effectively, ‘I cannot be a part of a society to which you belong’. But them you are separating yourself from something that Steiner thought was extremely important. A divorce is a divorce no matter that you may remain friends afterwards.

    The only requirement for being a member is that one accepts that it is ‘a good thing’ that there should be a School for Spiritual Science at the Goetheanum. One doesn’t have to believe anything or carry out any actions one doesn’t agree with. One may think the Vorstand stink and Steiner was a wonderful fantasist and still be a member. But by being a member one is implicitly supporting the idea that it is worth investigating the spiritual in a particular way even if the conclusion one comes to is that it is all pie in the sky.
    This is what Steiner attached his karma to, the idea that the spiritual can be investigated with the same objectivity that can be brought to investigating the sense world – not what anyone else DOES in the name of anthroposophy. It does not mean he is responsible for everything other people do.
    I don’t like the thought of Rudi himself going from incarnation to incarnation dragging along the outcomes of the lunatic ramblings and actions of some of the members. But I feel he will have some connection to everyone who has been a part of it – maybe helping them in a future life to be more humane and ethical in their behaviour.

    alicia says

  304. Tom H-S · ·

    ‘And, hypothetically, can one say that Steiner’s karma is forever bound to the Society’s karma — no matter how the Society develops? Hypothetically, one could even ask if he would attach his karma to all future ‘versions’ of the Society, were he still around.’

    Yes, I would agree. If the Society changed it’s aims and practices then it would no longer be what Steiner attached his karma to.

    One way to understand the society is to contrast it with religions. The catholic church believes it has a monopoly on truth and one can only develop spiritually with the church’s guidance. It believes that other people’s insights cannot be accepted unless approved according by the church’s hierarchy.

    Steiner was saying that anyone can arrive at an objective understanding and insight into the spiritual world, by their own efforts,if they develop themselves in a certain way. You could say the society exists as a constant reminder of that position he took.

    Nothing said by Steiner or by the Vorstand or anyone else has the status of dogma, whereas the catholic church, in common with most religions, has many dogmas

  305. To outsiders, Tom, the distinction between a movement like anthroposophy and the Catholic church (or other churches) is not nearly so apparent. You say the Catholic church insists they have a monopoly on truth, and that everyone must do things their way, spiritually. This is exactly what anthroposophy does, in the world. You may claim it’s not SUPPOSED to be that way – it’s not what Steiner would have wanted – but probably Jesus didn’t want things exactly the way the Catholic church wants them, either.

    The notion that anthroposophy is only a method and everyone can reach their own conclusions and behave as they see fit is simply false, if you observe anthroposophy in the world. It’s no use clinging to desperate ideals that have not come to fruition. The movement runs schools, farms, and clinics, sells produce and wine, treats patients, puts on artistic performances, and its leaders stand up and advise people on their spirituality. THAT’S anthroposophy.

  306. Tom H-S · ·

    I have never subscribed to the ‘anthroposophy as a method’ idea. But I agree there is a problem with ‘followers’ taking Steiner’s revelations in a formulaic way.

  307. Tom H-S · ·

    I don’t think Steiner’s way means everyone can reach their own conclusions either. What he said was that his revelation was objectively true and that if you follow a certain path of inner development you will be able to see that is is objectively true for yourself. Not quite the same as ‘reaching your own conclusions’. He went on to say, in effect, don’t believe what I say because I have said it – find out for yourself!. And others may find that his observations were wrong, that he misinterpreted what he saw the same way that genuine scientists misunderstood what they were seeing when they thought they had discovered phlogiston.

    in effect, don’t believe it because i

  308. Tom H-S · ·

    the message box is doing strange things again!!

  309. and a squirrel just barked at us and waved menacingly with its tail. Sitting in a tree. Personally I suspect the apocalypse is near.

    I hope the message box has reincarnated — in a more evolved version — before I see it on a computer in a short while…

  310. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Diana,
    You said: “you are a sympatizer” Of what exactly am I a sympatizer? Indeed I am a sympathizer of Driegonaal. I love this magazine.
    On my direct question to both Dutch speaking gentlemen whether they see Driegonaal as a revisionist magazine, we have got no answer. Conclusion Driegonaal is not a revisionist magazine (I know they never said it was, but one could get that impression). Driegonaal is a decent magazine.
    You haven’t read the booklet in question, so I think you can’t judge the content of it.
    I could not say what my opinion is about the articles in the booklet, because I haven’t read it all over myself. So where are we talking about?
    Diana, this is really is disgrace. The person who accuses has to prove. But you do not only accuse, .you judge , the verdict is ready: He is a symphatizer. I think you should not get away with this easily.
    People, readers of this blog, this is how it works: try to associate a person with Nazi’s in someway (he is a sympathizer) and you neutralize a person. Not based on facts, because Diana does not know the facts. Shame on you Diana.

  311. “The person who accuses has to prove.”

    If, in court, one is asked “Did you rob the bank” and he answers, “I didn’t know it was a bank” – that doesn’t make them innocent.

  312. I think Jan as a threefolder is advertising his argumentation skills.

    He says: ‘On my direct question to both Dutch speaking gentlemen whether they see Driegonaal as a revisionist magazine, we have got no answer. Conclusion Driegonaal is not a revisionist magazine (I know they never said it was, but one could get that impression). ‘

    The question that Driegonaal is or was a revisionistic magazine doesn’t depend on my or anyone elses judgement, but on the content of that magazine. Before I read the revisionistic content I didn’t think Driegonaal was revisionistic. As for now I don’t know, because I haven’t read more than ten editions, which is not enough to have a view on their immense work.

    This is the second time I explain this to Jan, but he still relays the topic towards Driegonaal instead of saying something about the revisionistic content. He hasn’ read it yet? Right. There is a link towards the articles.

    How come Jan is always acting like he is the one who doesn’t get the answers, meanwhile avoiding every direct question?

  313. “On my direct question to both Dutch speaking gentlemen whether they see Driegonaal as a revisionist magazine, we have got no answer. Conclusion Driegonaal is not a revisionist magazine”

    LOL!!!!!!

    If we didn’t laugh we’d cry. No sir, the “disgrace” and shame are on YOU. It’s pathetic, it’s sad. You don’t need me to “prove” anything – your words are here on this blog. Your words. They tell the story.

  314. If you feel you are “neutralized” by your expressions of sympathy for holocaust revisionism, then consider NOT associating with holocaust deniers. You aren’t on trial – as far as I know you’ve done nothing illegal. I have no power over you. In the court of public opinion, however, it is quite appropriate for you to be “neutralized” by this association. It is your chosen association. You were asked if you would care to publicly disassociate yourself and you openly refused, instead you stated plainly that you “wish you had more time to write for” Driegonaal. Your credibility, your integrity, are certainly totally neutralized in my mind.

    But that’s just my opinion. Plainly, lots of anthroposophists are completely all right with all of this. That’s for them to decide. I am sure there are still lots of parties you’ll be invited to, and lots of publications you can write for. Don’t expect ME not to give MY opinion. I am perfectly happy to publicize the fact that you are good buddies with holocaust deniers. Everyone judges that for themselves. Inside anthroposophy, you have good company. Outside, this association is considered despicable – immoral.

  315. Kinda makes denial of Steiner’s racism seem rather secondary doesn’t it?

  316. As for questions and answers (and gettting them and not), I have one thing to say: we can’t read your thoughts, Jan. It’s not self-evident what you think and believe. That’s why people ask you questions. When you think someone has misunderstood you, you’re perfectly welcome to explain your actual position or clairfy yourself. Nobody’s stopping you, and there are no penalties for doing so or for not doing so. This is a discussion thread on a blog, not a tribunal, thank Dog (if it were, I’d close it down, I don’t want to be in charge of such a judicial beast!).

  317. Pete – at the very least, it completely disqualifies him from having an opinion on racism that’s worth anyone listening to. It makes his proferring of definitions from various authorities and splitting of hairs over meanings look practically obscene.

  318. Jan: ‘You haven’t read the booklet in question, so I think you can’t judge the content of it.
    I could not say what my opinion is about the articles in the booklet, because I haven’t read it all over myself. So where are we talking about?’

    I know! Why don’t *you* read it and tell us if you agree with Floris and Ramon that it has holocaust denialist content? And then tell us what you think of it.

    You’re being a bit difficult, I think.

    It strikes me that this is indeed very similar to the topic that started this thread — Weleda and Wala paying a for someone to slander academics and journalists. You then also, at one point, claimed ignorance, you hadn’t read the stuff, whatever it was. This was after you came to Weleda’s and Wala’s defence. And then, too, you couldn’t express an opinion as to whether slander was an ethical way to work. Instead you blamed Andy Lewis for leaving out a contract clause that wouldn’t have changed any of the arguments anyway — and you then pretended that he was the one who acted reprehensibly, while being utterly unable to form an opinion on the actions of Weleda and Wala, actions which were truly in a whole other category.

  319. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    You will have my standpoints. But first I want to reconstruct very precisely all that has happened between the intervention of Floris Schreve, and the verdict : sympathizer.
    Diana should not get away with this. It is a school-example of how to neutralize someone. Out of the books. I will reconstruct it, and use it as a case-study. This is how a pseudoskeptic adversary of the anthroposophy works.

  320. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Alicia said:
    “It strikes me that this is indeed very similar to the topic that started this thread — Weleda and Wala paying a for someone to slander academics and journalists. You then also, at one point, claimed ignorance, you hadn’t read the stuff, whatever it was.”

    I don’t understand what you mean here. Please clarify what you mean.

  321. “Diana should not get away with this. It is a school-example of how to neutralize someone. Out of the books. I will reconstruct it, and use it as a case-study. This is how a pseudoskeptic adversary of the anthroposophy works.”

    I think that is a good idea. Quote all of us, and link to this page, where your words stand. Link also to the web site of the holocaust deniers, so people can see what magazine you wish you had more time to write for.

  322. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    That is perfectly OK Diana. Since you don’t know what Driegonaal is, and stands for , is this the blunder of your life.

  323. Apparently you don’t fully know that either, for example you claimed, only a few comments ago, not to know much about the articles which, according to Floris and Ramon, contain holocaust revision. You hadn’t read them. I trust that Floris and Ramon have and that what they’re reporting is accurate, i e, that there is holocaust revisionism in these texts.

    Yes, I can clarify what I mean — I meant exactly what I said. You came here defending Weleda and Wala against allegations that they pay someone to smear critics. You did not express any viewpoints regarding this, however, you went after Andy Lewis for not publishing a contract clause that was in the original article. A completely irrelevant objection, as this in no way exonerated Weleda and Wala from their involvement with the smear ‘journalist’. You did not want to express any views on the actions of Weleda and Wala. For you, it seemed enough that you could point out some minor thing that you disagreed with in the text of a skeptic, and that somehow made everything else, including what Weleda and Wala had done — what? Irrelevant? That’s how it appeared; you wanted to say nothing about the actual issue at hand. To you, the skeptic writing about it was the unethical person, taking away the focus from the real unethical behaviour discussed. Right now you don’t seem to want to tell us what you think about holocaust revisionism in Driegonaal — we don’t even have any idea if you agree that such things have been published in the magazine in question. Instead you go after Diana, who — not without good reason — assumes that unless you state otherwise you basically agree with a magazine that you’re all too happy writing for. You have not said anything about disagreeing with the editorial choices of this magazine, and we can’t read your mind. We know you would be happy to write more for that magazine. And, by the way, I still can’t read your mind on the Fritzsche issue. As I said then, I take it that you think it’s fine and dandy that anthroposophical companies engage in unethical behaviour of the kind that they have been doing. For all I know, you might think it wrong that Weleda pulled out.

    If you claim there is no holocaust revisionism in the texts Floris and Ramon are referring to, I’d be very glad if they explained to us why, according to them, there is. But maybe you’ll agree with them when you finally get around to expressing a viewpoint on these articles. Please tell us about it then. Or immediately, if not having read the articles was merely an excuse. Again, I certainly don’t know.

  324. I have just re-read the entire thread (skipping the 9/11 stuff …) because I always find “reconstruction” projects interesting.

    The evidence is clear that Jan will not disassociate himself from the magazine (he wishes he had more time to write for it) and he does not deny it has published Holocaust denial, in particular a piece arguing that the gas chambers at Auschwitz did not exist.

    As I said above, I do not read the language in which the material is published, so I cannot personally confirm the content. But I believe what Floris and Ramon have reported about it. Jan has not denied it. Presumably, the facts can be known, by those who read the language. I feel certain that if this were incorrect, Jan would have told us so. He has not. Therefore I feel certain the content is as Floris described.

    So the difference of opinion that we have is not about these facts – the difference of opinion that we have is about Holocaust denial. I don’t find it a small matter of a “difference of opinion.” And I don’t feel the issue is about “freedom of expression.” I might indeed write something for a magazine with which I had certain differences of opinion with the editors – but that could not possibly extend as far as Holocaust denial. A magazine that publishes Holocaust denial is immoral, and there is no defense for it. Jan apparently feels that because he is friends with the folks publishing it, they get a pass – no need for him to disassociate himself. I find that morally repugnant.

    It is necessary for anthroposophists to take a stand AGAINST Holocaust denial. Those who instead proactively state that they would like to write for a publication that has published Holocaust denial are “sympathizers” with Holocaust denial. Or perhaps Jan does not know what the word “sympathize” means?

    My conclusion, Jan, please free to “reconstruct” this conversation wherever you like. I am always pleased to be quoted. Again, I do feel you should give the link to the full conversation.

  325. “is this the blunder of your life.”

    I don’t know Jan, is it?

  326. “If you claim there is no holocaust revisionism in the texts Floris and Ramon are referring to, I’d be very glad if they explained to us why, according to them, there is.”

    He hasn’t claimed there is no holocaust revisionism in those texts. He thinks going on the offensive against me will take the focus off that.

  327. Exactly. He has said nothing about those texts, about Driegonaal publishing them, about Demeter’s sponsoring or what he thinks about it all. It’s quite blatant that he’s attempting to shift the focus.

    I assume he’s going to reconstruct it here, but I’m not sure. If it’s elsewhere, I can but encourage him to include a link to this thread.

  328. I worked my way through this article by Floris:

    http://fhs1973.wordpress.com/2009/08/24/neo-nazi-elements-sold-as-anthroposophy/

    - and found it very informative, despite the fact that I can’t read many of the quotes.

    Basically Floris pleads with “mainstream anthroposophy” to openly address the problem of anthroposophists with extreme political views, including Holocaust denial, in their midst, rather than continue cordial, good-old-boy, gentlemanly relations.

    I hadn’t realize quite how looney some of the “occult theory” behind Holocaust denial is. It isn’t just about bogus claims about nonexistent gas chambers; it’s a full-blown psychotic religious conspiracy theory. Ahriman, did you know, is literally attempting to replace Christianity with a “Holocaust religion.” To challenge the Holocaust is to courageously smash a “religious taboo.” People like Bondarew and Verhulst are religious martyrs. To challenge the Holocaust is what Christ would have wanted!

    Any tolerance of this is simply damning. These chickens were always going to come home to roost, Jan, and others. It wasn’t avoidable. If you don’t wish to be labeled a sympathizer, then, quit sympathizing.

    As I think Ramon notes above, even if you can’t read the Dutch articles, the links to the Driegonaal articles advertising forthcoming lectures and appearances by Bondarew are entirely clear. Yes, Driegonaal was sympathetic to Holocaust denial. (As for Jan’s exact role, he leaves it vague, on purpose. He was an editor there “at the latest” in 1988. “At the latest” … as if details and dates of his own career are some sort of unsolved historical mystery and simply can’t be known.)

  329. ‘Ahriman, did you know, is literally attempting to replace Christianity with a “Holocaust religion.” To challenge the Holocaust is to courageously smash a “religious taboo.” People like Bondarew and Verhulst are religious martyrs. To challenge the Holocaust is what Christ would have wanted!’

    it’s a bit too much actually. And, by the way, to say so is not depriving someone of their freedom of speech or persecuting them. To avoid participating in a journal that publishes this stuff isn’t either.

    I wonder if Jan doesn’t agree that it’s right to focus on Driegonaal’s — and its editor’s — role in this. I wonder why, so far, he seems to think it’s more appropriate to accuse others of various silly things rather than focus on Driegonaal.

  330. By the way, poor Ahriman. Anthroposophists trying to smear his reputation again. He would, of course, replace christianity with something much better.

  331. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Diana,
    August 4 you stated: “Best I can tell (I read only English), Jan’s explanation for his involvement with the web site that supports Holocaust denial is that “it was a long time ago.”.”
    Since this is a severe and disgusting claim and since I never had any involvement in any website whatsoever:
    Show me and the readers evidence for your claim I was “involved in a website that supports Holocaust denial”, or take it back immediately.

    N.B. Diana reads only English, she cannot read Dutch. Still she is judging a magazine in Dutch language.

    This is just an one illustration of how a pseudoskeptic adversary of anthroposophy works.

  332. By website, she means (I assume) the magazine Driegonaal, which seems to have both a printed magazine and an online presence.

    So, ok, Jan — does this mean you disagree with Ramon and Floris about the presence of holocaust revisionism in Driegonaal? Are you saying Diana (or I) can’t trust their ability to read Dutch?

  333. Jan,

    1. Driegonaal published revisionist content and offered a podium for Holocaust denial. Yes or no?

    2. The chief editor of Driegonaal supported the most famous anthroposphical Holocaust denier of all, Bondarev. Yes or no?

    3. You were involved in Driegonaal and would like to write for them again. Yes or no?

    4. You claim that you weren’t involved at the time the revisionist articles were published. Did you have any ties? Yes or no?

    5. You claim you never read the articles, although a link is provided to read them online. Do you want to read them? Yes or no?

    6. You have no opinion so far regarding to Holocaust denial by your peers. Or do you refuse to share your opinion? Yes or no?

    7. And you have no opinion regarding to Weleda and Wala smearing critics. Yes or no?

    Maybe it’s wishfull thinking, but could you provide a yes or no answer to those 7 points? Because giving an opinion seems to be to difficult for you.

    Or do you only have an opinion regarding non-anthroposophical issues? Yes or no?

  334. Thanks Ramon. I believe that is at least some of these questions, preferably all, were answered, we’d be getting somewhere. Jan can’t very well complain that his opinions are not heard or understood when he doesn’t express them, instead only tries to fling crap on others.

  335. Driegonaal supports Holocaust denial TODAY. That doesn’t fall under “decent” in my world.

    I don’t read Dutch, but I’m capable of navigating about a bit on a web site, as well as using google translate. The evidence isn’t terribly obscure. The pamphlet called something like “Prohibition on Thinking”* is still advertised there. (although you can’t search the site, or at least I couldn’t figure out how, you can skim Archives, Articles, etc., and it is not hard to find that this pamphlet is still being promoted.) I believe it says it’s out of print but they’ll run more if there is a demand for it. The advertisements in past issues for Bondarew are even clearer. Bondarew is a notorious anthroposophist Holocaust denier. Driegonaal has supported him plainly. Don’t matter what language you read.

    It is no use denying this. It is on the web site and not hard to understand. I do not know what your present ties to the magazine are, if any, but you have stated that you wish you had more time to write for them, and you have defended them as “decent.” It is not the case that they are decent. The evidence is on their web site for all to see.

    As for demanding that I take things back, that is not going to happen. Perhaps you think I’m easily intimidated but that is not the case. I have dealt with spookier anthroposophists than you by far for many years. I am not afraid of anthroposophists or their weird, demanding, entitled behavior.

    *”Prohibition on Thinking,” for those not “in the know” about Holocaust denial, is Holocaust denialists’ code for their extremely fucked up belief that their rights are being violated, they’re being “censored” etc., if others express outrage when they criticize, question, or doubt the historical record regarding the extermination of roughly 6 million Jews by the Nazis in World War II.

    They would like to plant the idea in peoples’ minds that maybe it wasn’t really so many Jews. Or it wasn’t really an extermination program, just a few unfortunate incidents like happen in any war. Most of ‘em died of cold or sickness or general bad living (concentration camps aren’t very comfortable, boo-hoo.) What they eventually get round to, is the notion that the occurrence of the Holocaust is actually a monstrous Jewish lie. (There were no gas chambers; these things are fabrications.)

    That’s what you’re supporting, promoting, and sympathizing with when you insist that a magazine that gives a platform for such people is “decent.”

  336. Thanks, Ramon. It would be good if Jan deigned to answer any of these. However, let’s keep in mind the answers to most of those questions are already here in the thread.

  337. BTW, Jan, this revelation will make arguing with you around the internet a lot more fun. Next time you bring up Memmi, I get to bring up Driegonaal – Whew, talk about “game over”… ;)

  338. Jan:

    “Show me and the readers evidence for your claim I was ‘involved in a website that supports Holocaust denial’, or take it back immediately.”

    This is the evidence.

    This link:

    http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/neonazisme-in-driegonaal-eerste-lichting.pdf

    … is to material from Driegonaal, advertising appearances by Gennadij Bondarew. Bondarew is a notorious anthroposophist Holocaust denier and unabashed anti-Semite. One does not need to read Dutch to see that this is an advertisement for a seminar Bondarew is to give.

    That’s before you get into the articles that apparently contain Holocaust denial. That’s the part I can’t
    read; Floris asserts this is Holocaust denial.

    Feel free to refute.

    This link:

    … is according to Floris a pamphlet published by Driegonaal, allowing Jos Verhulst arguing that the gas chambers of Auschwitz.

    Is this incorrect, Jan?

    Jan, you stated to Ramon re: your involvement with Driegonaal:

    “certainly I wrote for it not so long ago. I only wish I had the time I could write more for it.”

    I like “reconstructions,” too.

  339. Whoops, I failed to paste the second link – it’s this:

    http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jos-verhulst-in-het-verbod-op-denken-driegonaal-2001.pdf

    That is the pamphlet published by Driegonaal, allowing Jos Verhulst arguing that the gas chambers of Auschwitz did not exist.

  340. Regarding my statements about Driegonaal, for confirmation go to:

    http://driegonaal.nl/

    Go to “Archief” and scroll to “Internationale politiek”

    Click on “Verbod op het denken?”

    … where you can read:

    “[De volledige voordracht (uit GA 167), vertaald door Bernard Asselbergs, werd opgenomen in het Driegonaal Themaboekje Het verbod op het denken. Dat boekje is uitverkocht maar zal bij voldoende belangstelling in een kleine oplage herdrukt worden.”

    If I’m not mistaken this says that the “Prohibition on thinking” booklet is sold out but can be made available again if there is sufficient interest.

  341. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Diana,
    1. You were talking about a WEBSITE that supports Holocaust deniers..
    So, again, show me the evidence that I was involved in a WEBSITE that supports Holocaust deniers as you claimed.

    2. Your claim is that there is Holocaust denial in the booklet. Give me evidence that there is Holocaust denial in the booklet.

  342. Ridiculous Jan. Utterly ridiculous. If we didn’t think there was something fishy about this before, we certainly do now.

    I’m sorry I can’t be more active here at the moment, but Diana have given ample and clear explanations to how she reached her current conclusions. Meanwhile, we have not seen you, Jan, reply to many, if any, relevant questions.

  343. I have typed this myself since the document is a (scanned) image file, so the text could not be copied and pasted. Excuse my poor typing but it is difficult to do in another language ….

    The passage below, from the booklet published by Driegonaal, accuses Elie Wiesel of lying about the gas chambers.

    That’s what Holocaust deniers do.

    “Over de holocaust legt Wiesel verklaringen af, die onderling tegenstrijdig zijn maar ook onverenig-baar blijken met de meer officiele versies. Erg bekend is de veranderende weergave van jihn holocaust-ervaringen in ‘La Nuit’ en de later verschenen Duitse vertaling ‘Die Nacht zu begraben Elischa’. In ‘La Nuit’ is geen sprake van gaskamers; in ‘Die Nacht zu begraben, Elischa’ komen de gaskamers overloedig voor. Wiesel fikst dit, door overal waar, crematoire staat in de Franse tekst, ‘Gaskammer’ te laten schrijven in de Duitse versie. In de Duitse versie is overigens ook sprake van een ‘Gaskammer’ in Buchenwald; tegenwoordig wowrdt algemeen aangenomen dat in dit concentratiekamp nooit van een gaskamer sprake is geweest. Elie wiesel bevestigt dat ieder woord in zijn book volstrekt waar is (‘Every word of it is absolutely true’ Chicago Tribue, 8 mei 1990); maar helaas preciseert hij niet welke versie nu eigenlijk de ware is. Volgens zijn uiteenlopende verklaringen werd Elie Wiesel”

    Source: driegonaal.

    http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jos-verhulst-in-het-verbod-op-denken-driegonaal-2001.pdf

  344. So Jan wrote:

    “1. You were talking about a WEBSITE that supports Holocaust deniers..
    So, again, show me the evidence that I was involved in a WEBSITE that supports Holocaust deniers as you claimed.

    2. Your claim is that there is Holocaust denial in the booklet. Give me evidence that there is Holocaust denial in the booklet.”

    My post directly above is the answer to #2. A quote of Holocaust denial rhetoric in the booklet.

    Response to #1. The web site that supports Holocaust deniers:

    http://driegonaal.nl/

    A couple of posts above, I give exact directions where to find this booklet promoted on driegonaal’s web site.

  345. Oh, and “the evidence that I was involved in a WEBSITE” is from this same thread, above, where you write, re: past involvement:

    “Alicia, I was in the editorial office of Driegonaal from mid 1980’s till at the latest 1988, when I moved to Germany. I want to mention here that both gentlemen, Floris Schreve and Ramon de Jonghe have expressed themselves positively about Driegonaal not so long ago. Ramon de Jonghe is still quotating from it with approval.”

    In one breath you confirm that you were in the past an editor of this publication and you make clear that you continue to approve of it. You continue, in this same thread where we are conversing, several times past that point to defend this publication. (I’m sure we’re not really splitting hairs over the print journal versus the web site? Surely not. Like most print magazines nowdays it also has a web site. The content may not be always completely identical, but it’s the same operation; the same people are responsible.)

    And when challenged what is your relationship to them today, you state above: “Ramon, certainly I wrote for it not so long ago. I only wish I had the time I could write more for it.”

    You were an editor in the past; you aren’t an editor now, but you certainly still support this publication.
    Have I missed something there, Jan?

    So we are clear now what web site we are talking about, we are clear it has published the works of infamous Holocaust deniers, and we are clear that you admire this publication and wish you had more time to write for it.

  346. The only conceivable way any of this isn’t true is if Floris or Ramon is lying, and have themselves fabricated this material, or are giving its source incorrectly.

    I don’t believe that. And I don’t see Jan even trying to claim such a bizarre thing. There are only accusations against me; there is no attempt to deny what the document says. If I have been able to suss it out in this amount of time, Jan can do so with no problem, since he can read the original far more easily than I can.

    If, however, such a bizarre error or malicious accusation came to light, I’d be horrified and apologize in any way possible to Jan.

    But I’m as close to 100% sure as I could be, that that is not what has happened. Mainly because I have confirmed for myself at the driegonaal Web site that they have made the “Prohibition on thinking” booklet available in the past and are willing to make it available again upon demand. That I find on the web site (not relying on the materials posted by Floris), thus I have confirmed that independently to my own satisfaction. Also, Floris and Ramon are also clearly reputable and credible. Jan rarely posts anything that isn’t confused and ethically questionable, at best.

    Frankly, even in the absence of the obscene little “Prohibition on thinking” pamphlet, I would readily identify Driegonaal as supporting Holocaust deniers – the promotion of Bondarew is easily understood without reading the language. The flier give dates and times of his appearance, etc.

  347. Just to mention one absurd thing: he doesn’t challenge the reading ability of Ramon and Floris. He doesn’t say they wrong about the content. He only objects to Diana’s reading… because he can. Because it’s all he can. Same goes for the ridiculous website issue. All publications have websites. It seems this one has been running the holocaust stuff mainly in print, with references made online. But, whatever! Same people. Same publication. Same policy.

  348. Exactly. It’s hard to say whether this is mainly slimy, or mainly stupid. He can’t possibly think we’re so stupid we don’t see the technique being used. oO else he is used to dealing with very stupid people.

    Put up or shut up, Jan: am I wrong that the passage I quoted accuses Elie Wiesel of lying about the gas chambers?

    Am I wrong that driegonaal published this?

    No, I’m not wrong.

    Perhaps he thinks we are too unfamiliar with Holocaust denial content to understand what we are reading, in any language. On the contrary, I am very familiar with the enemies of Elie Wiesel and their attempts to discredit him. This is not a new topic, this has been in the media many times. Even with the vagaries of google-translate, the content is evident. This type of shit: in one book Wiesel doesn’t mention gas chambers, in another book he calls the same place (Buchenwald if I’m recalling) “fertile with gas chambers.” Then there are disputes about just what *type* of gas chamber, or whether a “crematorium” didn’t necessarily mean a place where humans were killed.

    The point of such arguments is that the Holocaust either did not happen, or was not nearly as bad as has been claimed.

    To go after someone like Elie Wiesel is just about the most offensive, malicious, and despicable act I can imagine. Do you possibly think, Jan, that we don’t understand the import of the passage?

    My only other possible conclusion would be that YOU are too stupid to understand it. And that’s not what I think.

  349. http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jos-verhulst-in-het-verbod-op-denken-driegonaal-2001.pdf

    I urge others to do what I’ve done: type and then paste into google translate as much as desired of the above text. I will do some more of it later and copy the results here. It’s a pain in the ass, because you have to literally type it in, but it’s worth it. Googe-translate renders some parts gibberish, of course; but you will get the drift. There isn’t some mistake about this content. I have read quite a bit of similar stuff in English and am familiar with the strategies of Holocaust deniers.

    - And of their sympathizers, who generally refuse to comment on their own beliefs, but speak of their friends’ “right to question” or “right to free speech” or whine about “censorship.” Or complain about a “prohibition on thinking.”

    Steiner would turn over in his grave. I’m no fan of Rudolf Steiner, but that’s what I believe. He would tell these idiots their karma is in serious shit.

    Nobody lied about the gas chambers. It’s still a shame Steiner, who claimed to be clairvoyant, didn’t actually foresee the gas chambers; yet, I certainly don’t believe he’d have defended it, or had any patience for people who deny it actually happened.

    It’s a hideous blight on anthroposophy.

  350. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Diana says:
    “My post directly above is the answer to #2. A quote of Holocaust denial rhetoric in the booklet.
    Response to #1. The web site that supports Holocaust deniers:

    http://driegonaal.nl/

    A couple of posts above, I give exact directions where to find this booklet promoted on riegonaal’s web site. ”

    So give evidence that I (jan Luiten) was involved in this website. I don’t see any.

    The answer on my second question is BULLSHIT, Diana and you know it “Holocaust denial rhetoric ” is not evidence of real Holocaust denial. Unless you come up with something real I have to conclude that you cannot find such an evidence because there is no Holocaust denial in it.
    SHAME on you Diana.
    But we know: : This is how a pseudoskeptic adversary of anthroposophy works.
    Come with evidence of Holocaust denial in the booklet !!!

  351. That is exactly what Diana has done, Jan. Shame on you for attacking her for it.

    What Diana has quoted is, in fact, typical of holocaust denial.

    I had a feeling this was the case: you knew what was in this publication, you just didn’t *identify it as* holocaust revisionism or denial.

    That was the problem all along. That’s why I’ve been asking you to — as you said you hadn’t — read the stuff and express your opinion on it. If you then denied its nature, we would have found the problem, we would have known why you could read that stuff and still support the publication (website AND printed). Because, as with racism, you would have your own little understanding of the concept.

    What a pity we didn’t sort this out a couple of hundred or something comments ago. Would have spared us a lot of effort. But that was all due to you, Jan, knitpicking about details and the faults of others instead of expressing a viewpoint on the actual content..

    Well, thanks, now we know.

  352. Denial that there were gas chambers is holocaust denial, jan. Im not sure what you think the word `rhetoric` means, but i`m not equivocating here.`the material is not ambiguous. As for your involvement with and endorsement of driegonaal you are on record. Yes THAT web site, yes YOU. Is there some part you would like me to somehow state more clearly?

  353. Just in case we have a language barrier here, jan, when I say the booklet contains holocaust denial rhetoric, I am saying plainly the booklet contqains holocaust denial.

    In your defense, im starting to think maybe you really haven’t read it.

  354. Notice also that he continues flailing at me but ignores ramon`s questions. Maybe i`m just a witch. What about ramons questions. What about floris, who pointed us to this material and pointed out you were an editor there at one time? Forgot all that? We waited wit baited breath for you to clarify. That’s when you told us you wrote for driegonaal and wished you had more time to write for them. Is any of this ringing a bell?

  355. Then I’m going to suggest he does so — reads it — before he utters something silly again.

    By the way, reading German, I actually understand the Elie Wiesel quote. I still haven’t had time to read more, but I trust that Floris and Ramon are right — and, indeed, Jan hasn’t challenged them on that. Except he now says that the content is not somehow ‘real’ holocaust denial.

    As for:

    ‘Oh, and “the evidence that I was involved in a WEBSITE” is from this same thread, above, where you write, re: past involvement:

    “Alicia, I was in the editorial office of Driegonaal from mid 1980’s till at the latest 1988, when I moved to Germany. I want to mention here that both gentlemen, Floris Schreve and Ramon de Jonghe have expressed themselves positively about Driegonaal not so long ago. Ramon de Jonghe is still quotating from it with approval.”

    In one breath you confirm that you were in the past an editor of this publication and you make clear that you continue to approve of it.’

    Looking back on this now, in light of Jan’s most recent comment… Whether or not Floris and Ramon have expressed themselves positively about some stuff in Driegonaal, I don’t know. But, in contrast to Jan, perhaps they’re able to separate good content from despicable content? That was really all that was needed. Nobody would have required that anybody disagree with all of the content, because some of it is compromised (although it kind of makes the entire publication stink, in general). As for Jan’s continued involvement, it’s difficult to understand why he’d desire that after the magazine’s involvement with these guys. I don’t see why anybody would want that, unless they had made entirely sure that the magazine was headed in a different direction and the past abberations were past abberations rather than a vile pattern that continues into the present.

  356. ‘Notice also that he continues flailing at me but ignores ramon`s questions. Maybe i`m just a witch. What about ramons questions. What about floris, who pointed us to this material and pointed out you were an editor there at one time? Forgot all that?’

    I’d like to ask the same thing. Do you feel you’d better ignore Ramon’s questions, Jan, as it’s easier for him to challenge your understanding of the texts?

  357. ‘Nobody lied about the gas chambers. It’s still a shame Steiner, who claimed to be clairvoyant, didn’t actually foresee the gas chambers; yet, I certainly don’t believe he’d have defended it, or had any patience for people who deny it actually happened.

    It’s a hideous blight on anthroposophy.’

    I absolutely agree. Of course, there were many things he failed to foresee, obviously because he was more human than clairvoyant. Anyway… I have a feeling Driegonaal is not some kind of anthroposophical fringe publication, so why are they engaged in giving Bondarew a platform? He’s (or was) with a fringe publisher in Germany (Lochmann, see critics list…) who has a beef with saner anthroposophists and even with the rather loony bunch in Dornach; in addition, he was kicked out of the Anthroposophical Society for expressing anti-semitic ideas. That doesn’t happen everyday, does it? It’s a stretch of the imagination to believe that Driegonaal was not aware of this.

    Now I wonder, have other Dutch anthroposophists reacted to this mess? Has somebody raised any doubts re the appropriateness of being involved with Bondarew? (Or Verhulst for that matter — what is his standing?) I’m sure there are people who might have questioned it to themselves, but anything more public than that?

  358. I will type some more of that essay in soon; it’s going to be a bit of a project. I’ll need to basically have the whole thing translated, before I can select the most pertinent bits. I can’t paste the whole thing in here at once, or risk being accused of copyright violation, but I’ll need to work through it all before I can make selections.

    Or perhaps Floris or Ramon, if still reading, would like to help by directing us to the most pertinent sections?

    Not that any more is truly needed; the passage accusing Eli Wiesel of lying about the gas chambers is clear and more than enough to demonstrate that the article is a specimen of Holocaust denial.

  359. So, Jan, if you don’t deny the holocaust happened, why do you work to lend credibility to those who do?

  360. “Whether or not Floris and Ramon have expressed themselves positively about some stuff in Driegonaal, I don’t know. But, in contrast to Jan, perhaps they’re able to separate good content from despicable content? That was really all that was needed. Nobody would have required that anybody disagree with all of the content, ”

    I would have thought that was self-evident, but possibly not. Jan is at times touchingly naive. Though it is not excusable, overall.
    I’m sure there are plenty of things in driegonaal that I would agree with myself. That has no relevance to the discussion.

  361. Pete, he doesn’t understand the meaning of the word “sympathizer,” I think.

  362. “it’s difficult to understand why he’d desire that after the magazine’s involvement with these guys. I don’t see why anybody would want that, unless they had made entirely sure that the magazine was headed in a different direction and the past abberations were past abberations rather than a vile pattern that continues into the present.”

    It’s not that simple, though. It is very unlikely that a magazine that has started to publish Holocaust denialism is going to reverse course; it’s very unlikely that was an “aberration.” I would guess the chances of this sort of change of heart are close to zero. These are fanatics preaching a hateful, dangerous ideology, publishing material that incites violence against Jews. Their legacy is the worst antisemitism, the most vicious kind; not the relatively gentle version of antisemitism that Steiner himself adhered to. These people aren’t just a little mixed up, or following some kind of fad; they’re dangerous lunatics. (Some of them, those who believe the “occult conspiracy” stuff, are psychotic.) The material is repugnant to most of the rest of the world. The publication might fold entirely, under sufficient public pressure, but I seriously doubt they would have a change of heart and decide they had been mistaken in promoting Holocaust denial.

    And even in the unlikely event they reversed course, much more would be needed in addition to simply ceasing to publish such material. They would need to make very clear publicly, through unambiguous statements, that they regretted these publications and now believed they had been completely wrong to publish it; They would need to state that they understood the material was dangerous, incendiary, inciteful of violence, and compromised the physical safety of Jews. They would need to publicly make amends.

    Apparently, nothing like this has crossed Jan’s mind, in relation to driegonaal. All he can bring himself to say is that the magazine is “decent” and he wishes he had more time to write for it.

  363. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Dear “friends”,
    I am addressing myself mainly to Diana because she is the one with the most claims here.
    As these claims are serious and are concerning my personal integrity it has priority for me.
    I am not adreesing to Floris Schreve because he was clear: He don’t see me as a sympathizer.
    When Ramon DJV has certain claims HE is the one who has to come up with evidence not me.
    I am just applying a skeptical principle here.
    Still Diana hasn’t delivered sufficient evidence for her claim that I was “involved in a website that supports holocaust deniers”. Since this claim is a serious one, the claimer has to be precise in the formulation. I have not the skills of maintaining a website. I did publish in Driegonaal (print) and I am happy that I did, but I never published on its website.
    Another claim is that the article of Jos Verhulst in the booklet of Driegonaal contains Holocaust denial.
    You could not read the article, certainly not in period of my condemnation – July 25, the first comment of Floris Schreve till August 9, the date of the verdict: Jan Luiten is sympathizer, but you were very eager to judge and condemn me. What was the basis for this verdict since you could not read the article? The BELIEF of what Floris Schreve and Ramon DJV were saying. Not so very much according to your own skeptical principles.
    Don’t you think you have judged and condemned too fast, without knowing all the facts around the article and Driegonaal?
    As evidence for the claim there is Holocaust denial in Driegonaal you bring as evidence that Jos Verhulst, in his article in the booklet , denies the existence of gas chambers.
    Can you provide me evidence that Jos Verhulst (himself) is generally denying the existence of gas chambers?
    For all who forget my standpoint about the holocaust :

    http://zooey.wordpress.com/2012/07/17/weleda-and-wala-paying-for-journalism/#comment-17878

  364. Diana is right, you don’t understand the word sympathiser. I can’t help but think there are more misunderstandings.

    Do you or do you not agree with Ramon and Floris that Driegonaal has contained holocaust denial? Because if you do, you have to question their ability to read. Diana’s reading skills are simply not an issue here, and I suggest you cut that crap immediately.

    Also, the knitpicking about website vs print is silly and utterly irrelevant. Driegonaal has a website, sure. Every magazine/group/interest has one. The stuff we’re talking about has appeared in print. You’ve had ample opportunity to express your opinion on it.

    To explain, after you know the content, that you’d happily contribute more in the future is the same as saying you have no problem whatsoever with Driegonaal’s involvement with Bondarew and Verhulst. And somehow you want to blame Diana?! Really?

    I have a feeling that you’ve painted yourself into a corner, Jan. I’m sure you can find your way out of it, but not by blaming other people.

    (Thanks to Diana for typing. Perhaps some of this should be transformed into a blog post later.)

  365. I don’t think there’s a further point to this depressing argument. Jan must be following the old adage, “Better to stay silent and be thought a sympathizer with Holocaust denial, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt.” I gave him the benefit of the doubt repeatedly in the early part of the thread – recall, I kept repeating that I hoped he would return to the thread to clear this up, because I believed he was liberally minded and would disassociate himself when he learned – if he didn’t know already – that driegonaal had published Verhulst and promoted Bondarew – but Jan’s pathetic pseudoarguments since then have removed my doubt that he could possibly be sympathetic to the material.

    I’m not replying further to arguments about whether we should believe Floris and Ramon (I’m certain we all do), or arguments about what languages I speak. The content of the article in question is Holocaust denial, regardless of what language I speak or read.

    I can see that Jan probably does not actually know much about Holocaust denial. He doesn’t argue with the cunning of many of them, but rather foolishly. He isn’t a pro. That’s no excuse, however. Perhaps I can post some more general info on the topic, or (better) find an old post of Peter S.’s with some good introductory material. Jan’s replies are indicative of someone who probably hasn’t read much of it himself. It doesn’t excuse him from defending the magazine that published it, or refusing to disassociate himself, which would be the only decent thing to do. He refuses, and instead seems to think other people are at fault for his own, rather severe mistakes.

    I am going to go work on typing/translating some more of the driegonaal article, but I don’t know how much further I can get with it today. It’s long, and as I said, I’ll need to do the entire thing before I can go back through and select passages to highlight. Last thing we need now is a “copyright incident.” Probably Sune has been referring Jan to his lawyers …

  366. For anyone just joining us, perhaps a brief recap is useful. Driegonaal is a Dutch anthroposophical publication focusing on Steiner’s concept of social “three-folding.” The magazine has published the work of the well known anthroposophist Holocaust denier Jos Verhulst and openly supports the work of Gennady Bondarew, another infamous anthroposophist Holocaust denier.

    Jan’s remarks regarding Driegonaal (August 10), after this was brought to his attention (assuming, that is, that he was not already aware of this; he is not only a contributor to the magazine but was in the 1980′s one of the editors):

    “Indeed I am a sympathizer of Driegonaal. I love this magazine … Driegonaal is a decent magazine.”

    There is no question about the Holocaust denial content in the publication. Here is a link to the article we’ve been discussing, published by Driegonaal (a sort of special thematic series of pamphlets):

    http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jos-verhulst-in-het-verbod-op-denken-driegonaal-2001.pdf

    It accuses Eli Wiesel of lying about the gas chambers at Auschwitz, among other things.

    Jan is upset because, apparently, it seems unreasonable to him that people might suggest he disassociate himself from such a publication.

  367. I remember arguing for hours with an Anthroposophist – my former father in law – about whether he beat his children (sounds silly I know). His 40 year old son who had been beaten severely his entire life was in on the argument. When he was finally backed into a corner, after about four hours (seriously) he finally admitted that he “spanked” his kids – sometimes rather severely – but never “beat” them. For four hours we argued because he wouldn’t accept the term “beat”. This reminds me of Jan so much, I had to mention it.

  368. comment box misbehaving again – even with hitting “enter” multiple times before typing, I can’t see all of what I’m typing – hence I end up typing gibberish.

  369. But yes, it does seem similar, Pete. And the argument resonates with me, since I was raised similarly. It is particularly interesting when they get old, and don’t actually remember that they beat you. My mother informed us recently that she “only had to spank me once.” I guess we are off topic, but yes, the mechanisms of denial (denying it to oneself, even) seem similar.

  370. Jan, just one more thing. You write: “What was the basis for this verdict since you could not read the article? The BELIEF of what Floris Schreve and Ramon DJV were saying.”

    The answer, in case this is somehow still not clear: Yes. I believe what Floris and Ramon said. Still do. Google-translate was helpful, but I definitely already believed them. I made clear I could not read the article in the original language. I believed Floris and Ramon. I have examined both their blogs and learned who they are and I find them credible. It would not seem likely to me that they were inventing Holocaust denial where there wasn’t any. That was correct.

  371. I’ve been hitting down-arrow after hitting a few Enter’s and it seems to work.

  372. Yes, enter and then down-arrows. It works for me now. I’m sorry about this crap. I’ve considered running the blog myself, but I fear there would be even more glitches and problems. It’s such a bad thing when you don’t know the technical side of things.

    Why wouldn’t we believe Floris and Ramon? I can’t see any reason. Diana reading — via google — only offers further evidence that their judgment of what was in Driegonaal was correct.

    The spanking and beating example is to the point. I suspect we’re witnessing something very similar here.

    Diana: ‘recall, I kept repeating that I hoped he would return to the thread to clear this up, because I believed he was liberally minded and would disassociate himself when he learned’

    I thought so too. If someone had asked me to guess, I would have expected this outcome. Something like that. At the very least: some kind of acknowledgement that the content was unacceptable to him.

    ‘Last thing we need now is a “copyright incident.”’

    I definitely agree with that…

  373. I guess Floris had already answered one of my questions, the one about whether any anthroposophists had distanced themselves. He wrote: ‘But till now there were just a few anthroposophists in the Netherlands and Belgium who criticized or distanced themslevs from this.’

  374. “Diana reading — via google — only offers further evidence that their judgment of what was in Driegonaal was correct. ”

    Yes, though really it’s a rather silly exercise. It makes a lot more sense to trust the report of people who CAN read it in the original language, as to its content, rather than to deal with sillness from google-translate. (Though google translate is actually a lot of fun; some of what it tosses up is really interesting and poetic. You start wondering if there really is a “spirit” behind it; it’s vehement and somehow clear even when what it is saying is quite ridiculous. When you feed anthrobabble into it, what it dispenses rivals Bradford Riley in profound word salad. I also ran a bit of Ramon’s latest post about eurythmy through google translate and it was hilarious.)

  375. Don’t apologize for the technical glitches on your blog … it’s hardly the most frustrating thing the Internet tosses out, and you can’t control it.
    I had been just hitting “enter” several times before typing – do the down arrows make that different somehow? It’s only a problem with longer posts, so maybe it’s best if I just write short posts … I’m sure no one will mind if I write shorter posts LOL.

  376. Oh, I would, I like the long ones!

    Right now I only had to do lots of ‘enter’, to enlarge the box, no arrow needed. So hopefully it’s… getting better rather than worse. Earlier this evening I used the down arrow, too. Quite mysterious how this works and how it’s supposed to work.

  377. Here just for some fun: some google-translated snippets from Ramon’s blog on eurythmy.

    Explaining the birth of eurythmy:

    “Anthroposophic supporters was: no shortage of customers. Eurythmy was born. It turned out to be a miscarriage. None saw what anthroposophists.” (ain’t that the truth)

    “In an attempt to revive the stillborn one claimed him in the Steiner school. The few rights that the students already had, they would probably have surrendered to the eurythmy be redeemed.”

    “Known by steiner school pupils, eurythmy alphabet. Names or dancing. For each letter of the alphabet and made appropriate gestures from pillar to galumphed.”

    That certainly sums up eurythmy: from pillar to galumphed.

    Eurythmists are described as “gnomes who have redeemed their rubber boots latex soles and a curtain drawn over their heads for a variety of parabolas to walk.”

    Oh, indeed, eurythmists do walk a variety of parabolas!

    From: http://ramondejonghe.wordpress.com/ (via google translate)

  378. Haha! Hilarious!

    And I learnt a new word: galumph! Don’t think I ever heard that before.

  379. “When you feed anthrobabble into it, what it dispenses rivals Bradford Riley in profound word salad”

    Holding my sides here… is that the true meaning behind “Waldorf salad”?

  380. How about my questions, Jan Luiten?

    Oh yes, I forgot. Jan is an anthroposophist: hardly answers any questions, instead he urges others to answer his.

    But Jan doesn’t assume the articles mentioned here are revisionist or contain Holocaust Denial. Even not when Jos Verhulst is talking in terms of ‘the Holocaust-fraud’ (in general to describe, according to Verhulstn a Jewish conspiracy). The term Holocaust fraud Verhulst uses on p.39.

    And to avoid Jan Luiten saying ‘Jos Verhulst never used the term Holocaust fraud in that article, nanananana’, the Dutch original is ‘Holocaust zwendel’.

    It’s strange that someone like Jan doesn’t seem to have the ability to communicate properly and always is running semantic discussions. I find this highly anti-social.

    Has this to do with the anthroposophical social impuls (Anthroposophischer Sozialimpuls), whereof Jan Luiten is a spokesman and representative? (according to the network of the institut für soziale Dreigleiderung) http://www.dreigliederung.de/netzwerk/referenten.php

    Jan Luiten – j.luiten84@upcmail.nl
    Themenbereiche: Dreigliederung (Einführung und Vertiefung), Internationale Politik. Anthroposophischer Sozialimpuls. Politologe, Lehrer.
    Region: Niederlande, Belgien, NRW
    Zeitraum: am besten an Wochenenden.

  381. Jan is a teacher? If I knew it, I had forgotten it.

    ‘And to avoid Jan Luiten saying ‘Jos Verhulst never used the term Holocaust fraud in that article, nanananana’, the Dutch original is ‘Holocaust zwendel’.’

    One doesn’t even need the help of google translate to understand that…

  382. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Ramon says.
    “ Oh yes, I forgot. Jan is an anthroposophist: hardly answers any questions, instead he urges others to answer his.”

    I think this remark is discriminatory.

    I do not answer your questions, because you are the one with claims here so, you have to come up with evicence

    discriminatie: gedrag gericht naar individuen, gebaseerd op hun groepslidmaatschap aaneen bepaalde sociale categori

  383. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    evicence = evidence

  384. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Diana says:
    (Diana • August 14, 2012 – 5:11 pm •)

    Jan, just one more thing. You write: “What was the basis for this verdict since you could not read the article? The BELIEF of what Floris Schreve and Ramon DJV were saying.”
    The answer, in case this is somehow still not clear: Yes. I believe what Floris and Ramon said. Still do. Google-translate was helpful, but I definitely already believed them. I made clear I could not read the article in the original language. I believed Floris and Ramon. I have examined both their blogs and learned who they are and I find them credible. It would not seem likely to me that they were inventing Holocaust denial where there wasn’t any. That was correct. “”

    Well, nice evidence! Only belief. Must I repeat my remarks about pseudoskeptics?
    Give real evidence for your claims.
    You haven’t read exactly what Jos has written. Why do you think Floris and Ramon did?
    I did not see evidence for your claim Jos Verhulst denies gas chambers. Can it not be delivered?

  385. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Addition:
    A definition of discrimination in Dutch is:
    Discriminatie: gedrag gericht naar individuen, gebaseerd op hun groepslidmaatschap van een bepaalde sociale categorie

    Discrimination: behavior towards individuals based upon the fact that they belong to a group of a certain social category.

  386. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    Other discriminatory utterances on this blog ( a random selection)

    Ramon DJV • July 26, 2012 – 12:11 pm •
    Although you’re no longer an member of the anthroposophical club, you still debate like an anthropsophist

    Ramon DJV • July 26, 2012 – 3:26 pm •
    It is always sad to see anthroposophists denying wath they do and playing the role of victim when they, their community or their companies (like now Wala and Weleda) are discussed in the media.

    Ramon DJV • August 7, 2012 – 8:46 pm •
    I guess Jan is holding back some answers because no anthroposophist judges another anthroposophist…in public.

    Diana • August 8, 2012 – 4:34 pm •
    Talking with Jan is for me a typical experience talking to anthroposophists.

  387. Cheesus, Jan. Why do I get the feeling that you do not really want to defend holocaust denial — despite it being published by a magazine you think is ‘decent’ — and you’re tying yourself in a knot over this, in the process behaving so strangely that you make us think you do indeed want to defend holocaust denial?

  388. Jan, you’re not often right, but you’re wrong again. What you’re calling “discrimination” is actually “association”.

  389. Associate: Noun
    1. A person who joins with others in some activity
    2. A person who is frequently in the company of another

    Associate: Verb
    1. Make a logical or causal connection
    2. Keep company with; hang out with
    3. Bring or come into association or action

  390. I’m sure Jan has nothing against it. He constantly bickers about pseudoskeptics (and, in addition, ascribes not very nice traits to people he believes belong to this horrible category).

  391. The quote is above, Jan. Scroll up. The link has been given about 10 times, and the actual quote is pasted in above.

  392. Gee … we’re cataloging “discriminatory utterances” now? Might you get around to reading the article in the publication you’re so fond of, Jan? It contains a few, uh, discriminatory utterances, against the Jewish victims of the Holocaust. They’re a tad worse than things like the above.

  393. Oh, and as long as I’m here, a good time to repeat: Yes, I believed Ramon and Floris about the content of the article. I was right.

    This is the Holocaust denial article:

    http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jos-verhulst-in-het-verbod-op-denken-driegonaal-2001.pdf

    Your own behavior isn’t going to change that, Jan.

  394. This link mentions Jan’s article:

    http://www.microsofttranslator.com/bv.aspx?from=&to=en&a=http://fhs1973.wordpress.com/tag/bruin-denken/

    Half way down under “Anthroposophy versus (anti) racism; the Special Edition of ‘ Driegonaal ‘”
    “Anthroposophy versus (anti) racism; the Special Edition of ‘ Driegonaal ‘

    Weather of a very different nature are the items from the Special Edition of the Dutch anthroposophical magazine ‘ Driegonaal; magazine for social threefolding ‘, the ‘ extra Edition ‘, (anti) racism versus anthroposofie; a contribution to making judgements, March 1996, established in Hemrik, with ‘ articles that were already published from 1985, supplemented by a two recent articles ‘. The contributions are of Fred Bischot Beekers, Mark, Geuljans, Mouringh, Dieter Brüll, Stephan Boeke Jan Luiten, Arnold Sandhaus and Liesbeth branches.”

  395. That’s funny. A Steinerfan who says ”you have to come up with evidence’. LOL

  396. Luitenjan@hotmail.com · ·

    To the readers of this blog, especially for those who just joined in.
    I really liked this blog of Alicia Hamberg, although she and others here are very critical towards anthroposophy of which I am an advocate. We had tough discussions here, some called it battles, but a kind of basis respect was always there.
    I did – and do- challenge the judgment Rudolf was a racist. I am doing this on good grounds, namely the theory and definition developed by the great scholar Albert Memmi . I assume that the people who participate here on a regular basis, and who are my opponents in various discussions, Diana Winters, Pete Karaistos and Alicia herself, haven’t read one single book of Memmi. For the interpretation of Memmi they totally trust the interpretation of their “guru” Peter Staudenmaier.
    The climate here has changed from the moment on that two Dutch speaking gentlemen, Floris Schreve en Ramon de Jonghe (I call them “Dutch speaking” because Floris is Dutch and Ramon is Belgian) entered this blog (July 25). I have had discussions with the two of them in the past. They launched in a way a personal attack on me. Floris Schreve pointed out that I AM an editor of “Driegonaal “, which I WAS more than 20 years ago (Floris later corrected this ). He came up with a question. Could I comment on his observation that Driegonaal is becoming more and more a platform for holocaust deniers?
    Floris assumption there is Holocaust denial in Driegonaal was based upon his claim that a booklet edited by Driegonaal, should contain Holocaust denial. He referred e.g. to an article by Jos Verhulst in this booklet. Floris and Ramon provided links to Driegonaal and to the booklet, but did not provide factual and textual evidence. Since the content of the article was not clear to me at the time this accusation done, I had to read it. He had not made my mind up what to think about it, and I still haven’t..
    But the process of my condemnation was already running. In the period July 25 – August 9 Diana came to the verdict : Jan Luiten is a sympathizer. Without a trace of evidence, and with as single basis the belief in the suggestions of both Dutch speaking gentlemen. They were believed almost immediately and immediately I was a suspect. Although they were the claimers, and should had brought evidence, they expected from me to prove my innocence.
    Driegonaal exists more than 35 years now. A proper investigation needed to come to a proper judgment about this journal would be to investigate all the single editions of the journal and look whether there is Holocaust denial in it or not. Is this unreasonable?
    Dear readers, what we have here, nicely documented within a clear cut period , is a case study of how a person is convicted publically only by suggestion. Everyone can read it, and form his or hers own conclusions.

  397. A standard case of anthroposophical logic?

    Telling a rather painfull truth about anthroposophists is discriminatory, but Steiner depicting other races as inferior isn’t?

    And steinerteacher Jan Luiten, the questions I have asked you were asked to come forth in this conversation. Saying you want evidence becaus someone made some claims makes clear you don’t want to conversate, only want to play hide and seek.

    Like I said: you are a spokesman and representative for the anthroposophical social impuls. :-)

    But I understand that you are not neglecting that:

    1. Driegonaal published revisionist content and offered a podium for Holocaust denial.

    2. The chief editor of Driegonaal supported the most famous anthroposphical Holocaust denier of all, Bondarev.

    4. You had ties to Driegonaal at the moment the revisionist articles were published.

    5. You read the articles, but you refuse to share your opinion so far regarding to Holocaust denial by your peers.

    7. And you have no opinion regarding to Weleda and Wala smearing critics. Yes or no?

  398. ‘…did not provide factual and textual evidence’

    Jos Verhulst is talking in terms of ‘the Holocaust-fraud’ (in general to describe, according to Verhulst a Jewish conspiracy). The term Holocaust fraud Verhulst uses on p.39. Picturing a so called Holocaust fraude is the hinge of the whole article.

    Bondarev was (and is?) supported by the chief editor of Driegonaal, as we could see in the pamflet provided by Floris Schreve.

  399. Jan Luiten,

    I don’t think the climate changed in this conversation because Floris and me showed up, but because the information we provided forced you to take a stand (which you didn’t).

    It was you who started here to neglect smearing journalism ordered by Wala and Weleda. And you posted a text about pseudoskepticsm, in which the word ‘pseudoskepticism’ seems to be replacable by anthroposophy. LOL

    So what you write about Andy Lewis can easily be written about yourself, Jan. I’ll show you using you’re own text.

    What is Anthroposophy? Anthroposophy (or spiritual science) refers to arguments which use scientific-sounding language to disparage or refute given beliefs, theories, or claims, but which in fact fail to follow the precepts of conventional science. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anthroposophy.
    In other words they are selling nonsense, fried air, as again confirmed with biodynamic farming.
    But Anthroposophy is not an innocent belief. It has zealous adherents who fanatic and fundamentalist represent this belief. They pretend they have the only true ideology , and are not doubting that ideology which is very unskeptical. Under the mask of science but in reality on the feable basis of Anthroposophy they give themselves the right to belittle an suppress other convictions. This makes this ideology dangerous. It is a neo-reactionary totalitarian ideology. It does not accept other ideologies beside it. It will suppress these other ideologies and is therefore not democratic. Jan Luiten , exposed as pseudoskeptic, is now running around as a mad dog to bite everything that is skeptic towards Anthroposophy.
    Too long these Anthroposophists, calling themselves spiritual scienctifics, have dominated public opinion.
    To all who have been attacked by Anthroposophists:
    Fight Back!!! Visit : http://www.skeptic.com

    Ain’t this a laugh, Jan?

  400. Just for information: I’ve removed two comments by AL. I’m sorry I wasn’t on the alert earlier. Not going down that particular road again.

    By the way, there’s little reason, in my opinion, to discuss if RS ‘was a racist’, what is relevant is: did he utter racist ideas (in some or any parts of his work). And, yes, he did. That’s not some kind of world-ending catastrophe that can’t be handled.

    For what it’s worth — I trust a historian’s, Peter’s, reading of racism definitions more than yours, Jan. There’s a very simple added reason for it (except the fact I’ve read what Peter writes and it’s always well-referenced and well-argued, clear): your interpretation was unreasonable on the face of it. It was simply silly. It renders *blatant* racists into non-racists. We don’t even need to speak about RS. The absurdity is evident.

  401. “But the process of my condemnation was already running. In the period July 25 – August 9 Diana came to the verdict : Jan Luiten is a sympathizer. Without a trace of evidence, and with as single basis the belief in the suggestions of both Dutch speaking gentlemen.”

    Without a trace of evidence? This is the evidence that the article in question is a Holocaust denial article:

    http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jos-verhulst-in-het-verbod-op-denken-driegonaal-2001.pdf

    Do you deny this is a Holocaust denial article?

    Seems to me you’ve forgotten to weigh in on this?

    And this is the evidence that you are a sympathizer. You state about this magazine:

    “certainly I wrote for it not so long ago. I only wish I had the time I could write more for it.” and “Indeed I am a sympathizer of Driegonaal. I love this magazine.”

    Disgusting display you have put on here.

    Once again to recap, Jan: YES I BELIEVE FLORIS AND RAMON.

    That’s because they’re telling the truth.

    You’re not.

  402. One small piece you are wrong about also, Jan –

    I did definitely come to a conclusion about the Holocaust denial article on the basis of Floris’s and Ramon’s comments about it. I believed them. They’re credible. (You’re not, in case you’re still wondering. You’re a bag of hot air at best.)

    I did NOT come to any conclusions about your sympathizing with the Holocaust material until you spoke up about it. During the period you were silent, claiming to be away on holiday, I said that I hoped we would hear from you, and that you needed to set the matter straight. I actually stated that I believed you were probably NOT sympathetic to it.

    And then you returned and spoke up, to state that you had written for Driegonaal recently and wished you had more time to write for it now.

    As long as we are “reconstructing,” let’s get it straight. I believed Floris and Ramon about the content of the article, given that they read Dutch. The content of the article has never been in dispute in this thread, by you or anyone else. We all know what’s in the article.

    What was in dispute was your opinion or attitude toward Holocaust denial. On that, I draw conclusions from your own words printed right here on this screen. The only thing I had to forego direct evidence on was the content of the article since I don’t read the language. For that, I trusted a couple of native speakers who I have no reason to believe are lying. If in fact there’s some question about the content of the article, quite plainly you’d have cleared that up by now. We all know it’s a Holocaust denial article and your credibility is gone.

    Your gibberish about “pseudo-skeptics” is nuts. There may be such a thing as a pseudo-skeptic – people who call themselves skeptics but aren’t thinking clearly or using evidence wisely – but the topic has no relevance here, where we have solid evidence.

    The article once again (since I know you’d prefer the link wasn’t quite so easy to find on the latest screen):

    http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/jos-verhulst-in-het-verbod-op-denken-driegonaal-2001.pdf

  403. Another oddity I have noticed lately on the blog – the list of “latest comments” is not always correct.
    (Not complaining, Alicia, by any means – just wondered if you’d noticed this and if it’s related to the uncooperative behavior of the “comment” function overall.)

  404. I couldn’t agree with you more, Diana.

    As for the latest comments and the side bar widget — I haven’t noticed it, but I haven’t looked today or even lately. I know there’s sometimes a delay — there are new comments but they don’t show up immediately. Also, there might be comments showing that I have moderated and deleted. I’ve deleted three comments today in total. (A couple of days ago I had to do it too. Basically I’m babysitting the thread now even if I haven’t had the time to say a lot today.) Could this be the reason?

  405. ” I assume that the people who participate here on a regular basis, and who are my opponents in various discussions, Diana Winters, Pete Karaistos and Alicia herself, haven’t read one single book of Memmi. For the interpretation of Memmi they totally trust the interpretation of their “guru” Peter Staudenmaier.”

    You’re right Jan. I can confirm I haven’t read an entire book by Memmi. Do you suggest this invalidates my opinion on the subject? Just like no English reader can discern the content of a Dutch article? I haven’t read Webster’s dictionary in its entirety either. If it has suddenly become a prerequisite that one must read the entire dictionary before one can understand a definition contained within it, I am unaware of this new rule. I don’t need to read Memmi’s book… I’m only concerned about his definition of racism – and I’m only concerned about THAT because YOU think it excludes Steiner. Having understood his definition of racism better than you (apparently – thanks to Peter S), I’m am prepared to discuss it… still without reading his book. Steiner fails Memmi’s test miserably. He was a racist – and Waldorf schools continue to teach his racist ideas as science. Even Memmi would agree.

  406. re: the comment list – ah, that might be it (comment moderation explains the list being screwy).

    Pete, thanks for those links. It doesn’t really leave Verhulst’s views in doubt.

    It’s kind of funny how google translate can be going strong and yet sometimes just sort of gives up about three-quarters of the way through a document.

  407. Reviewing some of Jan’s comments throughout this thread, it’s really rather appalling. The pattern is always of denial and deflection. At all costs, avoid the point and think of something – anything, no matter how trivial and desperate and irrelevant – that you can accuse other people of, as a way to appear to keep talking and yet say nothing, about the actual topic. Never answer any question directly, and reply only in non sequiturs.

    If someone points out that you are defending a magazine that is publishing Holocaust denial, make a big case out of the fact that one of the commenters doesn’t speak the language the magazine is published in. Yes, THAT will make Holocaust denial go away!

    Pretty much every one of his replies is like this – content-free regarding the issues that other people are discussing.

  408. The very beginning of the thread, where he’s making irrelevant comments about a farcical “contract” with a bogus “independent journalist,” yet refuses to ever say what he thinks of the actions of Weleda or Wala, is exactly the same type of maneuvering as he uses later when the Holocaust denial at Driegonaal comes out. Someone, somewhere must have done something wrong, but it couldn’t be an anthroposophist. We hear all about Pete’s “anger management” problems, and we hear complaints that his email address was inadvertently published, and he is not happy when people talk about him while he is away on vacation. It’s a whinge-fest.

    Really, do anthroposophists not see how this appears to the outside world? Like a cult.

  409. Also this is interesting:

    “I did – and do- challenge the judgment Rudolf was a racist.”

    Rudolf? Are you on a first name basis with him in the spirit world? Or were you his close associate in a previous incarnation?

  410. This is perhaps the most telling comment:
    “Could I comment on his observation that Driegonaal is becoming more and more a platform for holocaust deniers?
    Floris assumption there is Holocaust denial in Driegonaal was based upon his claim that a booklet edited by Driegonaal, should contain Holocaust denial. He referred e.g. to an article by Jos Verhulst in this booklet. Floris and Ramon provided links to Driegonaal and to the booklet, but did not provide factual and textual evidence. Since the content of the article was not clear to me at the time this accusation done, I had to read it. He had not made my mind up what to think about it, and I still haven’t..”

    This is someone who reads an article asserting that Elie Wiesel lied about the gas chambers at Auschwitz, and “can’t decide” if that is Holocaust denial.

  411. I try to figure out why but he isn’t helping my conclusions in a positive direction on that account either. Dense or desperate, I don’t know. I think I’ve tried. I’ve suggested he has tied himself into a knot, but if he has (by no means nessecarily the truth, it might just all be a clever plot…again, I don’t know), he can’t confess or handle it anyway, thus continues some bizarre game focused on irrelevant details and the presumed minor wrongs of others. It’s absurd. And now I must get off a bus…

  412. also: “He had not made my mind up what to think about it, and I still haven’t..”

    Is that a Freudian slip, Jan? Guess what, YOU have to make up your mind about it, Floris can’t do it for you.

    You also assert that Floris and Ramon came here to make a “personal attack” on you. Pathetic. Get some perspective. Spend 5 minutes thinking about what Holocaust denial actually is, and who it hurts. YOU?????

  413. And, btw, I’m on first name basis with Rudi and he denies having associated with Jan in the spiritual world, however admits he might have been too intoxicated or uninterested to remember it.

  414. “I try to figure out why but he isn’t helping my conclusions in a positive direction on that account either. Dense or desperate, I don’t know. I think I’ve tried.”

    You’ve been extraordinarily patient and accommodating, more so than I really thought was warranted, but he’s surely got no room for complaint with you. I reached conclusions while you went on asking him to explain. In a way my accusations have given him the room he wanted to avoid answering your questions. Yours and Ramon’s – not a peep on any of them.

  415. It’s a bit like asking mr Dog not to obsess about the bunnies.

  416. Quote Diana: ‘The content of the article has never been in dispute in this thread, by you or anyone else. We all know what’s in the article. What was in dispute was your opinion or attitude toward Holocaust denial.’

    Very good you point that out, Diana!

  417. Jan:

    “Floris assumption there is Holocaust denial in Driegonaal was based upon his claim that a booklet edited by Driegonaal, should contain Holocaust denial.”

    That wasn’t all. There was also:

    http://fhs1973.files.wordpress.com/2008/09/neonazisme-in-driegonaal-eerste-lichting.pdf

    That one is even less ambiguous. That’s an advertisement for talks by Gennadij Bondarew, a notorious anthroposophist Holocaust denier.

  418. Both of these incidents are enough separately, taken together… Well, they indicate a worse problem.

    And it seems even the A S has excluded Bondarew for his antisemitism. So apparently there are people who have at least noticed the problem.

  419. Here is some more perspective on the topic of Holocaust denial. Now the Holocaust is on my mind, for obvious reasons, and late last night I was aimlessly channel surfing and came across an interview with this lady (Anneliese Nossbaum) on one of the local university-sponsored public television stations:

    http://www.holocaustawarenessmuseum.org/node/741

    She was speaking to a small room full of students, and the production was rather poor and I had trouble understanding some of what she was saying even with the volume turned up pretty high. (She speaks with an accent that is, at least for me, a bit difficult). So after the program was over, I googled her to find more, and to be sure I understood her story. She’s a survivor of Auschwitz and Mauthausen, and lost her father in the camps, and her mother from tuberculosis a few weeks after liberation.

    Unfortunately, googling her turned up some shocking nastiness, as well. She is a target of Holocaust deniers of the most vicious kind. I’m realizing as I type this that I don’t feel comfortable using my work computer to go to some of the sites I discovered last night – perhaps I will do that later tonight from home. (You can google her name with “stormfront” for a sampling. But be warned it is seriously nauseating.)

    In addition to people attempting to “debunk” her story, the same comment threads included truly horrific, violent images of what some of these people would like to do to Jews.

    (The “debunking” was mindless – one of the news stories mixed up the dates she was in the two different camps – also she was apparently sent to work in some factory, away from the camp, at one point, not clear for how long – and the story, poorly written, made it sound like she was liberated from Auschwitz in May of 1945, when in fact Auschwitz had been liberated much earlier. She had actually been transferred from Auschwitz to Mauthausen, which was indeed liberated in May of 1945. This wouldn’t have been hard to check – but the commenter writes something like, “Anneliese liked Death Camping so much she decided to stay 6 more months after the Nazis left.”)

    There’s a seriously frightening and idiotic level of debate in Holocaust denial. The thread devolved from there to graphic descriptions of violent things they’d like to do to Jews. The commenters are apparently too stupid to understand that this gives them a bit of a credibility problem. Like, Hitler didn’t do gruesome things to the Jews, but we’d like to? Okay.

    I do not think Jan’s buddies at Driegonaal represent this type of Holocaust denial.

    In a way, what they represent is worse. I’m sure they never have fun discussing things like what you can do to make Jews’ eyeballs pop out of their heads, or how Jews scurry like rats when they’re cornered. Etc.

    Instead, they make denial of the Holocaust into something genteel, educated (pseudo-educated), and sophisticated. They pretend they “do research.” They use phrases like “critical thinking” a lot, and refer to George Orwell a lot, to suggest there’s a great conspiracy that disallows us from thinking clearly about the Holocaust, and that they’re really radical noncormists because they “question.”

    They aim to give Holocaust denial a whole other elevated level of CREDIBILITY.

    That’s worse. Scary as they are, few people take the the “stormfront”-type people seriously – they are obviously thugs and brutes, and they aren’t exactly opinion leaders in society. More likely they’re working at gas stations or something and living in their parents’ basements.

    Anthroposophists definitely aim to be opinion leaders at least in certain segments of society. They carefully tend their image as progressives, part of an educated upper middle class (at least in the States) that includes educators, college professors, lawyers, and successful businesspeople etc.
    They are contributing to making Holocaust denial RESPECTABLE. And that is worse. Far worse, than dumb, violent idiots on the Internet. And terribly, terribly frightening.

  420. Nauseating.

    That’s partly why it would interesting to know how other anthroposophists react to the kind of stuff published by Driegonaal; I’m sure there are those who object, those who are (genuinely, not fake) ignorant, and those who sympathize (I wonder about the relative size of each group). I expected Jan to react different from how he did react. Did the Dutch anthro society express any viewpoint? This rubs off on them too, doesn’t it? Not to mention how it taints Demeter.

  421. Well, see, keeping the discussion on the supposedly high, intellectual-sounding level, as in articles by people like Verhulst, keeping the discourse very academic and respectable sounding, is what allows it to gain ground. Nobody respectable would ever consider letting on if they enjoy jokes about how to get Jews’ eyeballs to pop out of their heads – and likely not being violent brutes, most anthroposophist Holocaust deniers are probably just as upset by such images as we are.

    But they are absolutely contributing to allowing the phenomenon to gain ground. One of them backs up the other and allows the other to creep forward in acceptability and legitimacy.

    It is much simpler to get people to agree that “questioning” the Holocaust should be permitted – well, of course it should. We’re not suggesting sending the questioners to jail. (Though I do realize that in parts of Europe you can indeed go to jail for it; I don’t agree with that personally.) Those openly inciting violence against Jews do not have much support. The way is paved for it, however, by academics who try to plant the seed of doubt that perhaps the Holocaust is exaggerated or did not happen as historians claim, in fact, historians are deliberately perpetuating a conspiracy, whereby Jews perpetrate monstrous lies.

    The genteel, academic antisemitism absolutely supports the violent kind by gradually lowering the barriers and turning public opinion in an antisemitic direction.

    This is why academic Holocaust deniers need absolutely to be “outed” and shamed for what they are doing. Other anthroposophists must NOT tolerate it, must NOT go on writing for their publications! It is shocking that anthroposophists of conscience would not see that. (Which is why I conclude Jan doesn’t have one – a conscience, that is.)

  422. As for who is “genuinely” ignorant and who is “faking” ignorance and thereby a “sympathizer,” I don’t think this distinction amounts to much. My impression is that Jan was probably genuinely ignorant of this until a couple of weeks ago. He crosses the line to “sympathizer” by not refusing to disassociate himself. This is something a person of conscience should INSTANTLY dissociate himself from.

    I don’t think we need to wonder EXACTLY what he is thinking, or exactly what he believes happened during the Holocaust. It’s irrelevant. He’s not making a decision about what public statement to make on that basis, either – I seriously doubt he’s thoughtfully considering historical evidence about the Holocaust at this point, or trying to figure out if there were really gas chambers. He’s trying to figure out whether to lose certain friendships and alliances by taking a stand against the editorial direction Driegonaal has taken. He’s trying to save face (and deflect attention from the issue with all his histrionics here). He becomes a sympathizer by default.

    It doesn’t really matter WHY people sympathize. People need NOT to sympathize – that’s what matters.

  423. Well, *he* is obviously not genuinely ignorant about it now, and that’s what matters *now*. I wonder about other anthroposophists, all of whom aren’t interested in the social threefolding movement and even less in this publication.

    ‘Other anthroposophists must NOT tolerate it, must NOT go on writing for their publications! It is shocking that anthroposophists of conscience would not see that. (Which is why I conclude Jan doesn’t have one – a conscience, that is.)’

    The complete inability to distance himself at least from the specific material (the article and the promotion of Bondarew) — if not from the entire magazine — is… surprising. And sad. To see obfuscation instead, even sadder.

  424. And, by the way, I agree — but any sign of steps in the right direction, even if only objecting to these specific ‘incidents’, would have been better than nothing, better than what we’re seeing, which is a seeming absence of any genuine concern (about the content) at all on Jan’s part.

  425. In fact, what we are saying is that we are still giving him the benefit of the doubt. One explanation for failing to disassociate himself from a magazine publishing Holocaust denial is that he was taken by surprise, is shocked, finds it hard to believe, hates to think he might lose friendships or important colleagues in anthroposophy, and can’t quite bring himself to just deal with this head-on.

    There are other explanations, and frankly they make a lot of sense. This is a publicaiton he claims to love, yet he claims to have been largely unaware of what they’ve published in recent years? Well, maybe.

  426. As far as I can see from a quick review of the thread, Jan has made no reply regarding Driegonaal’s support of Bondarew. He has focused on the Verhulst article (because apparently asserting that I can’t read the article will somehow change its content).

  427. I’ve been looking back on Floris’s essay that anthroposophist Michael Eggert published (http://www.egoisten.de/pixx/schreve.pdf). I had read it a while back, but obviously… one forgets.

    It says it all, really.

    And… several people and blogs and websites that Jan apparently read have published on this topic. If Jan was shocked by the presence of content like this or ignorant about the doings of Verhulst and Bondarew… this must be years ago! I have to say that it doesn’t seem likely that he was unaware of this and, as Diana points out, he loves this publication and didn’t react when he saw they had published this material!? It stretches one’s imagination. Obviously, this discussion isn’t the first time Jan came across Floris’s essay. The blog posts on Floris’s and Ramon’s blogs are not new — and of course Jan has read them. This is the first time, perhaps, he’s had to discuss these things in English, and unfortunately some of us participating in this disusssion had to begin by trying to find out more about the background. I’ve tried to catch up a little every day. But, basically, I’ve had to give Jan the benefit of the doubt, simply because I didn’t know enough to conclude he must have known better. I’m changing my mind — he did know better, he has known better all the time, which is why certain questions have remained unanswered, eluded.

    Another anthroposophist, Jens Heisterkamp, calls Bondarew’s utterances a shame for anthroposophy. I’m not sure what stops Jan from saying his beloved magazine’s promotion of Bondarew is a shame. Except for one thing: he doesn’t think so.

  428. I wrote above: “He crosses the line to “sympathizer” by not refusing to disassociate himself.”

    The double negative was unintentional – probably that was clear, but I meant “He crosses the line by refusing to disassociate himself.”

  429. I didn’t even notice, it was so obvious what you meant, but in this discussion I suppose it doesn’t hurt to point it out explicitly — that it was a mistake — in order to avoid further confusion…

  430. “If Jan was shocked by the presence of content like this or ignorant about the doings of Verhulst and Bondarew… this must be years ago! I have to say that it doesn’t seem likely that he was unaware of this”

    No, it really doesn’t. That’s been the context all along – this guy is definitely a committed and very involved anthroposophist – this is all news to him? I don’t think so. These are his friends and colleagues and the brouhaha started quite some time ago.

    “This is the first time, perhaps, he’s had to discuss these things in English”

    Perhaps. Or maybe the first time he’s had to discuss it with critics in English. Not speaking Dutch we can’t confirm if he might have had the exact same “I’m shocked, shocked by these accusations” type conversation in Dutch.

    “I’m not sure what stops Jan from saying his beloved magazine’s promotion of Bondarew is a shame. Except for one thing: he doesn’t think so.”

    A reasonable conclusion from the evidence.

    Or another possible conclusion: He just doesn’t think it matters all that much, unless someone gets upset about it. He doesn’t agree with Holocaust denial himself, but he doesn’t really think it’s so terrible if someone else does. (By the way, Jan, that’s called sympathizing.)

    Which is actually worse? Which is more frightening?

  431. ‘Or another possible conclusion: He just doesn’t think it matters all that much, unless someone gets upset about it. He doesn’t agree with Holocaust denial himself, but he doesn’t really think it’s so terrible if someone else does. (By the way, Jan, that’s called sympathizing.)’

    Yes. But I guess we’ll never know, unless Jan chooses to speak up.

    Jan mentioned having commented at least on Ramon’s blog. It hit me that he might have not only read but discussed these exact same things before. (Which would of course make it impossible for him to take the opportunity — which we even offered him — to say he hadn’t seen it before.)

    I’m not sure what is worse, but in the latter case — him not agreeing but not caring — there’s at least the potential for him to start to care. Unless he’s just too stubborn, and unless thinks this is all about the perceived faults of ‘pseudoskeptics’ and not at all about his own behaviour. He’s still very welcome to express his viewpoint. (Any more irrelevant babbling will hardly impress us though. Just a hint to Jan.)

  432. Diana says, ‘Instead, they make denial of the Holocaust into something genteel, educated (pseudo-educated), and sophisticated. They pretend they “do research.” They use phrases like “critical thinking” a lot, and refer to George Orwell a lot, to suggest there’s a great conspiracy that disallows us from thinking clearly about the Holocaust, and that they’re really radical noncormists because they “question.”

    Diana’s characterisation is very apt. I have met people like this and always found that behind it all was some degree of anti-semitism, either cold stereotyping or bonkers hatred such as she was coming across. I have never met or read anyone who actually was simply questioning the historical accounts of the holocaust.
    Why would anyone actually do this – to disbelieve the testimony of so many thousands of Jews and Non-Jews, camp guards and administrators, etc., unless they already have a hidden agenda?

    To quote Diana again, ‘The genteel, academic antisemitism absolutely supports the violent kind by gradually lowering the barriers and turning public opinion in an antisemitic direction.’

  433. I’ve just read a remarkable article by Norman Geras (Professor Emeritus of Government at the University of Manchester)

    http://normblog.typepad.com/normblog/2012/05/alibi-anti-semitism.html

    ‘Holocaust-denial [...] is a prominent trope of contemporary anti-Semitism; it is indeed continuous with a practice of the Nazi period itself, when camp guards and the like would mock their Jewish victims by telling them that not only were they doomed to die, but also all knowledge of what had happened to them would be erased. They would be forgotten; the world would never know.’

  434. Very good and interesting.

  435. “Unless he’s just too stubborn”

    It seems like stubbornness – but I don’t think it is. And I think we’re seeing more than just a deer caught in the headlights. Steve Hale behaves the same way… never admitting, never denying. AWSNA and racism? Same thing – never admit, never deny. It seems to be some magical place where only Anthroposophists are comfortable – somewhere between not having to tell the truth, but not having to actually speak the lie either. I’ve seen this too many times not to notice it.

  436. On the other hand… I kind of expected more of Jan than I would evere expect from Steve H, not that I’ve had much to do with the latter, but, frankly, there are reasons for that! He seems extremely impossible, in my eyes.

  437. Thanks Melanie! That was a very interesting article. Yes, I think we shouldn’t be surprised at the existence of Holocaust denial. Clearly Holocaust denial started during the Holocaust, not afterwards.

    Here is another report of very early Holocaust denial. This is a passage from Imre Kertesz’s book “Fatelessness.” (I could swear I had typed this in once on the critics list, but I couldn’t find it.) He is a Hungarian writer who survived Buchenwald as a teenager. In the passage below he (along with thousands of other survivors) is making his way home haphazardly across eastern Europe, just days after liberation.

    ‘We traveled by truck and cart, on foot, and public transport – whatever the various armies could put at our disposal. We slept on the back of an ox-drawn wagon, on the benches and teacher’s podium of a deserted schoolroom, or simply out under the star-studded summer night sky, on the flower beds and cushioned lawn of a park amid gingerbread houses. We even took a boat along a river – reminiscent, to my eyes at least, of the Danube, though smaller – that I learned was called the Elbe, and I also passed through a place that had clearly once been a city but was now no more than piles of stone with the occasional bare, blackened wall poking up here and there. The inhabitants were now living, residing, and sleeping at the foot of these walls, heaps of rubble, and also what was left of the bridges, and I tried to take pleasure at that sight, naturally, only I could not help being made to feel – by the self-same people – somewhat uneasy at doing so.

    I took a trip on a red streetcar, and traveled on a proper train that was pulling proper carriages in which there were proper compartments for people – even if, as it happened, the only place available was up on the roof. I alighted in a city where one could hear a lot of Hungarian being spoken as well as Czech, and a crowd of women, old people, men, all sorts, gathered around us near the station as we were waiting for the promised connecting train that evening. They inquired whether we had come from the concentration camps and interrogated a lot of us, me included, as to whether one had chanced to meet up with some relative, someone with such and such a name. I told them that in a concentration camp people generally did not have much use for names. Then they would endeavor to describe the external appearance, hair color and distinctive features, so I tried to get them to see that it was pointless, since most people changed a lot in the camps.

    On that, those around me slowly dispersed, except for one man in very summery clothing of just shirt and trousers, his thumbs hooked behind the belt, just next to the straps of his suspenders on either side, and his fingers meanwhile drumming on the material; he was curious, and this made me smile a bit, as to whether I had seen the gas chambers. I said to him: “If I had, we wouldn’t be standing around talking now.” “Yes, of course,” he rejoined, but had there actually been any gas chambers, so I said, sure, there were gas chambers too, naturally, among other things; it all depends, I added, what type of person was in which camp. In Auschwitz, for instance, you could bet on it. “But in my case,” I noted, “I’ve come from Buchenwald.”

    “From where?” he asked, so I had to repeat it: “Buchenwald.” “So, from Buchenwald, then,” he nodded, and I said, “That’s right.” “Let’s get this straight then,” he said in response, with a stiff, austere, yet somehow almost preachy face. “You, sir,” and I don’t know why but I was almost stunned by this very formal and, I would say, somewhat punctilious mode of address, “you have heard about the existence of gas chambers,” so I said, sure I had. “Nonetheless, sir,” he carried on with that same austerity of one who is restoring things to order and clarity, “you personally, however, did not ascertain this with your own eyes,” and I had to admit that I hadn’t. To that he merely remarked, “I see,” and after giving a curt nod strode away, stiffly, erectly, and as far as I could see, unless I was very much mistaken, satisfied in some manner.’

    (Imre Kertesz, Fatelessness. Translated by Tim Wilkinson. New York, Random House, 2004, pp. 240-242)
    (Originally published in Hungarian in 1975)

    I have added some paragraphs to make this passage easier to read; there were none in the original.

  438. I’ve got to read that book. Thanks for typing.

  439. It is a fantastic book, really. It seems strange to say about a Holocaust memoir, but it is a wonderful book. The movie is also very good.

  440. Before I fall asleep, I’d like to recommend Peter’s post, in case someone reading this isn’t also reading the critics list:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/25032

  441. For Jan,
    The Moving Finger writes;
    and, having writ,
    Moves on: nor all your Piety nor Wit
    Shall lure it back to cancel half a Line,
    Nor all your Tears wash out a Word of it.

    [Rubaiyat - Omar Khayyam]

  442. Ah, that’s a brilliant little piece.

    Unfortunately, Jan seems to have concluded that actually explaining things — and replying to questions — is futile. It isn’t. (Replying irrelevant things is.)

  443. Sean K. Gilde · ·

    I am a new reader of this blog. I have read many of the comments and will state my interests right at the start: I support Waldorf education, use Anthroposophical medication and I try and support Demeter food production. I only want to make one comment: I am struck by the shoddy, sometimes nasty, often mocking views regarding R. Steiner, people who share his view point, Waldorf education and alternative medication. It is more reminiscent of school playground ‘bullying’ group antics than a serious discussion about an opposing view to the one being examined (the comments about Terry Boardman are a good example of this); it is worth pointing out that just because an opposing view point has many supporters and the original view seems totally ridiculous, it is also worth remembering that 350 years ago the majority of the world thought the earth was flat. Many views expressed in this blog are interesting and thought provoking but off putting in the style and delivery of their content. One can totally disagree with a view point and still formulate a response that acknowledges the valid right of the other person to not only hold that view, but that this view can in most instances be as right as one’s own and thus should be respected, just as I am sure, all the contributors to this blog would wish their views to be respected too – even by those people who think that they are completely wrong in the way they have interpreted the original view. Making fun of other peoples views and beliefs is in most cases not cool.

  444. “Making fun of other peoples views and beliefs is in most cases not cool.”
    Are you including holocaust denial in this? Just curious. People have a valid right to hold the view that the world is flat too – even if that view is very obviously wrong. The “right” to hold a view is not in question here but the outrageous views themselves are certainly fair game.

  445. Go Pete!

    This was just the right thread for such a comment as Sean’s. Really, there would be much less problem, much less criticism, much less objection — if anthroposophists just behaved ethically. If Weleda had not paid a smear ‘journalist’ to taint people, nobody would have written posts like the one that started off this thread. Wouldn’t that have been much nicer? And we could have (those who want), perhaps, barring other unethical procedures, continued to buy Weleda products without thinking we’re contributing to ethically compromised activities. If anthroposophists, in this case Driegonaal, hadn’t published or promoted holocaust denial, there would have been no need for people to point this out. Wouldn’t that, too, have been much nicer. And it goes on.

    And, to be fair, we’re not ‘making fun’ of other people’s views and beliefs in this thread. I have not seen one waldorf/anthroposophist critic making fun of anthroposophist holocaust denial. That might be because it really isn’t funny.

  446. But hello anyway.

    Buying products from Weleda, as I assume you do, Sean don’t you feel like… it would feel better if they weren’t involved in sordid business? Or do you think they have no responsibility?

    For what it’s worth, they have stuff I like (and even need, actually), but to act like that – no! Bad decision. Wrong. A movement can’t claim the moral high ground with such baggage to carry.

  447. This is surreal.

    Dear Mr. Waldorf Supporter: The thread is about HOLOCAUST DENIAL.

  448. ” One can totally disagree with a view point and still formulate a response that acknowledges the valid right of the other person to not only hold that view, but that this view can in most instances be as right as one’s own and thus should be respected,”

    Out of curiosity. Which views expressed by anthroposophists in this thread do you think should be respected? Tom made a couple of thoughtful contributions. I usually disagree with him but I do respect his views, as I can see he has a conscience, as well as brains.

    Unless I missed it there are no other anthroposophist opinions expressed in this thread that I respect. The opinions expressed by Jan Luiten were not worthy of respect. They were craven and callous.

  449. Why do I go on being shocked by these people?

  450. Thank You, Diana. I appreciate your brain and conscience too!
    Take good care of yourself Alicia, kick those Lyme disease germs up the butt.

  451. They’re being brutally evicted from my physical body as we speak, thanks to antibiotics. These germs have neither conscience nor brains, I’m pretty certain. Neither do the nasty ticks.

    ‘The opinions expressed by Jan Luiten were not worthy of respect.’

    When he finally got around to expressing any opinions at all. I have a feeling the most telling things were expressed indirectly, because he said very little about the issues that were being discussed.

  452. [...] to Diana for an excellent summary of the topic of a thread so long it’s epic; I think it’s the longest thread on the [...]

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 767 other followers