But what I found when I looked at it (once I stopped laughing), was that it can apply to any group that mounts an aggressive attack on people with different opinions or ways of approaching matters, and which, in doing so, begins to approximate cultish behaviour.
I realised this, of course, by the fact that everything Alicia Hamberg is criticising the Steiner 'cult' for doing, she is doing herself, except for the law-suit, as her contempt for the law stretches even to deliberately publishing libel on sites where the target has no right of reply - which she frames as 'free-speech'.
By Alicia's own reckoning, and she seems pretty emphatic about it, if you can apply your own situation of being attacked by a group to these paragraphs, then 10:1 you're dealing with a cult, or something very like one.
The attitudes described in her piece and which she is so scathing about, are all traits that the 'Critics' themselves, and especially her, have displayed in their 'dealings' with us. So by that reckoning, the 'critics' themselves are clearly operating exactly like a cult, an irony that is completely lost on them, thus yet again proving the point.
And that observation is again borne out by the fact that I can't even ask Alicia's permission before reproducing her writing here, because I'm blocked from all channels of communication, including being banned from the blogs/sites where she writes nasty stuff about me.
As I haven't blocked her in any way, however, and as it's fully attributed, I feel confident that if she doesn't agree with me sharing her template, or disagrees with any of the points she is here making about herself, once the names are changed, that it will be easy for her to get in touch.
I have put the words changed in this piece in blue italics, (you can replace them with your own - it's very handy).
Everything else was written by Alicia Hamberg with a comment by Pete Karaiskos at the bottom.
_______________________________________
Template for identifying a Cult - by Alicia Hamberg
"Angel and Steve's contribution was not tolerated by people in the Waldorf Critical Movement. They could not accept that a person should have the freedom to express him/herself, to tell others what S/he thought was true and to recount their experiences in their own words. These words, they thought, defamed the 'Critics'.
It is still not too late, of course, for the 'Critics' to back off from what appears to be a rather ill-conceived and counter-productive mission. They have embarked on a journey that is intellectually barren and ethically compromised, and I for one am not at all sure why they would want to go where they seem to be heading. They are not, by any means, a Michael bravely slaying the dragon.
Our intolerance for such shenanigans is the main reason we care about this. We intend to inform ourselves better of the phenomenon of After-cults, but from what I’ve seen and read so far, it appears to me that the 'Critics', would be well advised to act less foolishly.
What seems to have happened is this: the 'Critics' have come up with the idea that in order to protect themselves from the unfortunate reputation of being a cult, they would happily (and in a magnificently paradoxical way) behave as a cult would behave. A cult, which will not tolerate dissent. Cults often don’t. Anthroposophy, and now the Anthroposophical Critics, unfortunately, sometimes (this is not the first time) seems all too willing to join other cults in this untoward habit. Again, I can’t comprehend why; it is not criticism or dissent — even if it were unfair — that will suffocate the 'Critics', it is lack of breathing space that will. The enemy is within the 'Critics' movement itself. It is its own mentality — or perhaps, to speak Anthroposophese, the aberrations, nay, the pathologies of its group soul.
Naturally, this development ought to concern not only targets of the critics of anthroposophy but also — and perhaps even more — other 'Critics'.
I can certainly understand if 'Critics', anthroposophists and adherents of waldorf education don’t feel flattered by our criticism and that they fear that a dissident who thinks what s/he thinks and writes what s/he writes poses a serious threat to the movement. It is understandable, even predictable, that people who are still anthroposophists don’t share our perspective. It is not difficult to comprehend that they feel the need to defend themselves, even against arguments which are likely to be more true than they would be able to admit. But will they be able to rescue their reputation in a courtroom? Of course not. They have lost such a battle before they have even begun fighting it.
You see, it doesn’t even matter much if they are right or wrong, they have lost already, because they have, by their very own actions, proven themselves to be a cult worthy of being called a cult. Simply by initiating procedures of this kind — instead of arguing openly and fairly for their cause — they lose.
They lose the moment they attempt to suppress another individual’s right to freely express himself. They lose, because merely by doing this, they show us their real intentions, their true mindset. They display disrespect for other perspectives on and experiences of their movement. They show their disdain for the right and freedom of other people to form their own views, make their own interpretations and to voice them. They prove they can’t tolerate criticism very well or at all. Cults usually can’t.
There is no point insisting the 'Critics' are not a cult, if it acts as a cult (even Steiner had a glimpse of an understanding of this basic fact). And the movement has to show it is not a cult out there in the real world, not in a courtroom. It has to do so by 'Critics' meeting dissent with fair arguments and by presenting their side, their views and ideas, not with threats, or trivial legal action.
So far everything suggests to me that sites that ban people who they then defame and attempt to destroy, deserve a fair bit of negative attention. Thus, let’s help give the Steiner 'Critics' the reputation they vainly — and desperately, perhaps — tried to avoid by trying to destroy Angel and Steve without allowing them ANY right of reply; that of a menacing cult. Because the moment they showed they can’t tolerate the existence of dissenting views or criticism, that is exactly what they are."
_________________________
And this part of a comment by Pete Karaiskos should also be mentioned as useful in a template.
"When parents voice dissent in the 'Critics', they are “controlled” by the people within the 'movement'... and they will do whatever it takes to assert that control.
I have personally seen people within the 'Critics' “movement”
1) gossip about a dissenting parent and their child – sometimes to the point of slander and defamation on blogs where they have no right of reply."
_____________________________
The absolute hypocrisy of this statement of Pete's considering his outrageous savaging of us wherever we've come across him is, I suppose by 'critics' standards, "elegant".
At any rate, it seems good enough for them.
No comments:
Post a Comment