return to WCA Archive Index
-- Topica Digest --
RE: Moon Landings
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
AW: RACE
By bruceylists@freenet.de
AW: RACE
By bruceylists@freenet.de
RE: Moon Landings
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
RE: AW: RACE
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
RE: RACE
By pkcompany@netzero.net
RE: RACE
By pkcompany@netzero.net
RE: Moon Landings
By pkcompany@netzero.net
RE: Moon Landings
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Moon Landings
By pkcompany@netzero.net
AW: RACE
By bruceylists@freenet.de
AW: Moon Landings
By bruceylists@freenet.de
AW: Moon Landings
By bruceylists@freenet.de
RE: AW: RACE
By pkcompany@netzero.net
Mercurium will be used as a cure against syphilis
By bruceylists@freenet.de
AW: AW: RACE
By bruceylists@freenet.de
RE: AW: AW: RACE
By pkcompany@netzero.net
Re: Moon Landings
By awaldenpond@shaw.ca
RE: Moon Landings
By Diana.Winters@verizon.net
RE: Moon Landings
By Diana.Winters@verizon.net
RE: Moon Landings
By Diana.Winters@verizon.net
Ahriman
By bruceylists@freenet.de
Re: Moon Landings
By awaldenpond@shaw.ca
Re: RACE
By awaldenpond@shaw.ca
RE: Moon Landings
By Diana.Winters@verizon.net
RE: Moon Landings
By Diana.Winters@verizon.net
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:52:44 +0000
From: baandje
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
Diana Winters wrote:
>
>(One of the sites is also full of homophobic stuff, and I didn't have
> the stomach to look further at whatever "save the males" is trying to
> achieve.)
Anthropops are linking to that site? Makes sense to me.
During my Waldorf kindergarten years, the teacher, Maria Frau, sat the
class down one day and talked about the overarching structure of human
sexuality: hetro, homo and various others (we had a whole hour to kill
before the parents were picking us up). She explained that men in
particular stand at various levels of moral development, and that while
most boys learn to forge their own male destiny in life, others wouldn’t
be as karmically fortunate. The 6 year-olds in the class she explained
were “ancient, wise, but vitiated”; the 4 and 5 year-olds “youthful,
unformed, childlike”.
When it came to the one 7 year-old in our group who was held back from
entering first grade because his Anthroposophical parents were more
concerned with Steiner’s theories than they were with the boy’s
educational needs, she veered off topic to warn us that the poor kid was
screwed for the remainder of his school years.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:21:19 +0200
From: "Bruce Jackson"
Subject: AW: RACE
Bandtje writes:
I'm sure Bruce doesn't see it this way, just as I'm sure he's not in
fact a racist. But that's the issue - Anthropops are as blind to all
this as they are in their blind support of everything Steiner uttered.
[Bruce Jackson]
I'm not a racist, no! I also don't believe that I'm blind. I have difficulty
interpreting some of Steiner's statements, sure; but I try to ascertain why
he said what he said and to whom in order to fathom out some of the more
bizarre statements, especially on race.
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 11:17:47 +0200
From: "Bruce Jackson"
Subject: AW: RACE
I agree that I said something to that effect, yes. And I abide by that.
However I cannot really see the sense in trying to catch me out all the
time. I'm doing my best to answer your questions, and I'll continue doing
so.
Bruce
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: baandje [mailto:bangus@nb.sympatico.ca]
Gesendet: Montag, 30. April 2007 10:52
An: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Betreff: RE: RACE
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
>
> Baandje,
>
> Bruce claims the above as his "personal understanding" of the statement,
>
> but doesn't say he aligns himself with this theory.
Yes, I understand that apparent discrepancy. However, I recall reading a
comment from him along the lines of “I’ve never come across anything
Steiner said, that I didn’t agree with.” In which case, there’s no
difference between what his interpretation of what Steiner was getting
at, and what he himself believes.
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 12:26:23 +0000
From: baandje
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
Diana Winters wrote:
>
> Whether the moon landings were a hoax does wander off topic, but
> anthroposophical credulousness toward conspiracy theories is on topic,
> as is anthroposophical scientific ignorance. Remember, we're talking
> about people who (in some cases) are so scientifically illiterate that
> they don't believe that the entities they see in the night sky are
> physically real, or that we have the technology to send rockets up
> there.
>
> To me, if we're talking about education, this is pretty serious.
>
> And while I don't feel strongly one way or the other that we discuss
> moon landings per se, I do feel strongly that this stuff comes as a
> package.
>
> I was just trying to catch up on the "anthroposophy" list on yahoo,
> where Bradford Riley and Steve Hale still hold forth. These two left
> another anthroposophical list, "anthroposophy tomorrow," a few months
> ago after other people realized they were sympathetic to holocaust
> denial material. So they just moved to a different, more "tolerant" list
>
> - tolerant, I mean, of antisemitism.
>
> Within the past week a contributor there has linked to two different
> antisemitic sites, one of them openly a Holocaust denial site. This
> stuff is alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy.
“Alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy”, huh? Just the
other day Walden was saying Critics don’t actually say Anthropops and
Waldorf teachers are racist, or anti-Semitic, or holocaust deniers or
whatever.
Interesting how then a week later, here’s you actually saying those
things. It’s an endless cycle of denial and dishonesty around here as
far as that goes.
And you couldn’t be more wrong about Anthropops and your claim regarding
their penchant for conspiracy theories. Ask any level-headed Anthropop
if and when you find one, what they think of UFO’s for example. You’ll
get the same incredulous look of disbelief and/or sneer of disgust that
you get when you try and suggest the Waldorf curriculum is Christian in
content and/or teaches Anthroposophy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 13:02:43 +0000
From: baandje
Subject: RE: AW: RACE
Bruce Jackson wrote:
>
> I agree that I said something to that effect, yes. And I abide by that.
> However I cannot really see the sense in trying to catch me out all the
> time. I'm doing my best to answer your questions, and I'll continue
> doing
> so.
I’m not attempting to catch you out. Some play that game, but I don’t. I
understand where you’re coming from. I know you don’t believe Steiner’s
comments are racist, and that’s because you’re a committed
Anthroposophist.
Sorry to be so blunt, but you need to disconnect yourself from the
philosophy and wake up to the fact that Steiner’s comments are racist.
Likewise, Critics who think racism and anti-Semitism and holocaust
denial are alive and well and VERY current in Anthroposophy, need to
wake up to the fact that that’s a crock of BS.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:11:37 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos
Subject: RE: RACE
baandje wrote:
>
>
> Pete Karaiskos wrote:
> >
> > Baandje,
> >
> > Bruce claims the above as his "personal understanding" of the statement,
> >
> >
> > but doesn't say he aligns himself with this theory.
>
> Yes, I understand that apparent discrepancy. However, I recall reading a
>
> comment from him along the lines of “I’ve never come across anything
> Steiner said, that I didn’t agree with.” In which case, there’s no
> difference between what his interpretation of what Steiner was getting
> at, and what he himself believes.
Yes, but it isn't clear if he had come across this quote BEFORE he made
his statement about agreeing with everything he has come across.
Certainly, if he hadn't come across this statement, we can't hold him to
agreeing with it without knowing if it was contained in the body of
knowledge he had come across previous to his statement. Maybe we should
just ask? This is, BTW, part of the problem with statements like the
one Bruce made. There's no way to confirm what the statement refers to
- without asking for specifics.
I've heard similar statements from Waldorf teachers: "I've never read
anything in Steiner's works that is racist." One cannot determine if
the racist material doesn't seem racist to the person making the
statement, or if they have somehow miraculously read Steiner for years
without encountering racist material. It almost seems like a game with
some people.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:20:10 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos
Subject: RE: RACE
baandje wrote:
>
> Pete Karaiskos wrote:
> >
> I wouldn't be
> > surprised, however, to learn that many Waldorf teachers DO accept this
> > as a spiritual truth - as none that I know of has ever denied it. It
> > has always been my feeling that unless one denies the racist elements of
> >
> >
> > Steiner's theories, it's an indication that one accepts them. Most
> > often, I have heard denial of the notion that they are, indeed, racist.
>
> Pete, the vast majority of committed Anthropops believe these Steiner
> theories, period. That’s what makes them committed Anthropops.
>
> I was really just trying to shock Bruce into seeing the hypocrisy.
> Anthropops who explain away Steiner’s racist comments as ‘spiritual’
> theory, are supporting racist doctrine. And if they support racist
> doctrine, that makes them racist, does it not?
>
> I’m sure Bruce doesn’t see it this way, just as I’m sure he’s not in
> fact a racist. But that’s the issue – Anthropops are as blind to all
> this as they are in their blind support of everything Steiner uttered.
I completely agree. If you religiously support a doctrine, you become
that doctrine. People who support religions that are homophobic, or
xenophobic, themselves fall into those categories. People who support
racist doctrines are nothing if not racists themselves.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:24:46 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
It should be noted here that nobody is a spokesperson for critics any
more than anyone is a spokesperson for Anthroposophists.
Pete
baandje wrote:
>
> Diana Winters wrote:
> >
> > Whether the moon landings were a hoax does wander off topic, but
> > anthroposophical credulousness toward conspiracy theories is on topic,
> > as is anthroposophical scientific ignorance. Remember, we're talking
> > about people who (in some cases) are so scientifically illiterate that
> > they don't believe that the entities they see in the night sky are
> > physically real, or that we have the technology to send rockets up
> > there.
> >
> > To me, if we're talking about education, this is pretty serious.
> >
> > And while I don't feel strongly one way or the other that we discuss
> > moon landings per se, I do feel strongly that this stuff comes as a
> > package.
> >
> > I was just trying to catch up on the "anthroposophy" list on yahoo,
> > where Bradford Riley and Steve Hale still hold forth. These two left
> > another anthroposophical list, "anthroposophy tomorrow," a few months
> > ago after other people realized they were sympathetic to holocaust
> > denial material. So they just moved to a different, more "tolerant" list
> >
> >
> > - tolerant, I mean, of antisemitism.
> >
> > Within the past week a contributor there has linked to two different
> > antisemitic sites, one of them openly a Holocaust denial site. This
> > stuff is alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy.
>
> “Alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy”, huh? Just the
>
> other day Walden was saying Critics don’t actually say Anthropops and
> Waldorf teachers are racist, or anti-Semitic, or holocaust deniers or
> whatever.
>
> Interesting how then a week later, here’s you actually saying those
> things. It’s an endless cycle of denial and dishonesty around here as
> far as that goes.
>
> And you couldn’t be more wrong about Anthropops and your claim regarding
>
> their penchant for conspiracy theories. Ask any level-headed Anthropop
> if and when you find one, what they think of UFO’s for example. You’ll
> get the same incredulous look of disbelief and/or sneer of disgust that
> you get when you try and suggest the Waldorf curriculum is Christian in
> content and/or teaches Anthroposophy.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 15:40:27 +0000
From: baandje
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
>
> It should be noted here that nobody is a spokesperson for critics any
> more than anyone is a spokesperson for Anthroposophists.
Good point. On the other hand, I can't count all the times someone here
has insisted that people on this list don't accuse Steiner people of
being all these things, only to be followed by a bunch of posts accusing
Steiner people of being all these things. :)
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 17:25:49 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
baandje wrote:
>
> Pete Karaiskos wrote:
> >
> > It should be noted here that nobody is a spokesperson for critics any
> > more than anyone is a spokesperson for Anthroposophists.
>
> Good point. On the other hand, I can't count all the times someone here
> has insisted that people on this list don't accuse Steiner people of
> being all these things, only to be followed by a bunch of posts accusing
>
> Steiner people of being all these things. :)
LOL! Well, of course he was all the things critics say he was, and none
of the things Anthropops say he was... that goes without saying... .
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:53:42 +0200
From: "Bruce Jackson"
Subject: AW: RACE
Pete writes:
I've heard similar statements from Waldorf teachers: "I've never read
anything in Steiner's works that is racist." One cannot determine if
the racist material doesn't seem racist to the person making the
statement, or if they have somehow miraculously read Steiner for years
without encountering racist material. It almost seems like a game with
some people.
[Bruce Jackson] I suppose you're suggesting that non anthroposophists never
make such statements! It doesn't almost seem like playing a game with you
guys it IS playing a game - are you ALL (no offence intended) so naïve to
see that?
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:56:01 +0200
From: "Bruce Jackson"
Subject: AW: Moon Landings
I'm afraid I don't understand what you mean here: WHAT things??
-----Ursprüngliche Nachricht-----
Von: baandje [mailto:bangus@nb.sympatico.ca]
Gesendet: Montag, 30. April 2007 17:40
An: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Betreff: RE: Moon Landings
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
>
> It should be noted here that nobody is a spokesperson for critics any
> more than anyone is a spokesperson for Anthroposophists.
Good point. On the other hand, I can't count all the times someone here
has insisted that people on this list don't accuse Steiner people of
being all these things, only to be followed by a bunch of posts accusing
Steiner people of being all these things. :)
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 14:20:10 +0200
From: "Bruce Jackson"
Subject: AW: Moon Landings
Baandtje writes
During my Waldorf kindergarten years, the teacher, Maria Frau, sat the
class down one day and talked about the overarching structure of human
sexuality: hetro, homo and various others (we had a whole hour to kill
before the parents were picking us up). She explained that men in
particular stand at various levels of moral development, and that while
most boys learn to forge their own male destiny in life, others wouldn't
be as karmically fortunate. The 6 year-olds in the class she explained
were "ancient, wise, but vitiated"; the 4 and 5 year-olds "youthful,
unformed, childlike".
When it came to the one 7 year-old in our group who was held back from
entering first grade because his Anthroposophical parents were more
concerned with Steiner's theories than they were with the boy's
educational needs, she veered off topic to warn us that the poor kid was
screwed for the remainder of his school years.
[Bruce Jackson] I'm not sure what you mean by the class. Did the
Kindergartenteacher say that to the *Children*?
I also cannot believe that a teacher had ALL 6yos in one box and all 5yos in
another!
Bruce
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 22:18:23 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos
Subject: RE: AW: RACE
Bruce Jackson wrote:
>
> Pete writes:
>
> I've heard similar statements from Waldorf teachers: "I've never read
> anything in Steiner's works that is racist." One cannot determine if
> the racist material doesn't seem racist to the person making the
> statement, or if they have somehow miraculously read Steiner for years
> without encountering racist material. It almost seems like a game with
> some people.
>
>
> [Bruce Jackson] I suppose you're suggesting that non anthroposophists
> never
> make such statements! It doesn't almost seem like playing a game with
> you
> guys it IS playing a game - are you ALL (no offence intended) so naïve
> to
> see that?
> Bruce
>
No... I'm pretty sure we all know it's a game. The game is to pretend
there is nothing racist in Steiner's work, that Critics misunderstand
what they have read of Steiner, that there is nothing wrong with
Waldorf... and to frustrate anyone who tries to point out that there is
- no matter how convincing the evidence. And Anthroposophists never
seem to get tired of that game. It's not that critics are naive to the
agenda - it's that every time an Anthroposophist plays the game, the
spectators get a glimpse of how the game is played... and learn.
Critics generally appreciate the opportunity to play the game, over and
over, for the benefit of the spectators. The outcome is always the same
- Anthroposophists won't acknowledge Steiner's racism any more than they
will acknowledge their own racism. But the outcome is not what's
important - Anthroposophists will never change the way they play the
game - but the spectators are treated to some fantastic twisting moves,
skillful dodging, faking, and more. Anthroposophists are good at this
game, but the more they play, the more they reveal about themselves -
and THAT is what the game is really about.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:34:36 +0200
From: "Bruce Jackson"
Subject: Mercurium will be used as a cure against syphilis
I have to admit that I cannot say anything to this topic: is it really
important? I guess someone on this list knows that it has never been used
yet!
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 20:50:27 +0200
From: "Bruce Jackson"
Subject: AW: AW: RACE
Baantje wrote:
Sorry to be so blunt, but you need to disconnect yourself from the
philosophy and wake up to the fact that Steiner's comments are racist.
Likewise, Critics who think racism and anti-Semitism and holocaust
denial are alive and well and VERY current in Anthroposophy, need to
wake up to the fact that that's a crock of BS.
[Bruce Jackson] I am sure that Steiner would have worded his remarks
differently if he had been speaking today - and that's a lot of the problem
with the critics on this list. On the one hand you want evidence that comes
from 21st century techniques; on the other you want to attack things that
were said around 100 years ago.
Gollywogs were the rage when I was a kid: now they're forbidden, and rightly
so. If Steiner had had a Gollywog and named it as such THEN, would he be a
racist? NO, he wouldn't. If he said it today then he would be.
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:59:19 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos
Subject: RE: AW: AW: RACE
Bruce Jackson wrote:
>
> Baantje wrote:
>
> Sorry to be so blunt, but you need to disconnect yourself from the
> philosophy and wake up to the fact that Steiner's comments are racist.
> Likewise, Critics who think racism and anti-Semitism and holocaust
> denial are alive and well and VERY current in Anthroposophy, need to
> wake up to the fact that that's a crock of BS.
>
>
> [Bruce Jackson] I am sure that Steiner would have worded his remarks
> differently if he had been speaking today - and that's a lot of the
> problem
> with the critics on this list. On the one hand you want evidence that
> comes
> from 21st century techniques; on the other you want to attack things
> that
> were said around 100 years ago.
No, Steiner knew his remarks were inappropriate even when he made them.
He continually warned against the wrong ears hearing what he had to say
and frequently described his lectures and some written materials as not
for public consumption. And, indeed, what he said 100 years ago was not
commonplace, acceptable or excusable then. Particularly because Steiner
claimed clairvoyance, the validity of his remarks should, necessarily,
stand the test of time. They don't. Are you suggesting black persons
were actually inferior 100 years ago?
I have, in our discussions, pointed out that in some cases, Steiner was
saying things that were a reflection of the times he lived in - like
when he railed against the deployment of black troops in France in 1923.
Lots of Germans were upset by this and Steiner's stupid stuff about the
French language being corrupt is somewhat excusable. But he was serious
about the mixing of blood among races, and he was serious about blacks
being child-like, and he was serious about blacks being savages, and he
was serious about blacks being less evolved than whites - and he went
into great detail describing all the ridiculous physiological processes
that were going on in blacks (and other races of course) - burning up
from the inside and other such nonsense.
As racists go, Steiner was, I'm fairly certain, among the most thorough
in providing explanations justifying his own racism. Of course he had
no scientific explanations, so he made up spiritual ones. After all,
who could disprove those? And Anthroposophists a hundred years later
could make the same claims - If critics can't prove that these are not
spiritual truths, then they must be spiritual truths.
> Gollywogs were the rage when I was a kid: now they're forbidden, and
> rightly
> so. If Steiner had had a Gollywog and named it as such THEN, would he be
> a
> racist? NO, he wouldn't. If he said it today then he would be.
Don't even get me started on Waldorf dolls... . People are
accountable for their beliefs - regardless of the time period. Nobody
cares that Steiner was a racist, BTW, but for the fact that he started a
school system based on a racist philosophy, populated by teachers who
adhere to a racist philosophy rather than denouncing it. This racist
philosophy is taught both directly and indirectly in Waldorf schools,
and teachers indeed work through it in their daily interactions with
children. Step ONE - Acknowledge that there is a problem.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:46:21 -0700
From: Walden
Subject: Re: Moon Landings
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
>> It should be noted here that nobody is a spokesperson for critics any
>> more than anyone is a spokesperson for Anthroposophists.
Baandje replied:
> Good point. On the other hand, I can't count all the times someone here
> has insisted that people on this list don't accuse Steiner people of
> being all these things, only to be followed by a bunch of posts accusing
> Steiner people of being all these things. :)
Glad you see Pete's point. But whoops - you slipped back into NOT seeing his
point in your next sentence with your "Steiner people." And - please DO
count all those times someone here accuses "Steiner people" of being all
these things. See if all those times really exist.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 02:18:55 +0000
From: Diana Winters
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
Baandje, you don't see the irony here, do you? *You* instantly jumped on
Bruce and demanded that he acknowledge he is a racist. None of this
"Let's discuss the material" or "Let's discuss the role this might play
in the movement" or "What is the effect of this on Waldorf students"
type soft rhetoric for you. Oh, no. You've got to quickly make
accusations against individuals. Bruce must admit he's a racist. You
then apparently project this "We've got to identify evil individuals"
mentality onto critics, when it comes from - yourself. Critics bend over
backwards to insist on talking about the material rather than vilifying
and labeling individuals. Year in, year out, this is lost on you.
Your neurotic squealing about it impels me to re-post my earlier
comments. And I suggest you review them carefully to see wherein I point
fingers at individuals, insist that all Waldorf teachers are racist, or
demand that individual Waldorf teachers be labeled "racist" etc. Here's
a hint: I don't. You do!
Here's what I wrote:
"It is once again (twice in the past year) the talk of the hour in a
major online anthroposophical discussion group, and no one there is
protesting, no one is saying, Hey guys, have you noticed that the web
site you linked to is a holocaust denial site - that half the articles
are on "Zionist plots" and "Jewish media" etc.? (
Here they are - this is the talk of the hour at the anthroposophy list
on yahoo.
http://www.savethemales.ca/260602.html
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6454 "
Check it out, baandje - check out carefully what I wrote above. Line by
line, if necessary. I discuss the content of the discussion on an
anthroposophical online forum. I suggest that people check out the web
sites that these people are discussing. I imply fairly clearly that the
material that is on these web sites is quite distressing, at least to
me. I lament the fact that no one has complained that the material is
antisemitic, homophobic, and in various other ways quite offensive.
Then, perhaps, after you've done that - re-read what I wrote - you might
actually click those links - and then - imagine if we ever got this far!
- you might come back and tell us what you think about the problem under
discussion here: And here is one more tip. The problem under discussion
is not whether Bruce Jackson is a racist. (Frankly, I could care less.
Nothing personal, Bruce.) The problem under discussion is whether
material of this nature is problematic in anthroposophy today, whether
it is "current" in anthroposophy today, and whether this might ever
filter into Waldorf education.
Any chance any of these questions interest you?
Diana
baandje wrote:
>“Alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy”, huh? Just the
>other day Walden was saying Critics don’t actually say Anthropops and
>Waldorf teachers are racist, or anti-Semitic, or holocaust deniers or
>whatever.
> Interesting how then a week later, here’s you actually saying those
> things. It’s an endless cycle of denial and dishonesty around here as
> far as that goes.
>
> And you couldn’t be more wrong about Anthropops and your claim regarding
>
> their penchant for conspiracy theories. Ask any level-headed Anthropop
> if and when you find one, what they think of UFO’s for example. You’ll
> get the same incredulous look of disbelief and/or sneer of disgust that
> you get when you try and suggest the Waldorf curriculum is Christian in
> content and/or teaches Anthroposophy.
This is why I go on about it. It is once again (twice in the past year)
the talk of the hour in a major online anthroposophical discussion
group, and no one there is protesting, no one is saying, Hey guys, have
you noticed that the web site you linked to is a holocaust denial site -
that half the articles are on "Zionist plots" and "Jewish media" etc.?
(One of the sites is also full of homophobic stuff, and I didn't have
the stomach to look further at whatever "save the males" is trying to
achieve.)
Here they are - this is the talk of the hour at the anthroposophy list
on yahoo.
http://www.savethemales.ca/260602.html
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6454
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 02:29:49 +0000
From: Diana Winters
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
baandje wrote:
>“Alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy”, huh? Just
>>the other day Walden was saying Critics don’t actually say >Anthropops
>and Waldorf teachers are racist, or anti-Semitic, or >holocaust deniers
>or whatever.
>Interesting how then a week later, here’s you actually saying those
>things.
I'll try this one more time, a different way: You're focusing on
different individuals than we're focusing on. You remain deeply upset at
the idea that *teachers* might have a finger pointed at them, experience
discomfort or chagrin if someone said "Racist" and pointed at them.
We're not all that interested in those people's discomfort, either in
causing it or relieving it - because we're more interested in the
*students*.
You're concerned for teachers and we're concerned for students. I think
that sums it up.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 02:31:58 +0000
From: Diana Winters
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
baandje:
>And you couldn’t be more wrong about Anthropops and your claim
>>regarding their penchant for conspiracy theories. Ask any level->headed
>Anthropop if and when you find one, what they think of UFO’s >for
>example.
LOL! That's a great example, for two reasons. 1) If you restrict this to
"level-headed Anthropops," it's kind of like the Waldorf schools in
Germany declaring that any school that has controversies around it just
isn't a Waldorf school, or Frank's assertion awhile back that it isn't
possible for an anthroposophist to be a Nazi. (Just take all the
anthroposophists who were Nazis, declare that by definition they really
weren't anthroposophists - problem solved. There were suddenly no
anthroposophists in sight who had ever been Nazis. Amazing how that
works.)
2) One of the teachers at our school had been in a UFO cult before she
joined anthroposophy. Oh, wait, she wasn't level headed I guess.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:25:16 +0200
From: "Bruce Jackson"
Subject: Ahriman
Another of Roger's points
July 24, 1920: "The task of Anthroposophy is not simply to replace a false
view of the world with a correct one...The task is to raise the spirit-soul
into the realm of the spiritual, so that the human being is no longer a
thinking and feeling automaton...The human being is...in danger of drifting
into the Ahrimanic world, in which case the spirit-soul will evaporate into
the cosmos." [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 115.]
I imagine you all realise (meaning specifically the critics, hopefully the
anthros too!!) that Steiner saw man being effectively tempted by Ahriman and
Lucifer. I'll assume that anyway. Steiner's task was to try to steer man
down the central path. In this quote he is stating that the danger that we
face now is that Ahriman will have more and power over us, eventually
forcing that which is spirit in us to separate from our physical bodies
entirely.
Bruce
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 09:30:16 -0700
From: Walden
Subject: Re: Moon Landings
Diana wrote:
>> Within the past week a contributor there has linked to two different
>> antisemitic sites, one of them openly a Holocaust denial site. This
>> stuff is alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy.
Baandje replied:
>"Alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy", huh? Just the
>other day Walden was saying Critics don't actually say Anthropops and
>Waldorf teachers are racist, or anti-Semitic, or holocaust deniers or
>whatever.
>Interesting how then a week later, here's you actually saying those
>things. It's an endless cycle of denial and dishonesty around here as
>far as that goes.
Come now baandje - what game are you playing here? First, must realize that
"critics" are not one-mind-one-voice. Perhaps, in fact, Diana and Walden
have differing opinions. But if you care to actually read what people
actually write you might just understand the opinions of people - based on
what they actually write. As you have tried to make something from nothing
(above) and have dragged me into this in an attempt to discredit "critics"
as being "dishonest", I invite you to try reading what I wrote - and then
read what Diana wrote.
I previously wrote (to baandje): "When one has - as "core beliefs" - a set
of values
that include spiritual AND racial hierarchy which you (and I), for example,
find "appalling," and a movement is created by those who share those beliefs
and
schools spring up - often started by leaders involved in that movement, does
it mean that "Anthropops are racist?" I wonder if such labels are even
necessary? Maybe it is such labels that take us away from a meaningful
discussion? For the record, I have not personally heard Anthroposophists
utter racist comments (except for one hard core Anthro who clearly has
issues with Asians). But I have also NOT heard Anthroposophists even attempt
to distance themselves from Steiners appalling racist beliefs. The "denial"
you write about, baandje, is, imo, very real. So, it seems the addiction to
Steiner-the-guru is stronger than the need to deal with appalling racist
beliefs. I wonder why? Racist beliefs with deep roots (subconscious) or is
something else happening . . ?"
And then read what Diana wrote (above). And finish with your response
(above). Do you see your error? Is there really a "cycle of denial and
dishonesty" here? Or perhaps you are still confused with your concept of
"majority" and/or you somehow read between the lines that Diana believes ALL
or the MAJORITY of Anthroposophists/Waldorf teachers are racist or
anti-Semitic? Btw, I trust you realize there is a difference between
"racism" and anti-Semitism?
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Mon, 30 Apr 2007 23:49:31 -0700
From: Walden
Subject: Re: RACE
Hi Bruce,
Pete wrote:
>>I've heard similar statements from Waldorf teachers: "I've never read
>>anything in Steiner's works that is racist." One cannot determine if
>>the racist material doesn't seem racist to the person making the
>>statement, or if they have somehow miraculously read Steiner for years
>>without encountering racist material. It almost seems like a game with
>>some people.
Bruce Jackson replied:
>I suppose you're suggesting that non anthroposophists never
>make such statements! It doesn't almost seem like playing a game with you
>guys it IS playing a game - are you ALL (no offence intended) so naïve to
>see that?
I wonder if we can stick to the subject here? This is no game for me as I am
sincerely interested in what you have to say about this subject. Perhaps you
missed my previous post on this subject? I'll copy it here for your comment:
You wrote:
>This is my first attempt to try to "answer" the statements Steiner made on
>race. I will go into detail directly, but one must remember that when
>Steiner gave this/these lecture(s) things were very different (at least in
>Europe).
>There were very few coloured or black people living in Europe then; now if
>you stand in front of (for example) St Pauls Cathedral - in the centre of
>London - and want to ask someone where the Tate Gallery is then it is best
>to ask a black or coloured person: the whites in the immediate vicinity are
>probably tourists.
>I don't have any statistics, but the change in the population structure in
>Europe - especially Britain - is remarkable. I state this as a fact without
>comment. It is important to bear this in mind when trying to understand
>what
>Steiner meant and why he said it way back in 1923.
Why IS it important? Why is the date significant?
>Now to the detailed answers:
>Rudolf Steiner:
>"When we ask which race belongs to which part of the earth, we must say:
>the
>yellow race, the Mongols, the Mongolian race belongs to Asia, the white
>race
>or the Caucasian race belongs to Europe, and the black race or the Negro
>race belongs to Africa. The Negro race does not belong to Europe, and the
>fact that this race is now playing such a large role in Europe is of course
>nothing but a nuisance."
>("Also wenn wir fragen: Was gehört zu diesen Erdteilen für eine Rasse
>hinzu?
>- so müssen wir eben doch sagen: Zu Asien gehört die gelbe Rasse, die
>Mongolen, die mongolische Rasse, und zu Europa gehört die weiße Rasse oder
>die kaukasische Rasse, und zu Afrika gehört die schwarze Rasse oder die
>Negerrasse. Die Negerrasse gehört nicht zu Europa, und es ist natürlich nur
>ein Unfug, daß sie jetzt in Europa eine so große Rolle spielt." Rudolf
>Steiner, "Farbe und Menschenrassen", lecture in Dornach March 3, 1923, in
>Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und der Erde, Dornach 1993, pp. 52-53)
>[Bruce Jackson]
>My personal understanding of this apparently bizarre statement is this: The
>different races on the earth have specific tasks as a race to fulfil (not
>as
>individuals) and in order to perform these tasks they need to remain
>largely
>intact.
And part of the role of the "Negro race" is to be a nuisance to Europe? What
about other groups of people:
"It isn't because of the whims of the Europeans that the Indian population
has died out, but because of the Indian population had to acquire those
forces that led it to die out." Rudolf Steiner, Vom Leben des Menschen und
der Erde, p. 61.
I'll leave it on that important (to me, at least) question and look forward
to your response, Bruce.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 09:52:51 +0000
From: Diana Winters
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
I wrote to baandje:
>Baandje, you don't see the irony here, do you? *You* instantly >jumped
>on Bruce and demanded that he acknowledge he is a >racist . . . You've
>got to quickly make accusations against >individuals. Bruce must admit
>he's a racist.
And I would like to add in reply to other comments from Baandje that to
me this is not a game. Baandje, you might just consider that your own
issues are in the way of your understanding what other people are
talking about. I'm not kidding you when I say I was shocked to read your
replies to Bruce, insisting with capital "YOU's" all over the place that
he admit he is a racist!
Anthroposophists discussing antisemitic (and otherwise reactionary
right-wing) web sites is a serious issue to me and not a game.
Absolutely, antisemitism and holocaust denial are "current" in
anthroposophy today - I posted links to an anthroposophical discussion
site that proves it. I have not looked back at the site since the
weekend, but at the time, no one there had apparently noticed the
problem, or if they did, no one cared. Note that Valerie Walsh, who
posted here for awhile and scornfully dismissed the idea that there
might be holocaust deniers in anthroposophy today, has participated on
that site within the past few weeks, and as of a day or two ago had not
commented, has not apparently noticed, that there are antisemitic
sympathizers on that list.
How or why or who you think is playing a game is beyond me.
Pete said critics play a game to get anthroposophists to sort of show
their cards in this regard. I don't entirely agree. We don't need to
play any games to get them to show their cards - they do it of their own
accord! It doesn't exactly take sleuthing, or pulling some kind of dirty
trick, to find and expose this stuff - all it takes is a 10-minute peek
at one of the major anthroposophical discussion lists.
Diana
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 10:09:25 +0000
From: Diana Winters
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
Here - if you don't believe me. Read and study:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy/message/13023
This was posted Thurs. April 26, 2007 on the "anthroposophy" list on
yahoo. Please actually follow the discussion - find out what it was
posted in response to, which web sites are being cited as sources, and
what is the nature and agenda of these web sites. You must read Steve
Hale's heartfelt Christ-will-lead-us stuff in this context.
Read until you get to "Banking Cartel Cause of Humanity's Woes," and
then be sure to check out that article.
Baandje, if you really don't get this, let me know.
Just try to focus: Diana is not making this up. If Diana is just playing
a game, it is a crying shame these people make the game so easy. Diana
has merely to go to a major anthroposophical discussion online right
this vey moment, to find hate sites being cited either
uncomprehendingly, or worse, with full comprehension, by
anthroposophists today.
Diana
------------------------------
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic. New threads are always welcome.
End of waldorf-critics@topica.com digest, issue 2539
-- Topica Digest --
Re: Moon Landings
By mejhowell@bigpond.com
RE: Moon Landings
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
RE: AW: AW: RACE
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
Racism...oh, and other stereotypes...
By kmlightseeker@yahoo.com.au
RE: Moon Landings
By pkcompany@netzero.net
RE: Ahriman
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Ahriman
By kmlightseeker@yahoo.com.au
RE: Ahriman
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Ahriman
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Racism...oh, and other stereotypes...
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
AW: AW: AW: RACE
By bruceylists@freenet.de
Re: Moon Landings
By awaldenpond@shaw.ca
RE: AW: Give the Guy a Chance
By pstaud@hotmail.com
RE: Moon Landings
By pstaud@hotmail.com
RE: RACE
By pstaud@hotmail.com
RE: AW: AW: AW: RACE
By pkcompany@netzero.net
RE: AW: RACE
By pstaud@hotmail.com
May Day greetings
By pstaud@hotmail.com
Re: RACE
By pstaud@hotmail.com
RE: RACE
By pkcompany@netzero.net
RE: RACE
By pstaud@hotmail.com
RE: Moon Landings
By Diana.Winters@verizon.net
RE: Moon Landings
By Diana.Winters@verizon.net
some and all
By pstaud@hotmail.com
Baandje defending Steiner on race
By pstaud@hotmail.com
RE: AW: AW: RACE
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
RE: Baandje defending Steiner on race
By bangus@nb.sympatico.ca
RE: "Defending Steiner" on race
By pstaud@hotmail.com
RE: AW: ain't it a shame
By pstaud@hotmail.com
anthroposophy and racism
By pstaud@hotmail.com
------------------------------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:47:44 +1000
From: "Michael Howell"
Subject: Re: Moon Landings
Michael Howell informs
Diana Winters may not be aware that Henry Makow the owner and author of
the "anti semitic" web site Save the Males is a jew.
>From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Henry Makow, Ph.D., (born November 12, 1949 in Zürich, Switzerland) is a
Jewish-Canadian conservative writer, the inventor of the board game
Scruples, and the author of A Long Way to go for a Date, the story of his
courtship and marriage to a young Filipina.
As a baby,he moved with his family to Canada, settling in Ottawa. At the age
of 11 he began to write the syndicated advice-to-parents column "Ask Henry."
The column ran in 50 newspapers in the early 1960s. In 1984, he invented the
game of moral dilemmas "Scruples" which was translated into five languages
and sold seven million copies worldwide.
He received his Ph.D. in English Literature from the University of Toronto
in 1982, and lives in Winnipeg. Much of his earlier writing was devoted to a
critique of feminism as an attempt to destabilize society. His recent
articles (online at his web site) address issues of elite conspiracy in
modern history and current affairs, especially the New World Order, Zionism
versus Judaism, and Communism.
[edit] External links
SaveTheMales.ca, Henry Makow's official web site. "Exposing Feminism and the
New World Order".
Israel Shamir is also a Jew.
Clio Gagged
By Israel Shamir
(A Talk given in Teramo University, Italy, at the Conference on Holocaust
and the Middle East: the Gagged History, on April 18, 2007)
One should not be amazed that the gentle muse of history, Clio, finds
herself gagged. History is not a peaceful collection of facts and trivia.
History is a perpetual tug-of-war, for its re-writing may change the world.
One can't change the past, so goes the old adage, and it is true. But if we
are dissatisfied with our present, we may change our understanding of past,
and this will change our future. This has been known since time immemorial,
and this is why history was given into custody of sacred keepers, to ensure
the power structure and some continuity. Whoever controls the past
determines the future. The subject of this conference deals exactly with
this topic: we are dissatisfied with present, we turn to the past, and by
re-assessing it we plan to influence future. If some parts of the historical
narrative are strongly defended, or perverted outright, the more reason we
have to attack it.
By no means is the Holocaust the only vigorously defended domain of history,
where an offender may find himself in deep water. The old case of Jewish
human sacrifices re-emerged recently in Italy, with the publication of
Professor Ariel Toaff's book, Passovers of Blood. As you may already know,
Prof Toaff proved that some Jews accused of kidnapping and killing Christian
children in the Middle Ages were actually guilty as charged. They were
executed for brutal murder, and they weren't victims of alleged Christian
prejudice or primordial antisemitism. One may think it would be a reason for
celebration: the criminals were not libelled but properly punished; justice
was carried out, and modern Jews should be happy that the medieval
anti-Jewish prejudice is but a myth, akin to the myth of Germans turning
Jews into soap.
But the Jewish organisations were not happy at all. They attacked the Jewish
Professor of Medieval Jewish studies in an Israeli University; the mentally
tortured, almost crucified professor Toaff withdrew and destroyed the book
(mercifully in our days it is not that easy, and the book can be read on the
web on http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres7/pasque.pdf ), surrendered the
small amount of money he got from the publisher to the Jewish inquisition of
ADL, and was forced to a new act of repentance.
The Israeli parliament (Knesset) plans to send Dr Toaff to jail, others
intend to sue him for all it is worth, and see that he dies a pauper and an
outcast. Here in Italy, it is natural to compare Dr Toaff with Galileo, this
great Italian scholar, who was persecuted for his scientific discovery, and
preferred repentance to a fiery death.
But the actual achievement of Dr Toaff is best compared to that of his
Italian Jewish colleague, Dr Carlo Ginzburg, the author of The Witches'
Sabbath. Ginzburg proved that the Friulians, that is people of Friuli,
neighbours of Venice, were dabbling in Black Magic, growing out of its
ancient fertility ritual. Toaff achieved a similar result for the Jews, that
they were dabbling in Black Magic and that it grew out of their ancient cult
of vengeance and salvation-through-blood. But the Friulians remained calm,
while the Jews almost lynched the Professor, thus proving that the Friulians
are open-minded folk that can look with mild curiosity at the misdeeds of
their ancestors, while the Jews still cannot come to terms with their
non-exclusivity, their non-Chosenness, and their non-sacrality.
Together with Dr Ginzburg, Dr Toaff had completed the process of
reassessment of the Middle Ages which was well described by Mircea Eliade in
his Occultism, Witchcraft, and Cultural Fashions. Eliade wrote: "Some 80
years ago, prominent scholars Joseph Hansen and Henry Charles Lee considered
the black magic an invention of inquisition, not of the sorcerers. They
considered the stories of witches' Sabbath, of Satanist rites, orgies and
crimes to be a whim of imagination or a result of torture-induced
confessions. Now we know, - writes Eliade, - that black magic was not
invented by inquisition". Nor, we may add, the Jewish human sacrifices that
were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
Toaff dealt with the case of Simon of Trent, a child ritually murdered by
the Jewish black magicians. The guilt of a few Jews was established by the
best court of law anybody could have those days, and the innocent Jews did
not suffer more than innocent Muslims have suffered in the US after 9/11.
Another case was that of Hugh of Lincoln, a child ritually murdered in 1255:
out of 90 Jews detained in the aftermath of the crime, over 70 were released
unharmed as their innocence was established, while those found guilty were
hanged: hardly a case of "mob justice"!
In a blatant case of ethnic bias, the Jewish-edited Wikipedia described Hugh
of Lincoln as "allegedly murdered", while the proven accusation is termed
"blood libel". "Blood libel" is a standard definition of these cases,
implying that always-innocent Jews were libelled by prejudiced Christians.
But, if a moral lesson can be extracted from these old criminal cases, then
it is that the European sense of justice and fairness invariably prevailed;
while guilty Jews were punished, innocent Jews lived and prospered as the
only non-Christian community in Europe.
Muslim justice was not worse, either: in an 1840 Damascus case, a Catholic
friar was murdered by a few Jews who confessed to the crime and were
punished. But this did not interfere with prosperity of their brethren, and
Farkhi, a Jew of Acre, was considered the richest man in Syria after the
affair as well. This case was investigated by the great Orientalist, Sir
Richard Burton, the British consul in Damascus, who began as an avowed
philosemite ("'Had I choice of race there is none to which I would more
willingly have belonged than the Jewish") but accepted the guilty verdict in
this case, and wrote a full exposition of the affair. The London Jews paid
good money to buy the Burton manuscript from his heirs, and it has never
been published to this very day, being kept in the cellars of the Board of
Deputies of British Jews. A British Jewish journalist Aaronovitch chided
Syria for a Syrian minister daring to write about it; Aaronovitch never
mentioned the Burton investigation, just exclaimed "blood libel" as if this
explains everything.
Indeed, before there was the Holocaust, there was blood libel. When one
reads Jewish and Judeophile pre-WWII texts, one notices that the place
currently occupied by the Holocaust dogma in the Judeocentric universe was
not vacant; it was taken by pogroms in Russia, by the Dreyfus trial, by the
Inquisition, by the expulsion from Spain, by the destruction of the Temple
and to a great extent by the "blood libel". They carried the same message:
they proclaimed eternal, unique, reasonless and baseless suffering of Jews
caused by the irrational hate of Gentiles; they united and mobilized Jews
against the Gentiles; they deflated some envy, hostility and distrust into
pity, even engendering guilt feelings among the best of goyim.
The case of Dr Toaff may help our friends who are over-involved with the
Holocaust narrative to see the point. I respect the dissidents/deniers for
their going against the stream, but I do not share their enthusiasm. Yes,
these tales of undeserved and unique suffering could be argued against on
the factual grounds. This is what Dr Serge Thion did in connection to the
Holocaust, noting that Elie Wiesel, the great narrator of Holocaust,
preferred to stick to his Nazi persecutors rather than stay with his Russian
liberators. This is what Dr Toaff and Sir Richard Burton did with respect
to blood sacrifices, proving that the authorities' response was measured and
legitimate.
The Russian historian Kozhinov dealt with the Russian pogroms proving that
more non-Jews than Jews were killed in these violent encounters. The
greatest and the bloodiest pogrom, that of Kishinev, was described by
Bialik, the national Jewish poet, as the greatest of massacres with blood
flooding the streets, and in recent issue of Haaretz, an Israeli journalist
wrote that "no one doubts the Russian nation's right to exist because
Christians in Kishinev at the beginning of the 20th century stuck nails into
the eyes of Jewish children." However, as opposed to the cases of the
Italian and English babies tortured to death by Jewish black magicians, the
allegations of "nails into the eyes etc" were a flight of fantasy disproved
almost instantly, while the total loss of life in Kishinev amounted to 45, a
quarter of Deir Yassin, a month's harvest of the Intifada.
So all these stories of unprovoked suffering can be deconstructed, but why
bother, if the only thing the producers of the narratives wish to convey is
that Jews are unique and special, have suffered more than anybody else and
that is why they are entitled to have their way, are the best there is,
while whoever doubts it is obsessed by mystic antisemitism. These narratives
are brought forth to wake Jewish fury against their alleged persecutors, c'est
tout.
I take great dislike to these victimhood stories, and not only because they
are factually weak. The victimhood stories are not the result, but a cause
of suffering. Whenever these stories of unprovoked persecution are being
delivered, have no doubt: their promoters are preparing a beastly atrocity
of their own. Jews brandished the story of the holocaust and erased the
peaceful Palestinian population in 1948. Armenians recited the story of
their unique unprovoked suffering, and massacred innocent Azeri civilians in
Qarabag in 1991-94 war, sending hundreds thousands of refugees to Baku.
Poles and Czechs inflamed by stories of their suffering under the Reich
expelled millions of ethnic Germans from their ancestral lands, while
Ukrainians who told the stories of their suffering in Rzecz Pospolita
slaughtered the Poles of Volyn by the thousands.
National politics parallel gender politics, as it was outlined by Otto
Weininger: thus, the feminists promoted a narrative of women's suffering
under their eternal male oppressor, and caused the breakdown of many
families, the impoverishment of women and the emasculation of men. A
narrative of this kind may be balanced by a counter-narrative. While it is
true that men lead in physical violence, women are much more efficient in
verbal aggression. The lashing tongue of Lady Macbeth was no less guilty
than Macbeth's piercing knife. Women do know how to provoke a man; and men
respond - sometimes with a kiss, sometimes with a blow, sometimes with a
bullet. Jose killed, but Carmen provoked. Despite the much promoted myth of
the muscular Barb Wire type of girl, women are less successful when it
comes to physical blows, so they tend to forbid physical violence but allow
the verbal one and outlaw the very concept of provocation.
Coming back to the subject, if Turks killed, the Armenians provoked; and
whenever there were actions against Jews they were caused by actions of
Jews. Indeed, a through-and-through denier, I deny the very existence of
antisemitism, the "irrational hate towards Jews". It does not exist. Jewry
was fought against, as every power, from Roman Catholic Church to Standard
Oil Co was. Jews are not lambs, but quite an active factor of ideological
and economic life. One may be for or against them. But "hate"? Surely not.
Non-Jews have usually been fairer to Jews than the other way around. Even
the "blood libel" turned out to be not a libel but a regular criminal case.
Were there anti-Jewish actions, in Europe and in the Middle East? Surely
they were. But were they caused by "irrational hate"? Hate my foot! In
1911, the US government undid the mighty empire of John D. Rockefeller. Not
being a Jew, Rockefeller could not claim it was due to antisemitism. He did
not say that it was because they did not like his looks, race, breed,
manners, or that's divine punishment for his sins. They broke up the
Standard Oil Company because it became too powerful. For the same good
reason, Russian President Vladimir Putin broke up the oil company of his
unruly oligarchs. Not because they were Jews, or because they supported
democracy. Power creates the demand for a countering power, force calls for
counterforce, and Jews were and are a power.
Jewry is stronger than the Catholic Church, as we learn from the fate of an
Italian scientist we can compare Dr Toaff with. Yesterday, just off the main
square, I saw a plaque commemorating Giordano Bruno, the martyr of science.
It said: "He was killed by the Catholic Church, the enemy of science." Go
over hundreds of books, crawl all over Internet, you will read that the
Church is guilty of this crime. You can say it freely, and nobody will
scream at you hysterically: "ALL the Church? All billion of Catholics from
Brazil to Poland are guilty? Shame on you! You are anti-Catholic!" Actually,
the late Pope even apologised for it, as was his wont.
In vain you'll look for a plaque commemorating a Jewish philosopher,
scientist and sceptic Rabbi Samuel Ibn Zarza, the author of Miklal Yofi, who
expressed his doubt about Creation, and was burned at the stake in
Valencia - by order of the Jews. Now, I wait to hear the shout "All the
Jews? Antisemite!" What, nobody says it? Good, we may proceed. In the Book
of Lineage, a 15th century Jewish book I had pleasure of translating (into
English), there is a gloss saying "When the Rabbis read 'The year such and
such since creation of the world' this Zarza fellow placed his hand on his
beard and alluded to the world's pre-existence by holding the hairs of his
beard. The Chief Rabbi Isaac Campanton stood up in his place and said, 'Why
is the bush not being burnt? Let the bush burn!' (Zarza is a sort of bush in
the Castilian; so this pun alludes to Exodus 3:3) The Rabbis led him to the
tribunal and had him sentenced to death by burning for confessing
pre-existence of the world."
So there are two scientists, both burned, but one was sent to the stake by
the Church, while another one by the Jews. If you go into the details, you
can find even more similarities. Samuel Ibn Zarza was executed by the
tribunal at the instigation of the Jews. There are some hints that the Jews
were active behind the scenes in sending Giordano Bruno to his death as
well, for he was strongly anti-Jewish. Giordano Bruno called the Jews 'such
a pestilential, leprous, and publicly dangerous race that they deserved to
be rooted out and destroyed even before their birth.' (Giordano Bruno,
Spacio della Bestis Trionfante (1584). This opinion contributed to his
execution, for even then, the Jews could access the authorities' ears, and
there were always enough officials ready to follow their orders. But in the
case of Bruno, there are no visible traces, thus his case remains known,
while the case of Samuel Ibn Zarza is forgotten or denied.
If you open the Jewish-edited Wikipedia, you'll read: "though Samuel Shalom
(a 16th century Jewish sage) states that Zarza was burned at the stake by
the tribunal of Valencia on the denunciation of Rabbi Isaac Campanton, who
accused him of denying the creation of the world, historians have proved
this assertion a mere legend." Thus, the Jewish history-making and vetting
Ministry of Truth still can decide and rule what happened and what was and
remains a "mere legend". The Catholic Church can't even dream of such
power.
Can one quantify Jewish power? Some months ago, the British weekly Economist
published an unusual map of the world: a country's territory was represented
in proportion to its GNP. This is a revealing map: India was smaller than
Holland, all of Latin America was only as big as Italy; Israel was bigger
than all its Arab neighbours. This map was not exactly the map of power: in
order to draw the true map of the world one should consider other parameters
as well: gun power, nuclear and conventional capability, discursive
influence connected with output of films, books, newspapers, university
cathedras, international positions. On such a power map, Jewry would look
impressive enough. The Jews are an important power in the world we live in.
It is a first-rate power, stronger than the Catholic Church, surely stronger
than Italy or any single European state, stronger than Shell and Agip or any
trans-national corporation.
In space studies, there is a phenomenon called the black hole: a very dense
and heavy star changes the geometry of surrounding space, and rays of light
can't escape the gravitation trap it creates. Such a black hole star is
invisible because it is very powerful. Likewise, Jewry is a black hole. It
is so powerful that it is not seen. One is not allowed to see it. This is
the strongest taboo of our day. The famous "tail wags the dog" discussion
about the Jewish Lobby in the US, is an attempt to go around the taboo
without actually breaking it. For sure, a small Middle Eastern country
called Israel can't possibly "wag the US dog". The Israel Lobby of AIPAC and
sundry can't influence much, despite its efforts. But the Israel Lobby and
the state of Israel are perceived as manifestations of the Black hole, of
the great unmentionable: of Jewry.
In a recent debate between James Petras and Norman Finkelstein, Dr Petras
comes very close to real thing as he describes the pro-Israel lobby as "a
whole string of pro-Zionist think tanks from the American Enterprise
Institute on down, and . a whole power configuration, which not only
involves AIPAC, but also the Presidents of the Major American Jewish
Organizations, which number 52. and individuals occupying crucial positions
in the government (Elliott Abrams and Paul Wolfowitz, Douglas Feith and
others), . the army of op-ed writers who have access to the major
newspapers. the super-rich contributors to the Democratic Party, Media
moguls with the leverage in Congress and in the Executive". It is not a
lobby, it is Jewry.
Why is Jewry so powerful now? In my book, Pardes, I give an explanation:
historically an alternative church, Jewry had a traditional enemy in the
Apostolic church. When the Roman Catholic church's hold was broken, the
alternative one spurted forth. But if this explanation is too complicated,
or unacceptable to strict materialists, one can translate it into dollars
and pounds.
Recently, Jewish pundit Zev Chafets rose in defence of American sportsman
Richardson who was suspended for saying that the Jews are powerful and
crafty. He said: "The Jews have got the best security system in the world.
Have you ever been to an airport in Tel Aviv? They're real crafty. Listen,
they are hated all over the world, so they've got to be crafty. They got a
lot of power in this world, you know what I mean? Which I think is great. I
don't think there's nothing wrong with it. If you look in most professional
sports, they're run by Jewish people. If you look at a lot of most
successful corporations and stuff, more businesses, they're run by Jewish
[sic]. It's not a knock, but they are some crafty people."
Chafets retorted: "Excuse me, but Richardson didn't say anything offensive.
In fact, Jews, as a people, are smart, in my experience. And they're proud
of it (especially the dumb ones). What other hurtful things did Richardson
supposedly say? That Israel has the best airport security in the world? This
is both true and something Israel itself brags about. That Jews are hated
and need to protect themselves? That's the founding premise of the
Anti-Defamation League itself. Sure, Richardson exaggerates when he says
that Jews own most sports teams. As far as I can tell, Jews (about 1% of the
population) only own about half the teams in the NBA (and a pretty fair
proportion in baseball and football too). So what? As to the observation
that Jews run a lot of successful businesses, no kidding. Jews are very
likely the most economically successful ethnic group in the U.S. What's the
matter with that?"
This question ("What's the matter with that?") was answered by David C.
Johnston in the New York Times. He wrote: "Income inequality [in the US]
grew significantly in 2005, with the top 1 percent of Americans - those with
incomes that year of more than $348,000 - receiving their largest share of
national income since 1928, analysis of newly released tax data shows. The
new data also shows that the top 300,000 Americans collectively enjoyed
almost as much income as the bottom 150 million Americans. Per person, the
top group received 440 times as much as the average person in the bottom
half earned, nearly doubling the gap from 1980."
A question Johnston does not answer (nor even posits) is: out of "the top
300,000 Americans who collectively enjoyed almost as much income as the
bottom 150 million Americans" how many belong to "the most economically
successful ethnic group in the U.S"? Isn't it to be expected that - in
absence of a national church or other non-economical limiters - their
influence on the US politics would be roughly proportional to their joint
income?
"Democracy" is an ideal political system where each person has one vote and
all votes are equal. This ideal can hardly be realised even in the absence
of economic inequality, for there are more and less influential people by
their very abilities. In the conditions described by Johnston, when one
member of elite has the income of 500 ordinary people, democracy is severely
undermined. But this ideal is betrayed outright if these elite people own
mass media and thus have an ability to shape the world view of others. If
these media lords pool their resources as happens in the US, democracy loses
its meaning. I agree wholeheartedly with Frau Merkel who said: "A free press
is the cornerstone of our society and the basis for all freedoms." But I can't
even guess why she considers the press as being free if it is owned by
Jewish and Judeophile media lords, like Alfred Neven DuMont, owner of one of
Germany's oldest publishing houses and part-owner of the Israeli newspaper
Haaretz, (she spoke at his birthday party) or your own Berlusconi? Why is
this press freer than a state-controlled press, as in Putin's Russia? A
State can anyway claim to represent all its citizens.
Why do I stress "Jewish and Judeophile media lords"? Surely "media lords"
would suffice? Not really. A DuMont-owned Haaretz may run a piece called
Confessions of an anti-German racist, but a DuMont-owned German newspaper
would never run a piece by a man who dislikes Jews. Judeophilia integrates
the media lords and their holdings into one totalitarian machine, like
Communist ideology integrated all Soviet media into one totalitarian (and
boring) device. This comparison may be developed: in the US and in the West
in general, Jewry occupies the controlling heights once kept by the
Communist Party in the USSR: practically unmentioned in the Constitution,
formally not a part of state apparatus, this opaque body controls all
processes and is not controlled by external forces. Joe Public is not
represented at the board of Presidents of the Major American Jewish
Organizations, just as Ivan Publicoff was not represented in the Politburo.
Once, this position was occupied by the Church. Anticlerical campaigns
consumed much of people's energy and thought in the end of 19th and
beginning of 20th century. The major complaint was that the church
controlled society, but was not controlled by society. The Communist party
in Russia (or the fascist one in your country, with all the difference
recognized and acknowledged) faced the same complaint. Now is the time to
address the latest usurper, for the majority did not appoint Jewry to guide
and control its thinking process. The excessive influence of Jewry is an
indicator of lack of democracy: in a truly democratic country, Jewry would
have an influence proportional to its numbers. But history is not over yet,
and freedom can be ushered in by sending Jewry the way the Church and the
Party went, i.e. into a modest niche of our dynamic society.
Holocaust revisionists believe that the Jewish power will collapse if the
Holocaust narrative is undermined. They believe that "Jewish power is
founded upon the lie". I disagree. The power of Jewry is quite real, it is
based on money, ideology and everything a power could be established upon.
This real power could and should be undone, and then the Holocaust narrative
will be of no interest to anyone but the next-of-kin.
Led by love of freedom and by compassion, this solution will be good for
individual Jews. What is the position of an individual Jew versus Jewry? It
is the same as of an individual Party member versus the Party. In the last
days of the Soviet Union, there were 16 million Party members; it was
profitable to be a member; but when the Party membership ceased to bring
benefits, the membership shrunk down to a few hundred thousand. See it not
as a tragedy: yesterday's Communists regained freedom. Some of them (like
Yeltsin) became anticommunists, others dropped politics and went into faith,
or trade, or business. Those that remained Communists do not regret the
collapse either: they parted with hypocrites and do not have to try and
please millions of petit bourgeois; they may proclaim their true belief.
Likewise, undoing of Jewry by bringing its influence into proportion to its
numbers will cause mass ideological exodus. Out of 16 million Jews, probably
a few hundred thousand believers will remain faithful to the Mosaic Law and
to Talmud and Cabbala study (God bless them!), while the rest will find
other interests and allegiances (God bless them, too). All of them will be
grateful to dissidents like Dr Toaff who buried the myth of antisemitism and
helped them to regain freedom.
Can't they be free within this framework of Jewry? In the 1970s-80s, a
similar discussion went on regarding freedom and pluralism within the
Communist Party. Eventually, it did not work out. Jewry is not less
monolithic than the Party, it also allows for some spread of opinions, but
the spread is not wide enough. On the right end, there is Gilad Sharon, who
wants to strip non-Jews of their Israeli citizenship, on the left end, there
is Uri Avnery, who actually proposes the same. We may and should help Jews
to regain freedom, like the Party members, and before them, Church
attendees, were helped to recover their freedom of choice.
Why are you always going off half cocked Diana?
----- Original Message -----
From: "Diana Winters"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, May 01, 2007 12:18 PM
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
Baandje, you don't see the irony here, do you? *You* instantly jumped on
Bruce and demanded that he acknowledge he is a racist. None of this
"Let's discuss the material" or "Let's discuss the role this might play
in the movement" or "What is the effect of this on Waldorf students"
type soft rhetoric for you. Oh, no. You've got to quickly make
accusations against individuals. Bruce must admit he's a racist. You
then apparently project this "We've got to identify evil individuals"
mentality onto critics, when it comes from - yourself. Critics bend over
backwards to insist on talking about the material rather than vilifying
and labeling individuals. Year in, year out, this is lost on you.
Your neurotic squealing about it impels me to re-post my earlier
comments. And I suggest you review them carefully to see wherein I point
fingers at individuals, insist that all Waldorf teachers are racist, or
demand that individual Waldorf teachers be labeled "racist" etc. Here's
a hint: I don't. You do!
Here's what I wrote:
"It is once again (twice in the past year) the talk of the hour in a
major online anthroposophical discussion group, and no one there is
protesting, no one is saying, Hey guys, have you noticed that the web
site you linked to is a holocaust denial site - that half the articles
are on "Zionist plots" and "Jewish media" etc.? (
Here they are - this is the talk of the hour at the anthroposophy list
on yahoo.
http://www.savethemales.ca/260602.html
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6454 "
Check it out, baandje - check out carefully what I wrote above. Line by
line, if necessary. I discuss the content of the discussion on an
anthroposophical online forum. I suggest that people check out the web
sites that these people are discussing. I imply fairly clearly that the
material that is on these web sites is quite distressing, at least to
me. I lament the fact that no one has complained that the material is
antisemitic, homophobic, and in various other ways quite offensive.
Then, perhaps, after you've done that - re-read what I wrote - you might
actually click those links - and then - imagine if we ever got this far!
- you might come back and tell us what you think about the problem under
discussion here: And here is one more tip. The problem under discussion
is not whether Bruce Jackson is a racist. (Frankly, I could care less.
Nothing personal, Bruce.) The problem under discussion is whether
material of this nature is problematic in anthroposophy today, whether
it is "current" in anthroposophy today, and whether this might ever
filter into Waldorf education.
Any chance any of these questions interest you?
Diana
baandje wrote:
>"Alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy", huh? Just the
>other day Walden was saying Critics don't actually say Anthropops and
>Waldorf teachers are racist, or anti-Semitic, or holocaust deniers or
>whatever.
> Interesting how then a week later, here's you actually saying those
> things. It's an endless cycle of denial and dishonesty around here as
> far as that goes.
>
> And you couldn't be more wrong about Anthropops and your claim regarding
>
> their penchant for conspiracy theories. Ask any level-headed Anthropop
> if and when you find one, what they think of UFO's for example. You'll
> get the same incredulous look of disbelief and/or sneer of disgust that
> you get when you try and suggest the Waldorf curriculum is Christian in
> content and/or teaches Anthroposophy.
This is why I go on about it. It is once again (twice in the past year)
the talk of the hour in a major online anthroposophical discussion
group, and no one there is protesting, no one is saying, Hey guys, have
you noticed that the web site you linked to is a holocaust denial site -
that half the articles are on "Zionist plots" and "Jewish media" etc.?
(One of the sites is also full of homophobic stuff, and I didn't have
the stomach to look further at whatever "save the males" is trying to
achieve.)
Here they are - this is the talk of the hour at the anthroposophy list
on yahoo.
http://www.savethemales.ca/260602.html
http://www.thetruthseeker.co.uk/article.asp?ID=6454
==^================================================================
You can ask any question about Waldorf you like here, no matter how basic.
New threads are always welcome.
--
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Free Edition.
Version: 7.5.467 / Virus Database: 269.6.2/781 - Release Date: 30/04/2007
9:14 AM
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 13:07:10 +0000
From: baandje
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
Diana Winters wrote:
>
> Baandje, you don't see the irony here, do you? *You* instantly jumped on
>
> Bruce and demanded that he acknowledge he is a racist. None of this
> "Let's discuss the material" or "Let's discuss the role this might play
> in the movement" or "What is the effect of this on Waldorf students"
> type soft rhetoric for you. Oh, no. You've got to quickly make
> accusations against individuals.
As a May Day gift, I’m going to explain my position to you for the 77th
time. Then you don’t have to bug me anymore.
Rudolf Steiner made racist comments.
Steiner followers deny his comments were racist. But that doesn’t make
them racist. That makes them ignorant, or arrogant, or stupid, or
asleep, or caught up in a kind of cult-like follower mentality.
Steiner followers are not anti-Semitic, or holocaust deniers, or Nazis.
And if someone on this list states that Steiner followers are
anti-Semitics, or “sympathetic to holocaust denial material” or that
“this stuff is alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy”,
then I’ll call it what it is: BS.
As for my comments to Bruce, I clearly explained to Pete what I was up
to. I was trying to get Bruce to recognize that his support of Steiner,
along with his interpretation of Steiner’s commentary, align him with
Steiner the racist. I asked Bruce if he considered himself a racist,
after which I then made it clear that I don’t actually believe he is.
And no, I don’t support Anthroposophists who explain away the awful
things Steiner said as ‘spiritually correct’. That’s a copout. But it
doesn’t make them anti-Semitic Nazi racist holocaust deniers, sorry.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 13:33:02 +0000
From: baandje
Subject: RE: AW: AW: RACE
Bruce Jackson wrote:
> On the one hand you want evidence that comes from 21st century
> techniques; on the other you want to attack things that were said >
> around 100 years ago.
Bruce, it was a Waldorf teacher who years ago first brought to my
attention the possibility that Steiner’s spiritual-racial commentary is
racist. And guess what my initial response was? I attacked her. I
accused her of this, that and everything I didn’t want to open my ears
and eyes to. Both of us were Waldorf teachers; both of us were
“spiritual” people. Both of us understood the spiritual realities
underlying all things.
In other words, this isn’t simply about people who see Steiner’s
commentary as racist and then demand 21st century materialistic
explanations. I’m certainly not one of those. I understand and
acknowledge the spiritual aspect of a lot of the material Steiner
lectured and wrote about. But that doesn’t mean everything he said was
spiritually correct, let alone appropriate.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:20:44 +0000
From: Keith McLean
Subject: Racism...oh, and other stereotypes...
Pete Karaiskos wrote:
>
>
> Bruce Jackson wrote:
> >
> > Gollywogs were the rage when I was a kid: now they're forbidden, and
> > rightly
> > so. If Steiner had had a Gollywog and named it as such THEN, would he be
> >
> > a
> > racist? NO, he wouldn't. If he said it today then he would be.
>
> Don't even get me started on Waldorf dolls... . People are
> accountable for their beliefs - regardless of the time period. Nobody
> cares that Steiner was a racist, BTW, but for the fact that he started a
>
> school system based on a racist philosophy, populated by teachers who
> adhere to a racist philosophy rather than denouncing it. This racist
> philosophy is taught both directly and indirectly in Waldorf schools,
> and teachers indeed work through it in their daily interactions with
> children. Step ONE - Acknowledge that there is a problem.
>
> Pete
Yes.
The following website and the museum it refers to seems a good way of
identifying clearly the mechanics of racism or racial stereotyping:
http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/
Also, I wonder how many Anthroposophists recognize the somewhat subtle
racism in Europe towards *celtic* or *Irish* people? Maybe the following
passages will give pause for thought for both Anthropops and Waldorf
critics in the attempt to recognize and address dehumanisation of
persons based on race and/or ethnicity in the Waldorf/Anthroposophical
culture (but also in the broader culture):
"4. The Irish in England
4.1 Identities and culture
Irish identities in England have had a very low profile. There has been
a widespread assumption both by most academics and by the public at
large that the Irish unproblematically assimilate into the ‘white’
population within a fairly short space of time and that their children
are simply ‘English’. This reflects the ‘myth of homogeneity’ of British
society, which represents Britain as a stable, unchanging
‘white’nation only recently disrupted by the arrival of (black)
immigrants. However this picture has existed alongside longstanding
rejection of Irish people as alien ‘others’ (Walter, 2001).
The post-1945 Irish population has therefore been caught between these
two images. On the one hand their migrant experience and cultural
difference has been denied because they are a ‘white’, ‘British Isles’
population group. On the other anti-Irish stereotypes persist in British
society and have been fuelled by anti-IRA fears over the
last thirty years.
In the last ten years academic analyses have explored these processes in
more depth. They have focussed on the one hand on explaining ways in
which British society has constructed the place of the Irish, and on the
other on the feelings of Irishness expressed by the Irish-born settled
in Britain and their British-born children. An understanding of both
these aspects of Irish identities is important to discussions of Irish
experiences in England and attitudes to return migration.
For years the classic study by John A. Jackson, The Irish in Britain
(1963), was the only well-recognised text and it remains the only
comprehensive sociological study of the post-1945 period. However a much
richer list of academic publications now parallels the growth of Irish
welfare and community groups in England and the widening range of
analytical frameworks available within ethnic and racial studies. It has
also been bolstered by the establishment of Irish Studies courses in
further and higher education in England (Danaher, 1992).
Challenges to the notion of Irish assimilation have been particularly
important. Mary J. Hickman’s (1995) work on the role of Catholic
education in Britain showed that the notion of incorporation provided a
much better explanation for the apparent loss of Irish identities over
time. She argued that Irish children were educated to become
‘good Catholics’ and to lose their Irish national identities in the
public sphere of school and the outside world. However they persisted at
home and strong senses of Irishness were often passed on to
second-generation children.
However the outcomes vary. Some groups of Irish people retain a much
stronger sense of an Irish identity than others. Key aspects are social
class, region and extent of participation in Irish social and cultural
activities.
[Quote]
The survival of Irish identity is more likely if the individual of Irish
descent is of working class origin, lives in an Irish area, visits
Ireland regularly and participates in Irish social and cultural
activities (Hickman, 1995:246).
[Quote]
Regional differences in the experiences of Irish-born people and those
of Irish descent living in different parts of England have been
highlighted. Research in Liverpool and London showed that
second-generation schoolchildren growing up in ‘Irish’ neighbourhoods in
London were likely to describe themselves as ‘Irish’ or ‘London
Irish’ but never as ‘English’, whereas children of more distant Irish
descent in Liverpool called themselves ‘Liverpudlian’ (Hickman, 1990).
This suggests that Irish people feel comfortable taking on a local
English identity, but not a national one.
Second-generation Irish people identify themselves in a great variety of
ways, but a strong strand of Irishness is retained (Campbell, 1998,
1999; Free, 1998). Existing studies show that a maximum of a quarter of
people with one or two Irish-born parents describe themselves as
predominantly British/English (Ullah, 1985, Hickman, 1995). A recently
completed research project which explored second-generation Irish
identities in five different locations in Britain found that region was
again an important factor (Irish 2 Project
http://www.apu.ac.uk/geography/progress/irish2/). More people in the
larger centres of London and Manchester saw themselves as solely
‘Irish’, but people’s senses of their ethnic identities changed over the
lifecycle and their responses depended on the contexts of the discussion
and the wording of the question. This suggests that responses to the
‘Irish’ tick-box in the 2001 Census will
need very careful interpretation. Because they asked for a single Irish
or British answer they fail to account for the large proportion of
people who said they had mixed, or hybrid identifications (‘Irish and
English’, ‘half-and-half’) (see Appendix 3).
New arrivals in the 1980s were much more likely to be well-educated
young people who might be expected to join English society without
difficulty. However Mary Kells’ (1995a) anthropological research with
young middle-class Irish people in London showed that ‘ethnicity, in a
context where it is possible to de-emphasise it, remains important and
relevant to my informants’. Most frequently people expressed
their pride in their Irishness, but there were also examples of ways in
which they experienced negative stereotyping. But a striking feature of
the findings was the wide range of variation in identities expressed,
both for individuals in different situations and between categories of
Irish people. Mary Kells (1995b) found that the
North/Republic divide was fundamental, and that rural-urban division and
more general regional differences were also important."
[Source: "A study of the existing sources of information and analysis
about Irish emigrants and Irish communities abroad."
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/uploads/documents/taskforcestudy.pdf ]
and
"...there is a large pool of Irish people in England who retain strong
feelings of attachment to Ireland. Some, including members of the
second-generation, move ‘back’ to live in Ireland. Others choose to use
Irish social and cultural facilities on a regular or occasional basis.
But the problematic relationship between Britain and Ireland, extending
back over several centuries but intensified over the last thirty years
of the Northern Ireland conflict means that this identity has been
difficult to negotiate publicly in Britain.
4.2. Issues of comparative disadvantage and inequality
Many Irish people have been economically successful and have ‘fitted in’
well to English society. However for a variety of reasons not all of
those who migrated from Ireland, or grew up as a person of Irish
background in England, are fully integrated. Integration is defined as
being able to live in a public space which allows all people of
whatever ethnic background to act as equal citizens and publicly express
their identities with no penalties.
In 1997 the Commission for Racial Equality, a body funded by the British
Government, responded to strong pressures from Irish voluntary
organisations over a ten year period, to produce a report on
Discrimination and the Irish Community in Britain (Hickman and Walter,
1997). This included a detailed documentation and analysis of specific
issues of disadvantage and inequality which are brought to Irish
welfare agencies, which may include evidence of discrimination. The
Commission for Racial Equality report identified barriers to integration
and social inclusion.
These barriers are related to the specific relationship between Britain
and Ireland which has had a long history. Two elements which have an
ongoing negative impact on Irish people’s experiences are firstly,
anti-Irish racism, which can take a multitude of forms and is
unacknowledged in a society which understands racism only in terms
of black/white differences and, secondly, non-recognition of the migrant
background of Irish people, because ‘immigrant’ has come to be
synonymous with ‘black’ and of Irish cultural specificity."
[Source: ditto]
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:35:46 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
Michael Howell wrote:
>
> Michael Howell informs
> From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
ROFLMAO...
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:41:40 +0000
From: baandje
Subject: RE: Ahriman
Bruce Jackson wrote:
>
> Steiner saw man being effectively tempted by Ahriman and
> Lucifer. I'll assume that anyway. Steiner's task was to try to steer man
> down the central path. In this quote he is stating that the danger that
> we
> face now is that Ahriman will have more and power over us, eventually
> forcing that which is spirit in us to separate from our physical bodies
> entirely.
The gospel according to Bill Maher: “I’ve always had it out for religion
for very good reasons. It’s mostly destructive. I don’t know what
happens after you die. But to believe what another person tells me, just
makes me say to that person, “How do YOU know? How do you know what
happens after you die?” It’s only because somebody in this long game of
‘telephone from 2000 years ago’ told you what it was. But if some person
hadn’t told you, and a person just came up to you on the street and
said, “Yes there is a God, and he had a son, and he sent him on a
suicide mission to Earth, and then on Easter he flies bodily up to
heaven...” I mean, what would you THINK?”
So Bruce: Why do you believe in Ahriman and Lucifer? Why do you believe
in evil beings? Why do you believe in the idea of human beings being
tempted by evil beings?
Why do you talk about Steiner’s supposed task and what he saw? What’s
the exercise here? You can’t speak for Steiner. You don’t REALLY know
what Steiner meant, or how he thought, or what his task was. Why don’t
you simply explain your position and outline your beliefs? Because in
all honesty, there’s no way you’ll ever convince people here that what
Steiner said wasn’t racist or hateful or whatever the discussion point
happens to be today. So the only thing left to talk about is how you
yourself see things and relate to them.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 14:46:49 +0000
From: Keith McLean
Subject: RE: Ahriman
Hi Bruce,
Bruce Jackson wrote:
>
>
> Another of Roger's points
>
>
>
> July 24, 1920: "The task of Anthroposophy is not simply to replace a
> false
> view of the world with a correct one...The task is to raise the
> spirit-soul
> into the realm of the spiritual, so that the human being is no longer a
> thinking and feeling automaton...The human being is...in danger of
> drifting
> into the Ahrimanic world, in which case the spirit-soul will evaporate
> into
> the cosmos." [FACULTY MEETINGS WITH RUDOLF STEINER, p. 115.]
>
>
>
> I imagine you all realise (meaning specifically the critics, hopefully
> the
> anthros too!!) that Steiner saw man being effectively tempted by Ahriman
> and
> Lucifer.
I'll assume that anyway. Steiner's task was to try to steer man
> down the central path. In this quote he is stating that the danger that
> we
> face now is that Ahriman will have more and power over us, eventually
> forcing that which is spirit in us to separate from our physical bodies
> entirely.
>
> Bruce
Another thing to look at is the link/s between "Atonism" and Ahriman and
Lucifer.
Regards,
Keith
Tyranny begets tyranny.
- K Mclean
------
Our knowledge has made us cynical,
our cleverness hard and unkind.
We think too much and feel too little:
More than machinery we need humanity;
More than cleverness we need kindness and gentleness.
Without these qualities, life will be violent and all will be lost.
- Charlie Chaplin ("The Great Dictator" [1940])
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 15:05:47 +0000
From: baandje
Subject: RE: Ahriman
Bruce Jackson wrote:
>
> In this quote he is stating that the danger that we
> face now is that Ahriman will have more and power over us, eventually
> forcing that which is spirit in us to separate from our physical bodies
> entirely.
More of Maher on religious beliefs:
“It’s extremely dangerous. The Bush administration has 150 graduates of
Pat Robertson’s law school. That’s right, Pat Robertson – the man who
believes hurricanes are caused by gay people… Alberto Gonzalez and
George Bush belong to the same cult. Yes, it’s a cult – they all believe
this Space God flew up to heaven, and that’s going to save their ass.”
I was involved with Anthroposophy for many years, and I’d sure have a
hard time explaining to people what the difference is between what Maher
is pointing out, and the spiritual beliefs of Anthroposophists. The fact
is there’s really very little difference at all.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 16:58:29 +0000
From: baandje
Subject: RE: Ahriman
Keith McLean wrote:
>
> Another thing to look at is the link/s between "Atonism" and Ahriman and
>
> Lucifer.
Yeah! Now there’s a conspiracy theory I can appreciate and agree with :)
---
“To satisfy the desire to discover the present whereabouts of the Cult
of Aton, we need look no further than the Vatican, in Rome… Thus are the
“Brotherhoods” of “Black” adepts more powerful and dangerous… than any
host of Eastern Occultists.
“This organization has spent a great deal of time and money hiring
apologists and “historians” to ensure that people do not find out about
these facts. This organization’s adversaries [are] free and intelligent
men who use their wits to uncover and expose the roots of their sick,
anti-human brand of religion, and who seek to release themselves from
its ruthless power.”
http://www.cephas-library.com/catholic_antonism_and_christianity.html
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 18:06:23 +0000
From: baandje
Subject: RE: Racism...oh, and other stereotypes...
Keith McLean wrote:
>
> The following website and the museum it refers to seems a good way of
> identifying clearly the mechanics of racism or racial stereotyping:
>
> http://www.ferris.edu/news/jimcrow/
>
>
> Also, I wonder how many Anthroposophists recognize the somewhat subtle
> racism in Europe towards *celtic* or *Irish* people?
I was involved with a school that offered scholarships to “racially
diverse” families. (Not my idea; I arrived years after they started all
that up.)
The committee who dished out the funding was hijacked by at least three
white parents who had African American kids (two families had adopted).
It was later discovered that the group had arbitrarily decided to only
award scholarships to African American kids. Their reasoning was that
African Americans have endured a greater number of hardships and
discrimination.
In other words, a group devoted to non-discrimination, discriminated
against others.
Personally, I’d call stupidity and blindness of that sort, pretty
typical these days. Everyone it seems has some burning cause. And people
act stupidly and blindly, precisely because all they see is whatever
cause it is they’re into.
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 07:42:30 +0200
From: "Bruce Jackson"
Subject: AW: AW: AW: RACE
Pete wrote:
No, Steiner knew his remarks were inappropriate even when he made them. He
continually warned against the wrong ears hearing what he had to say and
frequently described his lectures and some written materials as not for
public consumption.
[Bruce Jackson] Maybe one should leave things that he said that were not for
public consumption alone then! ;-) or - whichever you prefer!
Pete continues:
Nobody cares that Steiner was a racist, BTW, but for the fact that he
started a school system based on a racist philosophy, populated by teachers
who adhere to a racist philosophy rather than denouncing it. This racist
philosophy is taught both directly and indirectly in Waldorf schools, and
teachers indeed work through it in their daily interactions with children.
Step ONE - Acknowledge that there is a problem.
[Bruce Jackson] I don't believe that waldorf education is based on a racist
philosophy. I certainly don't directly or indirectly teach racism.
Bruce
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 09:28:50 -0700
From: Walden
Subject: Re: Moon Landings
baandje wrote:
>Rudolf Steiner made racist comments.
>Steiner followers deny his comments were racist. But that doesn't make
>them racist. That makes them ignorant, or arrogant, or stupid, or
>asleep, or caught up in a kind of cult-like follower mentality.
>Steiner followers are not anti-Semitic, or holocaust deniers, or Nazis.
Would this be all Steiner followers or some Steiner followers or . . . the
majority of Steiner followers? Or are you simply the official spokesperson
for "Steiner followers" and/or "Steiner people"
>And if someone on this list states that Steiner followers are
>anti-Semitics, or "sympathetic to holocaust denial material" or that
>"this stuff is alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy",
>then I'll call it what it is: BS.
Big "IF." Has someone on this list actually challenged you in your role of
official spokesperson for "Steiner people" or "Steiner followers" whilst
stating that "Steiner followers are anti-Semitics," or "sympathetic to
holocaust denial material?"
It seems you have not read what Diana has written, baandje. I realize you
have told us that you do not always read what people write, but why do you
feel compelled to comment on discussions you are not following?
> I asked Bruce if he considered himself a racist, after which I then made
> it clear that I don't actually believe he is.
Right. And you would know. Because you are the spokesperson for "Steiner
people." Btw, did you think Bruce might actually blurt, "Yup, baandje - I'm
a racist. Now saddle up and join Billy-Bob and me over at Schmidt's ranch
for the hanging . . . ."
Good grief.
-Walden
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:31:26 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier"
Subject: RE: AW: Give the Guy a Chance
Bruce writes, regarding anthroposophical racial doctrines:
>It is also clear to all of us that this is the touchiest of all the
>subjects, and naturally the subject which keeps most anthroposophists busy
>with critics (not just here).
I disagree with the characterization "naturally". It would be nice if some
anthroposophist could explain, at long last, why the topic of race makes
anthroposophists and other esotericists so touchy. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian.
http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 16:42:26 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier"
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
Hi Baandje,
>“Alive and well, and it is VERY current in anthroposophy”, huh? Just the
>other day Walden was saying Critics don’t actually say Anthropops and
>Waldorf teachers are racist, or anti-Semitic, or holocaust deniers or
>whatever.
This is why the difference between "some" and "all" is important. Some
anthroposophists are racist, some anthroposophists are antisemitic, and some
anthroposophists are holocaust deniers. Not all of them. Get it?
>Interesting how then a week later, here’s you actually saying those
>things. It’s an endless cycle of denial and dishonesty around here as
>far as that goes.
Or an endless cycle of remedial reading lessons.
>And you couldn’t be more wrong about Anthropops and your claim regarding
>their penchant for conspiracy theories.
You are very much mistaken about that, Baandje. (This is, by the way,
another good indication of how severely limited your personal experience
with anthroposophy is.) If you'd like to discuss the subject further,
though, a good way to start would be to go back and read some of the posts
you skipped on exactly that topic from the last several months. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Need a break? Find your escape route with Live Search Maps.
http://maps.live.com/default.aspx?ss=Restaurants~Hotels~Amusement%20Park&cp=33.832922~-117.915659&style=r&lvl=13&tilt=-90&dir=0&alt=-1000&scene=1118863&encType=1&FORM=MGAC01
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 17:33:11 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier"
Subject: RE: RACE
Hello all,
I apologize that I will have to go through this thread post by post, which
means I will probably say things that others have already said but that I
haven't read yet. Bruce wrote:
>My personal understanding of this apparently bizarre statement is this: The
>different races on the earth have specific tasks as a race to fulfil (not
>as
>individuals) and in order to perform these tasks they need to remain
>largely
>intact.
That is also my understanding of Steiner's statement. The question you were
supposedly replying to, however, was whether you agree with this statement.
The statement itself is one of the core claims of racist thought.
>Simply to understand the text: "when this race goes toward the west"
>demands
>considerable thought. He clearly doesn't mean that black people die when
>they travel west; neither does he mean that black people lose their colour.
>So what is left? Does he mean that the black people who travel west lose
>their "inner" blackness and become westernised?
No. He means Native Americans. (It will be clear if you take a look at the
preceding paragraph.) Steiner says that Native Americans are the descendants
of the black race who went west from Atlantis and turned red and died out.
>I would assert here that a
>black person living in the heart of Africa who has never had contact with a
>European lifestyle is quite different from a black person living in London.
>The only thing that they have in common is the colour of their skin.
So you are disagreeing with Steiner?
>With the "yellow" race I presume this is the same in reverse: when "yellow"
>people travel east they lose their "Asianness" and become as whites,
>retaining only their skin-colour.
No, the reference there is to Malayans and other 'brown' races (I have no
idea where you got the "white" bit from; it is entirely clear from the
excerpt itself that the yellow race turns brown, not white, when it goes
further east) that Steiner considered descendants of the 'yellow' race.
>"The white race is the race of the future"! Steiner says that the next
>cultural centre is the USA or America. Whether or not this is meant here
>I'm
>not sure, but I presume so. He asserts that this race is the race destined
>to work on the spirit. Why not?
So you agree with Steiner that the white race is the race of the future and
the race that works creatively on the spirit, in contrast to non-white
racial groups?
>Rudolf Steiner:
>"one can only understand history and all of social life, including today's
>social life, if one pays attention to people's racial characteristics. And
>one can only understand all that is spiritual in the correct sense if one
>first examines how this spiritual element operates within people precisely
>through the color of their skin."
>
>[Bruce Jackson]
>I can only speak of my first hand knowledge. I live in Berlin - the third
>largest Turkish town in the world. There are also lots or Russians here,
>but
>I will confine my remarks to the turks!
>
>(at this point I need to go out... I'll continue this evening...)
I can't say that I'm looking forward to your thoughts on the "racial
characteristics" of the Turkish population of Berlin, but for what it's
worth, I don't see a continuation from you on that point in the posts that
have arrived so far.
It seems to me that you are avoiding the question in any case. Do you agree
with some of the racist doctrines you have just canvassed? And do you
perhaps disagree that they are racist? Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as
$771/month*
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 1 May 2007 22:49:08 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos
Subject: RE: AW: AW: AW: RACE
Bruce Jackson wrote:
>
> Pete wrote:
>
> No, Steiner knew his remarks were inappropriate even when he made them.
> He
> continually warned against the wrong ears hearing what he had to say and
> frequently described his lectures and some written materials as not for
> public consumption.
>
> [Bruce Jackson] Maybe one should leave things that he said that were not
> for
> public consumption alone then! ;-) or - whichever you prefer!
No, I don't think we need to do that any more. The only reason for this
rather cult-like posture would be to avoid criticism. This would be the
right place to get his material out in the open.
> Pete continues:
>
> Nobody cares that Steiner was a racist, BTW, but for the fact that he
> started a school system based on a racist philosophy, populated by
> teachers
> who adhere to a racist philosophy rather than denouncing it. This
> racist
> philosophy is taught both directly and indirectly in Waldorf schools,
> and
> teachers indeed work through it in their daily interactions with
> children.
> Step ONE - Acknowledge that there is a problem.
>
> [Bruce Jackson] I don't believe that waldorf education is based on a
> racist
> philosophy. I certainly don't directly or indirectly teach racism.
>
Well, one would follow the other wouldn't it? If you don't think
Steiner's philosophy is racist or that Anthroposophy has at its
foundation a racist philosophy, or that Waldorf (and the Waldorf
curriculum) has at its roots, Anthroposophy... well then it would stand
to reason you don't believe you teach racism directly or indirectly.
Pete
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 17:58:19 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier"
Subject: RE: AW: RACE
Speaking of fun stuff like holocaust denial.... Bruce writes:
>[Bruce Jackson] Maybe one should leave things that he said that were not
>for
>public consumption alone then! ;-)
That is an extraordinarily naive idea, historically speaking. If we want to
make some sense out of the past, every once in a while we do have to pay
attention to statements that were made for specific audiences, rather than
for general "public consumption".
>[Bruce Jackson] I don't believe that waldorf education is based on a racist
>philosophy. I certainly don't directly or indirectly teach racism.
I don't know what you teach. Based on your remarks so far, however, one
possibility that comes to mind is that you have an inadequate conception of
what "racism" is, and hence you don't recognize the racist elements in
anthroposophy. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
The average US Credit Score is 675. The cost to see yours: $0 by Experian.
http://www.freecreditreport.com/pm/default.aspx?sc=660600&bcd=EMAILFOOTERAVERAGE
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 15:54:44 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier"
Subject: May Day greetings
Hello all,
I'm back in Berlin and trying to catch up on lots and lots of posts. I sent
a post to Baandje twice last week and it has yet to come through; third
time's the charm... I will re-send it in a moment. May Day greetings to all,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
MSN is giving away a trip to Vegas to see Elton John. Enter to win today.
http://msnconcertcontest.com?icid-nceltontagline
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 17:51:19 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier"
Subject: Re: RACE
Pete K wrote:
>I have, in our discussions, pointed out that in some cases, Steiner was
>saying things that were a reflection of the times he lived in - like
>when he railed against the deployment of black troops in France in 1923.
> Lots of Germans were upset by this and Steiner's stupid stuff about the
>French language being corrupt is somewhat excusable.
I would like to second Pete's point about the context of Steiner's remarks
about the French bringing black people to Europe. For what it's worth,
however, I think there is a signficant difference between ideas that are
widespread and ideas that are excusable. It is true that lots of Germans
were taken in by the racist propaganda against black soldiers in the early
1920s. This does not make their reactions excusable. There were many people,
including people in Germany, who pointed out the racist nature of this
hysteria at the time and roundly rejected it. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as
$771/month*
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 00:11:11 +0000
From: Pete Karaiskos
Subject: RE: RACE
Thanks Peter for correcting me here. I guess I meant
"understandable"... that Steiner got caught up in the protests of the
time... not that there was anything understandable or excusable in the
positions themselves - or the comments he made from those
political/spiritual/racist/goofy positions.
Pete
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Pete K wrote:
>
>
> >I have, in our discussions, pointed out that in some cases, Steiner was
> >saying things that were a reflection of the times he lived in - like
> >when he railed against the deployment of black troops in France in 1923.
> > Lots of Germans were upset by this and Steiner's stupid stuff about the
> >French language being corrupt is somewhat excusable.
>
>
> I would like to second Pete's point about the context of Steiner's
> remarks
> about the French bringing black people to Europe. For what it's worth,
> however, I think there is a signficant difference between ideas that are
>
> widespread and ideas that are excusable. It is true that lots of Germans
>
> were taken in by the racist propaganda against black soldiers in the
> early
> 1920s. This does not make their reactions excusable. There were many
> people,
> including people in Germany, who pointed out the racist nature of this
> hysteria at the time and roundly rejected it. Greetings,
>
>
> Peter S.
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Mortgage rates near historic lows. Refinance $200,000 loan for as low as
>
> $771/month*
> https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h27f8&disc=y&vers=689&s=4056&p=5117
>
>
------------------------------
Date: Tue, 01 May 2007 17:25:23 -0500
From: "Peter Staudenmaier"
Subject: RE: RACE
Baandje writes:
>Anthropops who explain away Steiner’s racist comments as ‘spiritual’
>theory, are supporting racist doctrine. And if they support racist
>doctrine, that makes them racist, does it not?
Yes. That is why some anthroposophists are racist. Get it?
>I’m sure Bruce doesn’t see it this way,
I have no idea whether Bruce sees it this way, but if he doesn't, it would
be nice if he could provide some sort of explanation for why not. People who
support racist doctrine can accurately be described as racist. Greetings,
Peter S.
_________________________________________________________________
Mortgage refinance is Hot. *Terms. Get a 5.375%* fix rate. Check savings
https://www2.nextag.com/goto.jsp?product=100000035&url=%2fst.jsp&tm=y&search=mortgage_text_links_88_h2bbb&disc=y&vers=925&s=4056&p=5117
------------------------------
Date: Wed, 2 May 2007 01:13:57 +0000
From: Diana Winters
Subject: RE: Moon Landings
Michael Howell wrote:
>Diana Winters may not be aware that Henry Makow the owner and author >of
>the "anti semitic" web site Save the Males is a jew.
What's your point?
Jewish human sacrifices?????
Oh, gee, no, there's no antisemitism in anthroposophy today!
Michael Howell is here quoting articles about Jewish human sacrifices to
us.
Nope baandje - there is no antisemitism in anthroposophy today. Go back
to sleep now!
Did you read it baandje? I'll leave it below.
>By no means is the Holocaust the only vigoro sly defended domain of
>history, where an offender may find himself in deep water. The old case
>of Jewish human sacrifices re-emerged recently in Italy, with the
>publication of Professor Ariel Toaff's book, Passovers of Blood. As you
>may already know, Prof Toaff proved that some Jews accused of kidnapping
>and killing Christian children in the Middle Ages were actually guilty
>as charged. They were executed for brutal murder, and they weren't
>victims of alleged Christian prejudice or primordial antisemitism. One
>may think it would be a reason for celebration: the criminals were not
>libelled but properly punished; justice was carried out, and modern Jews
>should be happy that the medieval anti-Jewish prejudice is but a myth,
>akin to the myth of Germans turning
> Jews into soap.
> But the Jewish organisations were not happy at all. They attacked the
> Jewish Professor of Medieval Jewish studies in an Israeli University;
> the mentally tortured, almost crucified professor Toaff withdrew and
> destroyed the book (mercifully in our days it is not that easy, and the
> book can be read on the web on
> http://www.vho.org/aaargh/fran/livres7/pasque.pdf ), surrendered the
> small amount of money he got from the publisher to the Jewish
> inquisition of ADL, and was forced to a new act of repentance.
> The Israeli parliament (Knesset) plans to send Dr Toaff to jail, others
> intend to sue him for all it is worth, and see that he dies a pauper and
> an outcast. Here in Italy, it is natural to compare Dr Toaff with
> Galileo, this great Italian scholar, who was persecuted for his
> scientific discovery, and preferred repentance to a fiery death.
> But the actual achievement of Dr Toaff is best compared to that of his
> Italian Jewish colleague, Dr Carlo Ginzburg, the author of The Witches'
> Sabbath. Ginzburg proved that the Friulians, that is people of Friuli,
> neighbours of Venice, were dabbling in Black Magic, growing out of its
> ancient fertility ritual. Toaff achieved a similar result for the Jews,
> that they were dabbling in Black Magic and that it grew out of their
> ancient cult of vengeance and salvation-through-blood. But the Friulians
> remained calm, while the Jews almost lynched the Professor, thus proving
> that the Friulians are open-minded folk that can look with mild
> curiosity at the misdeeds of their ancestors, while the Jews still
> cannot come to terms with their non-exclusivity, their non-Chosenness,
> and their non-sacrality.
> Together with Dr Ginzburg, Dr Toaff had completed the process of
> reassessment of the Middle Ages which was well described by Mircea
> Eliade in his Occultism, Witchcraft, and Cultural Fashions. Eliade
> wrote: "Some 80 years ago, prominent scholars Joseph Hansen and Henry
> Charles Lee considered the black magic an invention of inquisition, not
> of the sorcerers. They considered the stories of witches' Sabbath, of
> Satanist rites, orgies and crimes to be a whim of imagination or a
> result of torture-induced confessions. Now we know, - writes Eliade, -
> that black magic was not invented by inquisition". Nor, we may add, the
> Jewish human sacrifices that were proven beyond reasonable doubt.
>
> Toaff dealt with the case of Simon of Trent, a child ritually murdered
> by the Jewish black magicians. The guilt of a few Jews was established
> by the best court of law anybody could have those days, and the innocent
> Jews did not suffer more than innocent Muslims have suffered in the US
> after 9/11. Another case was that of Hugh of Lincoln, a child ritually
> murdered in 1255: out of 90 Jews detained in the aftermath of the crime,
> over 70 were released unharmed as their innocence was established, while
> those found guilty were hanged: hardly a case of "mob justice"!
> In a blatant case of ethnic bias, the Jewish-edited Wikipedia described
> Hugh of Lincoln as "allegedly murdered", while the proven accusation is
> termed "blood libel". "Blood libel" is a standard definition of these
> cases, implying that always-innocent Jews were libelled by prejudiced
> Christians. But, if a moral lesson can be extracted from these old
> criminal cases, then it is that the European sense of justice and
> fairness invariably prevailed; while guilty Jews were punished, innocent
> Jews lived and prospered as the only non-Christian community in Europe.
> Muslim justice was not worse, either: in an 1840 Damascus case, a
> Catholic friar was murdered by a few Jews who confessed to the crime and
> were punished. But this did not interfere with prosperity of their
> brethren, and Farkhi, a Jew of Acre, was considered the richest man in
> Syria after the affair as well. This case was investigated by the great
> Orientalist, Sir Richard Burton, the British consul in Damascus, who
> began as an avowed philosemite ("'Had I choice of race there is none to
> which I would more willingly have belonged than the Jewish") but
> accepted the guilty verdict in this case, and wrote a full exposition of
> the affair. The London Jews paid good money to buy the Burton manuscript
> from his heirs, and it has never been published to this very day, being
> kept in the cellars of the Board of Deputies of British Jews. A British
> Jewish journalist Aaronovitch chided Syria for a Syrian minister daring
> to write about it; Aaronovitch never
> mentioned the Burton investigation, just exclaimed "blood libel" as if
> this explains everything.
>
> Indeed, before there was the Holocaust, there was blood libel. When one
> reads Jewish and Judeophile pre-WWII texts, one notices that the place
> currently occupied by the Holocaust dogma in the Judeocentric universe
> was not vacant; it was taken by pogroms in Russia, by the Dreyfus trial,
> by the Inquisition, by the expulsion from Spain, by the destruction of
> the Temple and to a great extent by the "blood libel". They carried the
> same message: they proclaimed eternal, unique, reasonless and baseless
> suffering of Jews caused by the irrational hate of Gentiles; they united
> and mobilized Jews against the Gentiles; they deflated some envy,
> hostility and distrust into ity, even engendering guilt feelings among
> the best of goyim.
> The case of Dr Toaff may help our friends who are over-involved with the
> Holocaust narrative to see the point. I respect the dissidents/deniers
> for their going against the stream, but I do not share their enthusiasm.
> Yes, these tales of undeserved and unique suffering could be argued
> against on the factual grounds. This is what Dr Serge Thion did in
> connection to the Holocaust, noting that Elie Wiesel, the great narrator
> of Holocaust, preferred to stick to his Nazi persecutors rather than
> stay with his Russian liberators. This is what Dr Toaff and Sir Richard
> Burton did with respect to blood sacrifices, proving that the
> authorities' response was measured and legitimate.
>
> The Russian historian Kozhinov dealt with the Russian pogroms proving
> that more non-Jews than Jews were killed in these violent encounters.
> The greatest and the bloodiest pogrom, that of Kishinev, was described
> by Bialik, the national Jewish poet, as the greatest of massacres with
> blood flooding the streets, and in recent issue of Haaretz, an Israeli
> journalist wrote that "no one doubts the Russian nation's right to exist
> because Christians in Kishinev at the beginning of the 20th century
> stuck nails into the eyes of Jewish children." However, as opposed to
> the cases of the Italian and English babies tortured to death by Jewish
> black magicians, the
> allegations of "nails into the eyes etc" were a flight of fantasy
> disproved almost instantly, while the total loss of life in Kishinev
> amounted to 45, a quarter of Deir Yassin, a month's harvest of the
> Intifada.
> So all these stories of unprovoked suffering can be deconstructed, but
> why bother, if the only thing the producers of the narratives wish to
> convey is that Jews are unique and special, have suffered more than
> anybody else and that is why they are entitled to have their way, are
> the best there is, while whoever doubts it is obsessed by mystic
> antisemitism. These narratives are brought forth to wake Jewish fury
> against their alleged persecutors, c'est tout.
>
> I take great dislike to these victimhood stories, and not only because
> they are factually weak. The victimhood stories are not the result, but
> a cause of suffering. Whenever these stories of unprovoked persecution
> are being delivered, have no doubt: their promoters are preparing a
> beastly atrocity of their own. Jews brandished the story of the
> holocaust and erased the peaceful Palestinian population in 1948.
> Armenians recited the story of
> their unique unprovoked suffering, and massacred innocent Azeri
> civilians in Qarabag in 1991-94 war, sending hundreds thousands of
> refugees to Baku. Poles and Czechs inflamed by stories of their
> suffering under the Reich expelled millions of ethnic Germans from their
> ancestral lands, while Ukrainians who told the stories of their
> suffering in Rzecz Pospolita slaughtered the Poles of Volyn by the
> thousands.
> National politics parallel gender politics, as it was outlined by Otto
> Weininger: thus, the feminists promoted a narrative of women's suffering
> under their eternal male oppressor, and caused the breakdown of many
> families, the impoverishment of women and the emasculation of men. A
> narrative of this kind may be balanced by a counter-narrative. While it
> is true that men lead in physical violence, women are much more
> efficient in verbal aggression. The lashing tongue of Lady Macbeth was
> no less guilty than Macbeth's piercing knife. Women do know how to
> provoke a man; and men espond - sometimes with a kiss, sometimes with a
> blow, sometimes with a bullet. Jose killed, but Carmen provoked. Despite
> the much promoted myth of the muscular Barb Wire type of girl, women
> are less successful when it comes to physical blows, so they tend to
> forbid physical violence but allow the verbal one and outlaw the very
> concept of provocation.
> Coming back to the subject, if Turks killed, the Armenians provoked; and
> whenever there were actions against Jews they were caused by actions of
> Jews. Indeed, a through-and-through denier, I deny the very existence of
> antisemitism, the "irrational hate towards Jews". It does not exist.
> Jewry was fought against, as every power, from Roman Catholic Church to
> Standard Oil Co was. Jews are not lambs, but quite an active factor of
> ideological and economic life. One may be for or against them. But
> "hate"? Surely not. Non-Jews have usually been fairer to Jews than the
> other way around. Even the "blood libel" turned out to be not a libel
> but a regular criminal case.
> Were there anti-Jewish actions, in Europe and in the Middle East? Surely
> they were. But were they caused by "irrational hate"? Hate my foot! In
> 1911, the US government undid the mighty empire of John D. Rockefeller.
> Not being a Jew, Rockefeller could not claim it was due to antisemitism.
> He did not say that it was because they did not like his looks, race,
> breed, manners, or that's divine punishment for his sins. They broke up
> the Standard Oil Company because it became too powerful. For the same
> good reason, Russian President Vladimir Putin broke up the oil company
> of his unruly oligarchs. Not because they were Jews, or because they
> supported democracy. Power creates the demand for a countering power,
> force calls for counterforce, and Jews were and are a power.
> Jewry is stronger than the Catholic Church, as we learn from the fate of
> an Italian scientist we can compare Dr Toaff with. Yesterday, just off
> the main square, I saw a plaque commemorating Giordano Bruno, the martyr
> of science. It said: "He was killed by the Catholic Church, the enemy of
> science." Go over hundreds of books, crawl all over Internet, you will
> read that the Church is guilty of this crime. You can say it freely, and
> nobody will scream at you hysterically: "ALL the Church? All billion of
> Catholics from
> Brazil to Poland are guilty? Shame on you! You are anti-Catholic!"
> Actually, the late Pope even apologised for it, as was his wont.
> In vain you'll look for a plaque commemorating a Jewish philosopher,
> scientist and sceptic Rabbi Samuel Ibn Zarza, the author of Miklal Yofi,
> who expressed his doubt about Creation, and was burned at the stake in
> Valencia - by order of the Jews. Now, I wait to hear the shout "All the
> Jews? Antisemite!" What, nobody says it? Good, we may proceed. In the
> Book of Lineage, a 15th century Jewish book I had pleasure of
> translating (into English), there is a gloss saying "When the Rabbis
> read 'The year such and such since creation of the world' this Zarza
> fellow placed his hand on his beard and alluded to the world's
> pre-existence by holding the hairs of his beard. The Chief Rabbi Isaac
> Campanton stood up in his place and said, 'Why is the bush not being
> burnt? Let the bush burn!' (Zarza is a sort of bush in the Castilian; so
> this pun alludes to Exodus 3:3) The Rabbis led him to the tribunal and
> had him sentenced to death by burning for confessing pre-existence of
> the world."
>
> So there are two scientists, both burned, but one was sent to the stake
> by the Church, while another one by the Jews. If you go into the
> details, you can find even more similarities. Samuel Ibn Zarza was
> executed by the tribunal at the instigation of the Jews. There are some
> hints that the Jews were active behind the scenes in sending Giordano
> Bruno to his death as well, for he was strongly anti-Jewish. Giordano
> Bruno called the Jews 'such a pestilential, leprous, and publicly
> dangerous race that they deserved to be rooted out and destroyed even
> before their birth.' (Giordano Bruno, Spacio della Bestis Trionfante
> (1584). This opinion contributed to his execution, for even then, the
> Jews could access the authorities' ears, and there we