‘hate’ (sune’s shenanigans revisited)

Sune tweeted this yesterday. It leaves a bad taste. I’ve said it like a thousand times (e g, yesterday): criticism is not hate. Disagreeing with you, Sune, or with anthroposophy or with what anthroposophists do, it is not hate. I firmly believe that anthroposophists, and in particular you, Sune, must cease expressing themselves like this about dissenters or people who you perceive as opponents of your cause. Arguing against state funding of Steiner schools — or arguing against anything else you happen to be a proponent of — does not equal a ‘hate crusade’. In light of the horrific events in Norway on Friday afternoon, I can’t help but think that tweeting about critics’ ‘hate crusades’ seems, if possible, even more inappropriate than before; perhaps it’s time to think twice about what hate is, what a hate group is, what a crusade is — before you assign these labels to civilized critics whose only crime is expressing a viewpoint you don’t like (and to which you’re free to object, preferably with arguments rather than insidious epithets). What about it, Sune? I somehow can’t believe that you don’t know better — that you don’t know how inappropriate it is to be talking about ‘hate’, ‘hate-group’ (that group you liken us to, well, it is properly labeled a hate-group, and you can’t be so ignorant you don’t see a difference), ‘crusades’ and, even more so, ‘hate crusades’. Can’t you just, please, shut up with this hate rhetoric? It’s very unlikeable. But more importantly, it’s unfair and untrue.

In that link you also mention that critics are, supposedly, ‘fundamentalists’. Have you any idea what fundamentalism is? It certainly isn’t the same as disagreeing with Sune or with anthroposophy; it certainly isn’t the same as criticizing or questioning either. (It is far more fundamentalist to use the methods you use, Sune, to stop people from expressing themselves critically or negatively about Steiner, anthroposophy or waldorf education.) In this text (ie, the link in the tweet) — which is fraught with a number of silly (not to say, in your own words, ‘little founded’) statements and I’m picking the most blatant idiocy as an example here — you try to pin this belief on a small number of critics (myself and three UK critics):

“Free Steiner Waldorf schools in the UK would turn the pupils into racists and anti-Semites”

This is absolutely disgusting, it’s revolting beyond belief. I guess you put this in quotation marks to convey an impression that this is an actual quote rather than some shit you most likely invented yourself. I suspect that you’re falsely and dishonestly attributing this position to critics. As far as I can remember, I’ve never seen anyone of us claim this. I know I haven’t; and if someone else has, I reject that position and don’t wish to be associated with it. Can’t you, at least, have the decency to stop pretending this is a quote — and if, indeed, it is a quote, provide the source. Immediately, thanks. Then ensues the usual junk; if you’re so worried about defamation, why don’t you stop defaming Peter S? And it would suit you better to believe me when I tell you that @ThetisMercurio is not a certain Jaqueline Davis. I have no idea who Jaqueline Davis is — and I can’t say I care much –, but your error is plain silly, and you were made aware of it months ago.

Now I have a suggestion for you, Sune. You say that Thetis’s claims are ‘little founded’. Whether you refer to her articles (written in co-operation with @lovelyhorse_) or to comments made on this blog or to her tweets or comments on other blogs, I welcome you to present concrete evidence of these ‘little founded’ or even unfounded claims. What are they, and why are they little or unfounded? You see, I find it entirely plausible that critics (much like anthroposophists) occasionally make claims that aren’t fully supported or that are in error. I rarely, if ever, see you point to these statements, explain why they’re unfounded, or offer any real counter-arguments. Instead, you fire off general accusations at others for making ‘little founded’ claims and then resume your usual twaddle about hate-groups and so forth. Why is Thetis wrong? — I, for one, would like to know. Because it seems to me her posts are more well-referenced than yours, her claims are properly supported more often than yours, her arguments have substance when your arguments do not. You seem to think it suffices, as a refutation, to call her a ‘hate crusader’. It does not. Come to think of it, you never offer any concrete examples of the alleged ‘hate crusade’ either — this is your opportunity. Point me to instances when Thetis or I are crusading in a hateful manner. Tell me exactly where I’m wrong and why, tell me when I’ve done something wrong, and I’ll try to explain what I meant (or change my words — or even my mind). Holding an opinion that contradicts your beliefs — or even anything that you perceive as truth — does not count as ‘hate’, though. I think you know that. But don’t be a coward about this. If you say I’m on a ‘hate crusade’ — or that Thetis or anybody else is — then it’s only fair to ask that you substantiate this claim; if there’s nothing to it, it’s a despicable accusation against a person. If you prefer, do it in Swedish. But don’t write things like that and hide yourself in anthroposophical obscurity until you assume the coast is clear again and you can resume tweeting your hate-group junk.

45 thoughts on “‘hate’ (sune’s shenanigans revisited)

  1. Frankly, I’m happy to hear of more “hate group” connections. It’s a slur campaign against critics of Waldorf education. Additionally, there is a very evident conspiracy within Waldorf to slur critics – it isn’t JUST Sune… there are many, many instances of the description “hate group” being made publicly in reference to PLANS by top level Waldorf people. When they connected me (falsely) to PLANS, after first calling it a “hate group” – Waldorf (in this case AWSNA) made a HUGE mistake that may be costly for them. I suspect after they pay damages for their intentional defamation, they may back off from such language – at least officially. Hey, it’s a dog-eat-dog world, right?… (Oops… sorry Mr. Dog).

    Sune, as we know from other blogs, has no credibility – he has even gone to the extent (I’d say “extreme” but I’m leaving room for him to top himself) of FABRICATING what (he claims) Steiner said.

  2. ‘Hey, it’s a dog-eat-dog world, right?… (Oops… sorry Mr. Dog).’

    Mr Dog calls that anti-dog hate-type speech. Is very upset.

    But you’re correct — I’ve seen others express the same views on critics as Sune does, he’s somewhat more prolific then the others and perhaps an inspiration to them. Some people seem to regard Sune’s websites, filled with this stuff, as accurate sources — and I assume that when AWSNA called critics a hate-group (whether it’s the loose network of individuals or PLANS they refer to), they’ve been inspired by Sune and people who spread the same time of insidious propaganda against critics. (Being a supposedly serious organization, they should know better.) And AWSNA is not alone. Lots of waldorf orgs and schools and anthroposophical orgs refer to Sune’s websites or repeat these catch-phrases about hate-groups.

  3. Here’s another one, but I can’t find the previous posts Patrice Maynard is referring to. Either they’re deleted or I didn’t look close enough.

  4. how can the diagram be ‘taken out of context’ when it’s accompanied by exactly where it comes from? We didn’t make it up. They’re polite though, these people!

    btw the Fullfledge Ecology School Facebook site has ceased to be public after a link to the following post was posted on its wall – and then, when that was deleted, under ‘discussions’:

    Any thoughts, Pete?

  5. yes – ‘crusade’ is in very poor taste, for more than one reason.

    “Free Steiner Waldorf schools in the UK would turn the pupils into racists and anti-Semites”

    that’s an extreme statement – as you say Alicia Sune implies that it’s a quote from somewhere. Where? I have certainly never said such a thing, nor has anyone I know.

    To put it more in context, Peter Staudenmaier wrote incisively – and I quoted him at DC’s:

    “I would be pleased if my research provided an opportunity for Waldorf admirers to ponder this contentious history and take its lessons seriously. What is worrisome about the Waldorf movement’s continued failure to address anthroposophy’s racial legacy is not that Waldorf schools in the twenty-first century will start churning out little Hitler youths; what is worrisome is that Waldorf advocates and sympathizers may unknowingly help prepare the ideological groundwork for another unforeseen shift in the broader cultural terrain, in which notions of racial and ethnic superiority and inferiority could once again take on a spiritual significance that lends itself all too easily to practical implementation in a changed social and political context. For this reason among others, I strongly encourage those involved in Waldorf endeavors to take another look at the history of their movement and the doctrines at its core.”

    MY immediate concern is that Steiner Free Schools in England would take public money away from better institutions in order to educate children badly using pseudoscience and poor classroom practise, with barely trained staff who are not honest with parents (or the DfE). That’s enough to start with. But the more the SWSF shows itself incapable of addressing the most worrisome aspects of Waldorf – and initiatives like Fullfledge pretend not to be Steiner schools to APPEAR to distance themselves from problematic ‘dogma’ – the more juvenile antics there are in response to criticism – deletions and evasions – the more I think we have reason to focus attention on this movement.

  6. I pointed this out, with a link to your blog post (where the reference is perfectly clear) AND a link to a pdf of the entire GA.

    Have began to read the Fullfledge post, and can but recommend it.

  7. Thanks for remembering and posting that quote, Thetis. And you’re quite right.

    And I wonder — why did AWSNA have to pin responsibility for that nice little illustration on critics (because I think that’s what they did — although they’ve now posted saying that was a misunderstanding…)*, when they could have easily said, e g, that it was from a work of Steiner that is not even read in teacher training? Wouldn’t that have been a more reasonable — and more honest — response?

    [* I have screenshots…]

  8. It seems that their position when faced with questions is not to answer them, but to avoid and slur, inferring a hidden agenda in the questioner. When I mailed my questions directly to Mr Ewout Van-Manen following our meeting, the suggestion was “it is clear you have very strong political views about education and how it should be run by government”. Now, I do have strong views about education, however they are not political. Turning my criticisms of his proposed school into a political matter draws from the points I made. As an experienced teacher my concerns were purely educational; yet again the concerns were not addressed and it was made personal. Why is it that people, people who are asking for my money to educate children, feel it acceptable to ignore a reasonable and rational dialogue? At least in a state school we are answerable to someone, I certainly couldn’t get away with what is (in effect) the equivalent of sticking my fingers up and shouting ‘nyer’ at a parent who had concerns at my school, why is this any different? The behaviour of Mr Van Manen has been, in my opinion, disgraceful. He withdrew the wall from the Facebook page when a link was posted to the blog (UK Anthroposophy), he then withdrew the discussions page and sent all followers this message (I was mailed this by a confused parent):

    Ewout Van-Manen 23 July at 14:52 Reply • Report
    Dear supporters, due to the wall post part of this website being corrupted we have had to change the user rights of our wall and limit it to admins only for the time being. Our apologies. Please do message us via facebook, or our website, and we will post your contributions for you if you so wish.

    So, a post linking to an article is corruption? Hmmm.
    I love the spirit of openness and debate within the Steiner Movement, that they enjoy talking about their beliefs and entering into discussions about these matters in an adult way….actually, I started that as a joke but it’s really not funny. The way in which I have seen these people deal with questions and criticism is disgraceful, they are entirely unwilling to engage in any form of debate. Another reason not to send your child to their school perhaps?

  9. It’s all ‘how it’s seen’, isn’t it? Visitors are naive, and must be gently reprimanded. How does it look to outsiders?

    Waldorf proponents who don’t agree with Steiner’s race doctrines don’t have to defend his prejudices as if they are their own. They must however admit that this is what he taught, and that he was wrong. Rudolf Steiner was not clairvoyant, he didn’t have privileged insights from Higher Worlds – his talents such as they were can be judged by the same criteria as any other person’s talents. Waldorfers have to admit this, to decide what’s worth saving and, more than anything else – they must stop lying, to parents, to themselves, to children.

    Unfortunately, that’s not happening yet.

  10. It was interesting to note that in as much as none of my comments were addresses subsequent to the meeting, neither were they denied.

  11. Seriously, this is a new low even for Sune – trying to get Waldorf PR mileage out of the Oslo tragedy? To him, this is a chance to announce that the prime minister is a Waldorf grad?
    That’s a bit unpleasant, Sune.

    And carrying on about “crusades” and “hate groups” in relation to Waldorf critics while something like Oslo is unfolding in the headlines makes you look ignorant. I would say it’s repugnant, but in reality, most anyone who stumbles across it without any prior knowledge of the situation, would probably just dismiss it as the strange mumblings of someone out of touch with what is going on in the world.

  12. Looks like I have some reading to do… I just became aware of AWSNA’s facebook page… for some reason I can’t post on their wall ;) – Kinda like the missing Highland Hall at the Waldorf Hub page http://waldorfhub.com/school/us/highland-hall-waldorf-school. I haven’t read the UK article. It turns out, I’m homicidal now… so I should be spending my time planning murders… another smear from Anthros. http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/48146 So keep the “new low” category open… Tarjei and Sune are in competition. I’ve got to get off to work this morning, but I’ll be back to post some comments this evening…

  13. Pete,
    “AWSNA’s facebook page… for some reason I can’t post on their wall ;)”

    Lol! No kidding??? :)

  14. I’ll be back later, but I don’t think the prime minister *graduated* from waldorf school. I think he went to high school somewhere else. According to wikipedia (!) he went to waldorf, but later to this school: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oslo_katedralskole — something quite different than waldorf… And he grew up in a family of politicians. And he’s, obviously, university educated. Where the fuck he went to kindergarten and primary school is quite irrelevant.

    Not that it matters, anyway. His efforts over these past three days have been highly impressive. I guess that to people like Sune, the explanation is obvious — it’s waldorf.

    Now I have to continue to listen to the press conference from Norway. Fewer dead than previously suspected. Thank Dog.

  15. Ok.

    Re Diana’s comment on Sune — unpleasant, yes, although I think that him tweeting that Thetis is on a ‘hate crusade’ was much worse, given the nature of the terrorist crimes in Norway. Critical debate on a topic is not a hate crusade. Sune’s rhetoric pisses me off more than ever. And has he replied? Does he have anything to say for himself? Nope. He’s already made his point, and that’s all he cares about. Not the fact that his acts actually hit human beings who have done nothing wrong — except expressing a viewpoint contrary to his. I agree completely with you — it’s repugnant, and the most favourable interpretation is, indeed, that these are the ramblings of someone who’s out of touch. Maybe he’d like to explain, but I guess not. I’m just thinking that he can’t be that callous. But maybe he can.

    Pete — thanks for posting the link to AT. It’s sickening beyond belief.

    I haven’t looked at the Facebook discussion today, but I noticed they’d produced a reply…

    Esther — ‘yet again the concerns were not addressed and it was made personal. Why is it that people, people who are asking for my money to educate children, feel it acceptable to ignore a reasonable and rational dialogue?’

    Right to the point, Esther!! They make it personal — they make it about the other person’s motives and mind, it’s suddenly a bad thing to have viewpoints (they indicate some mental failing?), and so forth.

    In the Facebook discussion, instead of saying something about the chart — which came right out of a Steiner book — they turned against critics. Even saying that critics provide the wrong information. The person asking them wanted to know about *their* stance, not that of critics or of the failings of critics, re a specific passage in a book by their own movement’s founder.

    ‘So, a post linking to an article is corruption? Hmmm.’

    LOL! But the episode is so telling. I take it that lots of Steiner supporters are totally oblivious that sharing links is a huge part of internet culture and not some kind of corruption…

    ‘The way in which I have seen these people deal with questions and criticism is disgraceful, they are entirely unwilling to engage in any form of debate. Another reason not to send your child to their school perhaps?’

    I think that’s one major reason. You can’t expect a quality of education — or of anything really — if open discussion is not allowed.

    ‘It was interesting to note that in as much as none of my comments were addresses subsequent to the meeting, neither were they denied.’

    They think critics are evil and best ignored. The response by AWSNA is just the latest example for me personally — they think everyone who doesn’t agree with them is wrong and that for answers from experts, we should rely on them and the anthroposophical society. That will provide us with very one-sided answers.

  16. Totally off topic: Stoltenberg speaking about the importance of immunisations; perhaps some anthroposophists would listen, I mean, look, he’s a prime minister with a waldorf education!!! Perhaps even you, Sune! Talk in English:

  17. Oh, yes, I agree, the talk about “hate” and “crusades” is vile; absolutely inexcusable in present context. Pointing to the Norwegian prime minister as yet another celebrity Waldorf poster child is … cute … in comparison; quaint, almost. Sune’s fervor for his cause is touching, childlike at times. It’s almost a contrast with the talk about hate crusades. It makes me almost forgive him, it almost makes most of what he says appear pathetic rather than truly nasty. Almost – not quite.

    “Corruption” refers to spiritual corruption, I think. Even though they’re really referring to a web page – a page specifically set up for comments, of course – I think they mean it metaphysically.

  18. Alicia H – of course they implied a mental failing in me – how did you guess? Here’s the quote from one of my email replies: “I am not confident that you have interpreted or understood the topics covered because they are complex and cannot be simplified into bullet points as you suggest. Neither can some of the huge areas of study we are touching on be grasped fully from quick cramming on the internet and in one meeting. All of these ideas need lengthier and deeper consideration to do them justice.” Yep, I’m clearly a retard. Though being left-handed obviously puts me at a disadvantage (Mr Van Manen ensured his own children were not left-handed by forcing them to be right) due to a lack of balance.

    My favourite quote from the email: “When I agreed to meet with you and answer your questions it was with the clear intention of having an open, objective, professional pedagogical discussion. It is by listening to the views of others that there is the opportunity to learn and develop on both sides.” Sune? Open, objective, professional discussion please.

    I am sure that all we will get is two fingers in the form of ‘you’re horrid haters, nyer’ as the Steiners run off into the distance – again.

  19. Waldorf Schools: Rudolf Steiner’s books are “an incitement to racial hatred”, says BPjM http://t.co/mhaZwES

    Someone translated the BPjM findings in this case as a response to Thetis’ original posts on UKAnthroposophy, it’s nice to see that there are people out there who still try to find things out for themselves and are willing to enter into proper discussion.

  20. Esther — I’m sorry to say but you won’t get ‘proper discussion’ from the person who translated the BPjM findings and wrote that article. He’s banned from commenting on this blog — he’s the only one I’ve ever banned from commenting here. I don’t take his articles seriously; I’ve realized the hard way that it’s not worth it. There’s a reason I never participate in some of these discussions online. I don’t want to get involved in any way with this person ever again. (I guess writing this will incur his wrath again, so I say pre-emptively that any such comments will be deleted immediately.)

    Moreover, the more I consider it, the more I find the BPjM bizarre. I don’t need a public authority telling me which texts are safe to read. In my mind, the people who publish Steiner’s work should be free to do so in whichever shape or form the pretty well please — without interference from state authorities. Everyone has a right to criticize the decisions (and the publications) of these publishing companies, but it is at least my opinion that if we’re serious about Steiner and what he said/wrote, it is important that these texts are available in original form, untampered with. And I, for one, support their right to publish Steiner without being subjected to (quasi?-)legal procedings.

    ‘Alicia H – of course they implied a mental failing in me – how did you guess?’

    They usually do ;-)

    Diana — I agree! In some ways I feel the ‘hate’ stuff is a bit out of character… for a character like Sune. It doesn’t quite fit, and I don’t really see why he couldn’t find other ways to express that he thinks we’re wrong. And thanks for the elucidation re ‘corruption’; it hadn’t hit me.

  21. OT: I noticed that UKanthroposophy has announced, a couple of weeks ago, that the blog is now ad-free. I’ve so far not chosen to pay to go ad-free, and when I last asked about it, people said that there were no troubling ads. (Though this may be because they have adblock or something, I guess.) So — I ask again… Are there ads?

    (WordPress hides ads for people who are logged in, like I am. And I have Adblock installed, thus see very few ads anyway.)

  22. Taking the liberty to quote Diana on the critics list:

    >Many historians of Nazism pursue a similar argument for the >otherwise disparate groups they study. The Nazi regime did not fall >out of the sky;

    I actually think the tendency to read into analyses such as yours a notion that “esotericists are special” is wishful thinking on the part of esotericists. They’re quite determined to be special. If they have to be special in a nasty, negative way, that’s better than being not special. If someone criticizes them, it’s better if that person is an “enemy” than just someone who disagrees with their philosophy, and it’s a lot more titillating than arguments about funding of public education. Basically, it’s more fun.

    That’s why the Tarjei’s, Frank’s, Sune’s and Dennis’s of anthroposophy write on message boards that critics think anthroposophists are all Nazis or murderers, while this is far from what we think. (Tarjei’s on a tear like this as we speak, insisting that critics will try to link the Oslo killer to anthroposophy.) The answer is, you guys WISH we thought you were so outrageous, or that you could even be suspected of such outrageous things. We don’t say the things you say we say; you make that stuff up, out of wish fulfillment. The facts are boring in comparison.


  23. I’ve read a couple of Tarjei’s latest posts. (It’s an exception.)


    — the company was called Breivik GeoFarm,* and although it has been claimed (in some media) it was an organic farm, this seems ludicrous given his aims. In any case, it would make little sense to start a biodynamic farm as a cover-up if your intention is acquiring as much fertilizer as you possibly can in order to create a bomb. Really, I would have been so happy if this madman had tried to make bomb out of biodynamic preparations instead, or if he’d used eurythmy rods to beat the people at Utøya with. He would have been a joke, not a mass murderer. (*Addition: Tarjei thinks the farm was called BioFarm and that this name would cause critics to conclude that it had to do with biodynamics. First he gets the name wrong. Then he accuses critics of drawing silly conclusions from this — as common as the prefix ‘bio’ is, why on earth would critics be so deluded? Organic is often referred to as ‘bio’ this or bio that, a product labeled ‘bio’ isn’t necessarily biodynamic… In some languages organic produce is not called organic, like in French where it’s ‘biologique’. And that is not the same as biodynamic. I don’t think biology has anything to do with biodynamics either, despite the ‘bio’… Amazing, huh!! But this is just silly, because *he* had the name wrong in the first place. Or does ‘geo’ have some unknown connection to anthroposophy? Should we blame geologists and geographers? ;-))

    I’ve also read the manifesto (well, not all of it, it’s rather tedious…). I think it’s pretty damn clear that this person was not an anthroposophist — so why on earth does Tarjei think critics will claim he was?* There’s absolutely nothing that would indicate any anthroposophical connection. If there were, it would be a different thing. But there isn’t. I would really like to know if waldorf critics have ever blamed mass murder and terrorism on an innocent anthroposophist. I bet it’s never ever happened.

    [*’It was a reaction against tolerance, anti-racism, and multi-culturalism. (That’s why those dear and sweet Sugar Cherubs in the Wisdom Community probably think he’s an anthroposophist.)’]

    The rest of that message (and the ones quoted) is despicable junk. Once again.

    Here’s another one:
    ‘Of course it was funny, but the Sugar Cherubs don’t understand that, it only frustrates them. In the Wisdom Community, fun is off-topic and ad hominem and so on, it’s verboten’

    — maybe because Tarjei is a lot less funny than he himself imagines. Probably goes for Ted Wrinch and Frank too.

  24. “as common as the prefix ‘bio’ is, why on earth would critics be so deluded? Organic is often referred to as ‘bio’ this or bio that, a product labeled ‘bio’ isn’t necessarily biodynamic… In some languages organic produce is not called organic, like in French where it’s ‘biologique’. And that is not the same as biodynamic. I don’t think biology has anything to do with biodynamics either, despite the ‘bio’… Amazing, huh!!”

    Again, it’s their fantasy and their delusions of grandeur, imagining that if the rest of the world hears a word with the prefix “bio,” we think of “biodynamics” right away. These people believe they are the center of the universe. (Well, literally, as that’s what Steiner taught; “man” is at the center of all cosmic purpose. Essentially they teach a geocentric universe. Remember Stephen Clarke praying to Mr. Sun. It’s what they believe.)

  25. geocentric I guess should be heliocentric. At any rate, they haven’t noticed that the Middle Ages ended awhile back.

  26. No no no — you did of course mean geocentric only to pin down Breivik GeoFarm as an anthroposophical venture!!! ;-)

    ‘Again, it’s their fantasy and their delusions of grandeur, imagining that if the rest of the world hears a word with the prefix “bio,” we think of “biodynamics” right away.’

    And in reality, interesting enough, people don’t even know what biodynamics is when they hear it, they think it’s some kind of organics, they know nothing of the anthros. This alone indicates it would be absolutely silly to think anyone would connect ‘bio’ in another context to biodynamics.

  27. Not that the terms geocentric or heliocentric have anything to do with anthroposophy, but I’m sure Tarjei et al are quite capable of making the most idiotic connections between things.

  28. The more I think about it, whenever something like Oslo happens, the first thing that happens in the anthro online world is someone like Tarjei starts chattering excitedly that maybe anthroposophists will be blamed. Hello, *anthroposophists*? It’s comical. Anything for a little attention, I guess, even if it’s being falsely linked to a preposterous crime. Anything to be able to shout “Slander! Infamy! We’ve been attacked!”

  29. Well, perhaps “geo/helio” – our sun in our solar system, existing to warm our earth, our earth being the home of “man,” and man, in turn, being basically the reason the cosmos exists.

    A religion for 1) total megalomaniacs and/or 2) people who haven’t yet gotten the message that the Middle Ages ended some time back, and there is some new knowledge about the universe, and it would be good to try to assimilate this new knowledge without freaking out, it really is all right, despite scientific advances showing pretty clearly that we aren’t the reason the universe exists, in fact we are not even living in the only universe, it *is** pssible to go on from there, all love, beauty, and friendship have not been destroyed after all, thank dog, carry on! (No, no, best to put our fingers in our ears and shriek about enemies)

  30. Going on a shooting rampage has never been much of an anthroposophical tradition. There are certainly less violent ways to earn a bad reputation, however.

    Diana — exactly.

  31. Ha ha — no, it isn’t! It’s perfectly possible to comment anonymously, so people can do it, voluntarily or, sometimes, involuntarily (like you!). It doesn’t become a problem unless there are *several* people posting as Anonymous, because, well, it’s easier to talk to people if you can separate them (pseudonyms are always ok, of course).

  32. A blog post on the norwegian terrorist, written by Egil Asprem, who studies esotericism:

    Highly recommended!

    Edit, I must include a quote:

    What does the references to Freemasonry, initiation rituals and Templarism mean in this context? Is there an “esoteric connection”?

    The initial answer should be: Not really. Breivik in fact states explicitly in the manifesto that the Order is a fictitious one, which only illustrates how a revolutionary campaign could look like. In that scheme, which he is obviously doing everything he can to bring from fiction to reality, the Knights Templar seem little more than a fancy name for a guerilla military/terrorist organisation, with the intended symbolic force of medieval Christianity and crusade rhetoric. It obviously looks nothing like the historical Knights Templar, but neither does it resemble in any substantial or even structural way the countless neo-Templar esoteric orders that have formed out of esoteric currents over the last couple of centuries. Any connection seems purely esthetic, purely superficial, and we find no obvious trace of any direct and thought-through engagement with esoteric discourses.


    No, we should not consider Brevik’s neo-Templar terrorist fantasies a “proper part of” Western esotericism as such. But neither is the presence of esoteric motifs entirely coincidental, and in fact we do find other traces of this within segments of the European New Right (Nouvelle Droite).

  33. As Sune isn’t responding, though I’m quite certain he’s reading, is it fair to conclude that he actually wants to associate critics with despicable atrocities? I guess the answer is yes. What prevents you from realizing that to connect critics with hate crusades is utterly nasty — it is always nasty, but even more so the day after a hate mongerer who sees himself as a crusader goes on a lethal rampage.

    What is it, Sune, that makes you do this?

  34. “is it fair to conclude that he actually wants to associate critics with despicable atrocities? I guess the answer is yes”

    Absolutely that’s what he wants. He believes the ends justify the means. Critics are enemies, so any tactic is fair – to him.

  35. I think you ought to rethink this approach, Sune. I mean, you wouldn’t seriously think this is ok in any other context, would you?

  36. ‘Then, the researchers shook half the bees to simulate an invasion of the hive by a predator, such as a badger, and offered the bees the original two smells plus three new blends. The shaken bees still stuck their tongues out for the scent they associated with the sugar reward, but they were much less likely to do so for unfamiliar smells than the group that hadn’t been stressed. It seemed the unpleasant disruption had turned the shaken bees into pessimists. Even though there was an equal chance the strange smell would taste good, they more often believed it would taste bad.’

    “the stressed bee’s glass is half empty.”


Comments are closed.