Thursday 31 May 2012

Anthroposophical Plants



There's something wonderful about plants grown with the full force of life-affirming quackery running through them, they look the same, maybe a bit posher, but they taste like something can taste only when is has been thoroughly steeped in esoteric dogma.

But until now Anthroposophical Plants haven’t been flagged up as much of a problem.



In fact it’s been established that of all the problems caused by the Anthroposophical basis of Steiner education, the main active, ongoing one is "unchecked bullying", according to Pete Karaiskos who's been collecting testimonials.

And the problems that unchecked bullying can cause to children are about as serious as problems get.

That's why it's very important to wake up NOW because now that Jeevan Vasagar has gone and done his even two-hander thing on the subject, the fact that the real, current, live issues have been left out due to a personal vendetta (a truly filthy story) is coming back to bite the hypo-critics, because there is simply no actual evidence of anything live currently wrong with Steiner education that any journalist can be expected to take seriously.

Even a group as full of themselves as the skeptic ‘critics’ can’t seriously be surprised that state-funded anthroposophy isn’t going to be shelved just because they say it should be.

It's not that there isn't a big hidden agenda in Anthroposophy, it's just that you need evidence, and as Pete Karaiskos’ new collection of testimonials is showing, it's seems to be mainly in the unchecked bullying that you can see how Anthroposophy works.  I'm not saying the schools aren't racist in operation but where are the people willing to stand up and talk about their own situation in that regard and produce evidence of it?

The lack of concrete evidence compared to the large amount of anonymous ‘testimony’ of bullying and mobbing IS the problem and it’s what ends up being argued in just about every thread about Steiner, e.g.

And why is it largely anonymous? Well obviously because the mobbing you have undergo to bring this stuff out is very nasty, and most people don't want to put themselves through it.

But the shocker is that when someone is prepared to stand up, the most committed most libelous mobsters are the hypo-critics themselves! They’ve certainly gone out of their way to prevent that information coming out, to spread lies about the whistle blowers, and to attempt to destroy our reputation, even though there isn’t really anyone else prepared to stand up and do it.

So it would be predictably funny, if bullying wasn’t such a serious issue, to see them all bemoaning the fact that Jeevan's even-handedness leaves out important information.

Here's Esther Fiddler who was quite happy to see our evidence until she was tipped off who we were, and then immediately blocked us.




And of course, Alicia, I only write for myself but I just want hundreds of people to read it, Hamberg, isn’t happy either.



And let's not forget Andy “I publish everything” Lewis.  Here he is trying to ensure that nobody will know that we've got a live issue and that we're prepared to front it.

And it doesn’t matter how we try to alert their followers about what they are doing either, or that they've just been told a load of porkies, as bystanders, they just do not want to know. I was even emailed by a Steiner 'critic': "the mobbing may be real or imagined - it doesn't concern me either way."

So the mobbing, just like the other bullying, goes unchecked by these jokers.

These skeptical ‘critical thinkers’ have been quite prepared to screw it up for the children of the future just because they 'despise' the available whistleblowers and think we're 'demented fuckwits'. They'd actually rather have state-funded Steiner education than have a look at their own mobbing behaviour and ask themselves whether chasing a personal vendetta is really the way to get yourself taken seriously on an important social issue.

But oh come on let's be real, it's really all because Melanie Byng's son wanted to go to a party and posh Melanie didn't have the manners to apologise for the way that impacted on other people, but got all snotty about it, and from that moment on, we were done for.  From ‘funny and brave’ we became punchbags - from heroine to zero-in in one easy step.

So Melanie’s ‘friends’ mobbed and vilified us (and still do), spread lies about us (and still do), blocked, flamed and banned us (and still do) to make sure that our evidence would remain invisible - and all because Melanie Byng’s son wanted to go to a party.

But having covered up such “well researched and clearly presented” material as this movie, that pretty much lays out the bullying situation, will you just listen to the darling little anthroposophical plants now....

"Oh no, they're not listening to our argument that the original philosophy of these schools was a product of its times."

"It was nothing really, just a bit of late reading but my child caught up easily because he is very bright."

"But once they've got Anthroposophy on the statute books it'll be too late".

"OH NO ALREADY!"

No sympathy from this quarter, I can assure you.  Because your cover-up of the evidence that might have made a difference, you're all going to have to take responsibility for the inception of state-funded Steiner education into the UK and for the future whistle blowers created by it, including the children of those families forced to take the crap thrown at whistle blowers when we were trying, through taking it ourselves, to save them the bother.

I say “might have made a difference”, because we don't know.  And that's just the point isn't it?  Because we will never know now, because you've covered it up.  So you yourselves don’t know what difference it might have made or whether others might indeed have been encouraged to come forward with their evidence if you hadn’t used your followers to destroy the whistle blowers.

Mr Gove’s State-funded Anthroposophy is creating tomorrow's whistleblowers today, there's no doubt about that.  But as for how many people already in the UK might have come forward at the last minute, (even potentially from so-called ‘flagship’ schools), and persuaded Mr Gove to think again nobody can say.

And that, folks, is the true price of not wanting to know about the bullying.

So the sad reality is that it's entirely possible that Steiner free schools will shortly get the go ahead in the UK purely because Melanie Byng's 'very bright' son wanted to go to a party.

And you're all going to have to live with that, while we document the self-pitying mewling that is already ensuing from this ridiculous bunch of soi-disant ‘critical thinkers’ - sound and fury, signifying nothing.

Steeped in the esoteric dogma of clique/cult/mob, you've all become just so many Anthroposophical Plants, blowing and now pissing in the wind.

4 comments:

  1. People reading this should be aware that the Steiner /Waldorf 'critics' continue to discuss and smear me, my family, our human rights case and related issues on sites were we are censored from replying or putting our point of view.

    Pete Karaiskos has written on the Waldorf Critics site, linking to this blog-post and quoting it extensively. I am not allowed to answer his comments about me on that site as our account was terminated when we energetically, but politely, objected to the mobbing we got there and the way the rules were simply broken to allow people to defame us - reminiscent again of the Steiner school, who claimed that they would deal with the bullying, but actually protected the bullyers.

    So it's important to realise that what the Waldorf "critics" say about me,
    is basically whatever they want to say because they've made sure I can't answer. That's called bullying (and it's libellous bullying to boot).

    It's interesting to note that we're the people following up on the actual bullying in Steiner Ed through human rights, whereas the 'critics' mostly admit that they didn't actually have any problems with Steiner ed in that way - i.e. it didn't really effect their kids so it's just an intellectual exercise/support group.

    So Pete Karaiskos can tell people on the Waldorf 'critics' than I'm writing about him because I've got some sort of crush on him or whatever. It may be tongue in cheek, but don't bullies always want to make it look as though you just need to give them attention?

    In fact documented events show clearly that a smear campaign has been mounted against us by these pseudo 'critics' because we are whistleblowing Steiner education.

    Examples can be found here: http;//is.gd/how2spot
    and here: http://is.gd/ethics

    If people are going to cyber-mob, defame, and smear you, it is actually important to set the record straight, as cyber-bullies rely on people just believing their own version of events, as we have shown this bunch do, even thanking each other for 'summarising' so they don't actually have to look at the facts.

    Says 'cult' to me.

    These guys are playing the dirtiest game, attacking people who are championing the same causes they themselves discuss, and trying to trash us purely and admittedly based on "speculation". It is childish and spiteful and the very fact that they're prepared to mount such attacks on other families to protect their own little clique, says much about why they're so ineffective at making any actual difference.

    So if you've followed Pete's rather over-excited and hugely out of date comments about this blog post I'd like to tell you what you've no doubt already surmised, that I've got precisely no sort of "crush" on Pete Karaiskos, and find his words and actions boorish, discriminatory and immature, and the same goes for the bullying tactics of all the soi-disant Steiner 'critics', who are an extraordinary bunch of cyber-mobbing hypocrites.

    Worth noting also, given that he's linked to this article, quoted it and talked about it, all from the 'safe' space where I'm censored, that I'm smelling that other common trait of bullies - rank cowardice, as my comments are open and we have never blocked any of the 'critic' gang from dialogue - that's their game.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Angel, firstly, I'm flattered that you're still blogging about me. Please understand, however, that you represent the Westboro Baptist Church of Waldorf critics. You shouldn't be surprised that some of us want to keep a lot of distance from your rants. We've gone to a lot of effort to establish credibility, so naturally, we can't accept everyone who has a wild Waldorf story to tell with open arms. I went into detail with you about why I personally didn't find your story credible - and you changed your video because of what I said to make it seem more credible.

    I don't think you made a good show of your case, BTW. It appears to the world that you simply bullied a school into paying you to shut up. It was cheaper for them to pay you than to have you ranting about them forever. I suspect you taught them a good lesson about what it feels like to be bullied in the process, however. It's not the kind of action most critics would like to be associated with. It worked for you though, so well done!

    ReplyDelete
  3. "Angel, firstly, I'm flattered that you're still blogging about me."

    Angel's post is nearly a year old. There's no "still" about it.

    "Please understand, however, that you represent the Westboro Baptist Church of Waldorf critics."

    You just can't stop throwing insults at Angel, can you Pete? Is that how you think you establish credibility?

    "We've gone to a lot of effort to establish credibility, so naturally we can't accept everyone who has a wild Waldorf story to tell with open arms."

    Oh but you do though. You embraced us well enough at first, and you gather any story you can find online related to Steiner and post it on your "Waldorf Review", but not the one that's backed up by evidence. That one's false, or made up, or "wild", or whatever... based on, what? Someone's say so. That's pretty credible of you.

    "I went into detail with you about why I personally didn't find your story credible - and you changed your video because of what I said to make it seem more credible."

    No you didn't. What you did was question what happened during one incident Angel had reported, and use that as an opportunity to make fun of her impairment and attack her because of it, on a forum where ad hominem attacks were supposedly not allowed. I guess that makes you credible too.

    But maybe you thought that incident was all we had against that Steiner school. If that's the case, then it merely highlights poor research skills, something which would also undermine your credibility if that were the case.

    "I don't think you made a good show of your case, BTW."

    Really? How so? As far as I can tell, we're the first family to successfully mediate with a Steiner school through Human Rights and take them to task over their handling of bullying. Did you not read the statements? Again with the research and credibility. It's getting embarrassing.

    "It appears to the world that you simply bullied a school into paying you to shut up."

    Paid us to shut up? Really? You didn't read the statements, did you? Do you have any credibility left?

    And as for us having bullied the school? Bullies always call the ones who stand up to them, bullies. Funny that, eh?

    "It was cheaper for them to pay you than to have you ranting about them forever."

    Pray tell: how did they stop us from talking about what happened?

    "It's not the kind of action most critics would like to be associated with."

    Yes, I does look like you people have little desire to do something that achieves actual results. After all, what would you do if you affected real change? I guess you'd have to stop moaning and move on. Maybe you're not ready for that.

    But really, looking at how you treated Angel, you don't value research or credibility. What you do value is belonging in a gang and attack anyone who doesn't tow the line. Reminds me of another group. Can't put my finger on it. Has a German-sounding name... I think you were actually part of that group for many years... Ah, it's on the tip of my tongue... Can you help me out?

    ReplyDelete
  4. I'd like to add something to my last comment. Pete, of course we all know how vile the members of the Westboro Baptist Church are, so alluding that Angel is akin to them is pretty disgusting in itself, especially considering how we handled the situation with our Steiner school has nothing whatsoever to do with what these nutjobs do.

    It also shows once again how comfortable you are at hurling insults though, as you have done repeatedly many times in the past, like when you said this about Angel on the "no ad hominem attack" Waldorf Critics list, once we'd been banned and had no way of replying:

    http://www.amazonnewsmedia.com/ANM/ANM/Entries/2012/5/16_Cheap_shot_anyone.html

    "This is a case of somebody relentlessly shooting themselves in the foot with every post they make... (that would explain the walking problems)"

    Except that I'm now wondering if you were indeed insulting Angel when you brought Westboro into the conversation.

    I found on the "Waldorf Critics" forum this particular nugget you wrote just a few days ago, on the 2nd of May, 2013, when you were talking about a community fundraiser for a very ill parent:

    http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/26597

    "It would serve Highland Hall right if I stand out front of this event with MISSING CHILD posters - of my daughter - their former student, and pictures of their alumni director ripping them down."

    To which Dan Dugan, forum moderator, replied: "That would be a Westboro Baptist kind of thing. I'd suggest keeping your campaign at a higher level."

    So you can't even come up with your own insults. But what was interesting is that you then added:

    "a Westboro Baptist kind of hate is what they [Steiner/Walforf schools] have EARNED from parents whose children they have openly harmed. "

    So which is it Pete? Were you insulting or praising Angel?

    To me, that just sounds like a massive projection.

    And you say credibility's important to you?

    ReplyDelete