Morality and Racism
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 5:48 pm
Subject: Fwd: Morality and Racism
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 7:47 am
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Hi Walden, thanks for your
contributions on the morality and racism thread. You wrote:
What a wonderful chance
for discussion of Steiner's ideas (racism, anti-Semitism - or
not) and what do we see? The Staudenmaier Inquisition complete
with character attacks and paranoia.
I think there is a logic to
this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that people
cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one another's
moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe that for
purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important
than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline
to endorse this basic error. The recent discussion of my politics
is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right
in with the notion that critically describing and discussing
Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his
moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists
will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief
systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical
contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is
in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what
Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical
context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between
anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner
was as a person.
Peter S.
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
[PS wrote on the WC:]
It may take some time,
but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with
racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that
can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed
on that basis. Once that recognition is in place, I think it
will become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and
assess these doctrines within their historical context,
Are you saying, Peter that none of the people
on this list have "come to terms with racism and antisemitism
as belief sytems?" Are you saying that none of the people
on this list, and by extension "all" Anthroposophists
have any knowledge or experience by which to examine racism and/
or antisemitism as "belief systems, as world views"?
Are you saying that there is something that "we" don't
recognize about these "belief systems [these] world views"
in regard to their historical contexts? Mind you - you said "historical
contexts" NOT "Anthropsophical contexts". Are
you saying that we are all too stupid and/ or uneducated to be
able to understand racism and antisemitism as "belief systems
[and] world views" within their "historical contexts"
and therefore are unable to "assess [them] on that basis."?
Because that is exactly what you are saying
AND what would make it "much easier to talk about what Steiner
said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context,"
would be if we all were actually too stupid and uneducated to
assess racism and antisemitism within their historical contexts.
That way, we would all just accept what you say about the issue
as truth and say "Amen, brother" and oh, boy, it would
certainly be easier for you to talk with all of us, now wouldn't
it?
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:14 pm
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think there is a logic
to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that
people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one
another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe
that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important
than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline
to endorse this basic error. The recent discussion of my politics
is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right
in with the notion that critically describing and discussing
Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his
moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists
will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief
systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical
contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is
in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what
Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical
context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between
anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner
was as a person.
Point one:
It may take some time,
but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with
racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that
can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed
on that basis.
Daniel:
This seems incredibly disrespectful of anthroposophists.
You are basically accusing us of not understanding what racism
and anti-Semitism are, now or in the past. While that might be
true in a few cases, it is untenable when applied to all anthroposophists
(you just got done praising Sonnenberg, and labled him an anthropsophist).
But putting it like this certainly paints a dismal picture of
anthroposophists as a group. It is simply not true, and you of
all people certainly know this.
Point two:
Once that recognition is
in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what
Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical
context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between
anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner
was as a person.
Daniel:
I really don't hold much hope that you'll
ever be satisfied. Much has been published by anthroposophists
attempting to place Steiner and Anthroposophy in the proper historical
context. However, since for the most part it doesn't support
the version you would like to read, so you simply dismiss it
out of hand. Don't you find it odd that the raw source material
for most all the information of the behavior of anthroposophists
during the Third Reich comes from anthroposophists themselves?
Daniel Hindes
PS: Notice that in order to avoid the charge
of selective quotation, and to leave readers free to judge the
entire argument based on all of what was said, I have not selectively
quoted you or otherwise mischaracterized your statements to make
my own argument appear more informed. I would like to suggest
this format for future correspondence on this list.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
HI Daniel, you wrote:
This seems incredibly disrespectful of
anthroposophists.
I think perhaps we disagree about what counts as respectful discourse.
I know absolutely nothing about calculus, for example. You show
me no disrespect whatever if you point out that fact.
You are basically accusing us of not understanding what racism
and anti-Semitism are, now or in the past.
I am certainly not accusing you in particular of that, Daniel.
You are one of the few members of this list who have shown a
serious interest in the topic.
While that might be true in a few cases, it is untenable when
applied to all anthroposophists
Indeed it is.
But putting it like this certainly paints a dismal picture
of anthroposophists as a group.
I didn't paint a picture of anthroposophists as a group, I painted
a picture of those anthroposophists who believe that people cannot
discuss racism without impugning one another's moral status.
Much has been published by anthroposophists
attempting to place Steiner and Anthroposophy in the proper historical
context.
Yes, and most of it is of really low quality as far as the history
of antisemitism and racism go.
However, since for the most part it doesn't support the version
you would like to read, so you simply dismiss it out of hand.
That's silly. It makes no sense to dismiss something out of hand
simply because it doesn't support one's own reading of the material.
Don't you find it odd that the raw source material for most
all the information of the behavior of anthroposophists during
the Third Reich comes from anthroposophists themselves?
No, not in the least. Hardly anybody else studies anthroposophy's
history. Why do you find this odd, if I may ask?
Notice that in order to avoid the charge
of selective quotation
Selective
quotation is only a bad idea when others do not have access to
the original. That is obviously not the case on a public email
list. Everybody reading your reply to me has already read the
post that you're replying to, and so forth. In these circumstances
it makes much more sense to quote the specific portion you'd
like to reply to. The rest of us can always go back and check
the earlier post for the full argument.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
I think perhaps we disagree about what
counts as respectful discourse. I know absolutely nothing about
calculus, for example. You show me no disrespect whatever if
you point out that fact.
On again! Come on Peter! Shake it to the left
and shake it to the right, shake it all about and do the holey
pokey and turn your self around.... Yeah !!! Peter!!! Shake it
out baby, you can do it. One, two, three, breaaaaaaaaaattttttttthhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeee
ahhhhhhh
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 9:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Daniel:
Don't you find it odd that the raw source
material for most all the information of the behavior of anthroposophists
during the Third Reich comes from anthroposophists themselves?
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, not in the least. Hardly anybody else
studies anthroposophy's history. Why do you find this odd, if
I may ask?
Daniel:
Well, I would think that if anthroposophists
felt that they had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing
the primary documents and hope that no one notices. Yet on the
contrary, they seem to be taking a "full disclosure"
approach and publishing everything they can find in various archives.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
Hi Christine, thanks for your post. You wrote:
Are you saying, Peter that none of the
people on this list have "come to terms with racism and
antisemitism as belief sytems?
No, I'm saying that some of you have not done
so, as far as I can tell.
Are you saying that none of the people
on this list, and by extension "all" Anthroposophists
have any knowledge or experience by which to examine racism and/
or antisemitism as "belief systems, as world views"?
No, but I do think this is true of many of
the anthroposophists I have encountered.
Are you saying that there is something
that "we" don't recognize about these "belief
systems [these] world views" in regard to their historical
contexts?
Yes, several of you are apparently unfamiliar
with some of the basic historical context of antisemitic thinking,
for example. I think that is getting in the way of an informed
discussion of the matter.
Are you saying that we are all too stupid
and/ or uneducated to be able to understand racism and antisemitism
as "belief systems [and] world views" within their
"historical contexts" and therefore are unable to "assess
[them] on that basis."?
No, I don't think that stupidity or education
level have anything to do with it.
That way, we would all just accept what
you say about the issue as truth and say "Amen, brother"
and oh, boy, it would certainly be easier for you to talk with
all of us, now wouldn't it?
No, that would obviously make it much harder
to talk meaningfully about the topic. You shouldn't believe anything
anybody says just because they say it. In this case, I have not
offered my own private views on the general historical context,
I have provided very well established background information
in order to frame our more specific discussion of Steiner's doctrines.
I've offered you all sorts of book recommendations and article
recommendations about the history of antisemitism and the history
of racist thought. I think we could have a more fruitful discussion
if you would take a moment to look into some of them. What do
you say?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 9:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
In a message dated 3/2/2004 11:20:25 PM Eastern
Standard Time, pstauden writes:
Subj: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd:
Morality and Racism
Date: 3/2/2004 11:20:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Hi Christine, thanks for your post. You wrote:
Are you saying, Peter that none of the
people on this list have "come to terms with racism and
antisemitism as belief sytems?"
No, I'm saying that some of you have not
done so, as far as I can tell.
NO Peter - you are bold-faced Lying!! You
DID NOT say "some of you"
You said:
Some anthroposophists genuinely
believe that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is
more important than what you say, and are quite baffled when
others decline to endorse this basic error.
But you went on to say:
It may take some time,
but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with
racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that
can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed
on that basis.
"EVENTUALLY ANTHROPOSOPHISTS" not
"some anthroposophists" "anthroposophists like...(certain
people you may be directly speaking with on the subject)"
not "a few anthroposophists" or even "a few misguided
anthroposophists."
Which is a blanket statement and covers ALL
Anthroposophists, not the "some" who "believe...who
you are is more important than what you say." Even though
this is NOT a basic error!! Politicians and leaders of all kinds
say many, many things expressly to mislead and who they are in
reality is a very important thing to understand when trying to
decipher truth from falsehood in their words.
Your statement above is indubitably arrogant
and presumptious and false in its assumptions - the truth of
which shine darkly through the thin veil of your subsequent lies.
Christine
Subj: Re: Morality and
Racism
Date: 3/2/2004 10:49:06 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Hi Walden, thanks for your
contributions on the morality and racism thread. You wrote:
What a wonderful chance
for discussion of Steiner's ideas (racism, anti-Semitism - or
not) and what do we see? The Staudenmaier Inquisition complete
with character attacks and paranoia.
I think there is a logic
to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that
people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one
another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe
that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important
than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline
to endorse this basic error. The recent discussion of my politics
is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right
in with the notion that critically describing and discussing
Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his
moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists
will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief
systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical
contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is
in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what
Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical
context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between
anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner
was as a person.
Peter S.
Are you saying that none of the people
on this list, and by extension "all" Anthroposophists
have any knowledge or experience by which to examine racism and/
or antisemitism as "belief systems, as world views"?
No, but I do think this is true of many
of the anthroposophists I have encountered.
Are you saying that there is something
that "we" don't recognize about these "belief
systems [these] world views" in regard to their historical
contexts?
Yes, several of you are apparently unfamiliar
with some of the basic historical context of antisemitic thinking,
for example. I think that is getting in the way of an informed
discussion of the matter.
Are you saying that we are all too stupid
and/ or uneducated to be able to understand racism and antisemitism
as "belief systems [and] world views" within their
"historical contexts" and therefore are unable to "assess
[them] on that basis."?
No, I don't think that stupidity or education
level have anything to do with it.
That way, we would all just accept what
you say about the issue as truth and say "Amen, brother"
and oh, boy, it would certainly be easier for you to talk with
all of us, now wouldn't it?
No, that would obviously make it much harder
to talk meaningfully about the topic. You shouldn't believe anything
anybody says just because they say it. In this case, I have not
offered my own private views on the general historical context,
I have provided very well established background information
in order to frame our more specific discussion of Steiner's doctrines.
I've offered you all sorts of book recommendations and article
recommendations about the history of antisemitism and the history
of racist thought. I think we could have a more fruitful discussion
if you would take a moment to look into some of them. What do
you say?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie
zold
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:30 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
Peter:
I've offered you all sorts of book recommendations
and article recommendations about the history of antisemitism
and the history of racist thought. I think we could have a more
fruitful discussion if you would take a moment to look into some
of them. What do you say?
Oooh phase two in action. Yeah Peter! I cant'
wait till we get to phase three which should probably be in about
two weeks or maybe a week and a half depending on how long you
need for a closing argument. :) It must be hard to live a life
like this ey Peter. Try a little real conversation something
with a little 'life' in it. Come on I know you can do it.
Have you reread anything the Anthroposophists
have offered up for you to look further for a better understanding?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:44 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Peter Staudenmaier:
No, not in the least. Hardly anybody else
studies anthroposophy's history. Why do you find this odd, if
I may ask?
Ohhh phase 2 again:) Daniel, why do you find
this odd, if I may ask?:)))))))))))))))))))))) Whew Peter your
getting a little to easy to catch onto these days.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 9:00 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
Hi Christine, you wrote:
NO Peter - you are bold-faced Lying!!
If you mean that, then you and I disagree about what lying means.
People who believe what they are saying are not lying, plain
and simple.
You DID NOT say "some of you"
I started out by saying "some anthroposophists" and
spelled out which ones I meant. My post was about those anthroposophists.
Which is a blanket statement and covers
ALL Anthroposophists, not the "some" who "believe...who
you are is more important than what you say."
I disagree. My "blanket statement" referred to those
anthroposophists who believe that for purposes of public discussion,
who you are is more important than what you say.
Even though this is NOT a basic error!!
It is according to standard catalogues of logical fallacies.
A good way to approach public discussion of controversial topics
is to ignore who you think your interlocutors are and concentrate
on what they say.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 9:05 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
Well, I would think that if anthroposophists felt that they
had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing the primary
documents and hope that no one notices.
That would be a very foolish strategy, in my view. But I think
this is beside the point. My argument is not that anthroposophists
are trying to hide primary documents. My argument is that many
anthroposophists systematically misunderstand their own movement's
history.
Yet on the contrary, they seem to be taking a "full disclosure"
approach and publishing everything they can find in various archives.
That is Arfst Wagner's approach. You are aware of how much grief
he's taken from other anthroposophists for doing this, aren't
you?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 5:09 am
Subject: Fwd: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
From: Peter Farrell
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com
Christine Natale wrote:
NO Peter - you are bold-faced
Lying!! You DID NOT say "some of you"
G'day Christine,
I hope Dan will call you on
this as well but I will criticise you for it anyway. It is absolutely
pointless fo you to accuse Peter of lying, particularly when
you can't prove that he is, and when such an acuusation will
get you booted off this list. Nothing you wrote after this claim
demonstrates that Peter lied. At best, you might argue that something
Peter said was inconsistent with some other thing. That may simply
be a matter of Peter being less than perfectly clear, or typographical.
The evidence you would need to establish that he was lying is
essentially impossible to get from the list. Instead, the only
interpretation you can make is the same interpretation he makes
about you and others, that is that he is mistaken. This kind
of accusation is precisely why I turned down your invitation
to take part in AT. It is very instructive to read Peter's posts
over there. He never responds to this kind of nonsense except
to call it irrelevant. He addresses the arguments and the evidence.
See you, Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
The whole thing again for reference:
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think there is a logic
to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that
people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one
another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe
that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important
than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline
to endorse this basic error. The recent discussion of my politics
is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right
in with the notion that critically describing and discussing
Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his
moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists
will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief
systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical
contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is
in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what
Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical
context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between
anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner
was as a person.
Christine:
NO Peter - you are bold-faced Lying!!
Peter Staudenmaier:
If you mean that, then you and I disagree
about what lying means. People who believe what they are saying
are not lying, plain and simple.
Daniel:
Your statement "It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists
will..." has no qualifier; it applies to all anthroposophists.
Arguing that a different statement two sentences earlier has
a qualifier, and thus the reader should infer the continual application
of the qualifier throughout the text in contradiction to your
actual written words, appears disingenuous. Shifting the argument
to what does or does not constitute a lie is moving away from
the responsibility of either writing what you mean or apologizing
for lack of clarity. At best your statement was inadvertently
overly broad.
Daniel Hindes
PS: A statement that is not true, even though the author believes
it to be true, is still not true. A statement that is not true,
and the author knows it is not true, is a lie.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 3:45 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
At 18:00 03.03.2004, PS wrote:
A good way to approach public discussion
of controversial topics is to ignore who you think your interlocutors
are and concentrate on what they say.
"Happiness is a Warm Gun." - John
Lennon
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
At 02:48 03.03.2004, PS wrote:
I think there is a logic
to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that
people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one
another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe
that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important
than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline
to endorse this basic error.
Basic error? Even a serial killer may be capable
of uttering a piece of wisdom or an interesting word of advice,
but it would be thoughtless to ignore what kind of person stands
behind a given quote. Racism and morality are closely linked
for the very reason that racism is a disease of the soul, a pathology.
And the the most important reason why Rudolf Steiner is not considered
a racist among those who have studied his life and work in honesty
and in depth - whether they are anthroposophists or not - is
that he had no symptoms of such a disease of the soul. On the
contrary, he had one of the healthiest souls history has produced.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 7:43 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
One more time:
The whole thing again for reference:
Peter Staudenmaier wrote for the WC list:
I think there is a logic
to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that
people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one
another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe
that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important
than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline
to endorse this basic error. The recent discussion of my politics
is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right
in with the notion that critically describing and discussing
Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his
moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists
will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief
systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical
contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is
in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what
Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical
context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between
anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner
was as a person.
Christine:
NO Peter - you are bold-faced Lying!!
Peter Staudenmaier:
If you mean that, then you and I disagree
about what lying means. People who believe what they are saying
are not lying, plain and simple.
Daniel:
Your statement "It may take some time,
but eventually anthroposophists will..." has no qualifier;
it applies to all anthroposophists. Arguing that a different
statement two sentences earlier has a qualifier, and thus the
reader should infer the continual application of the qualifier
throughout the text in contradiction to your actual written words,
appears disingenuous. Shifting the argument to what does or does
not constitute a lie is moving away from the responsibility of
either writing what you mean or apologizing for lack of clarity.
At best your statement was inadvertently overly broad.
Peter Staudenmaier addressed this in parts.
Quoting
Daniel:
Your statement "It may take some time,
but eventually anthroposophists will..." has no qualifier;
it applies to all anthroposophists."
Peter Staudenmaier:
Only in the sense that it will indeed take
some time for all anthroposophists to recognize this.
You don't really disagree with that part, do you? Surely you
don't mean that all anthroposophists currently have an adequate
grasp of racism and antisemitism as belief systems?
Daniel responds:
Peter, you are wiggling here. It is unseemly.
If you can't even understand your own writing, I have to wonder
how well you do with a thinker like Steiner. If you want to clarify
your original statement, say so. Don't argue that your new meaning
somehow lies in the original. It does not, and anyone who can
read English can see this. We are not discussing whether I think
all anthroposophists currently have an adequate grasp of racism
and antisemitism as belief systems (of course I don't), we are
discussing how to read a sentence that starts: "It may take
some time, but eventually anthroposophists will..."
Quoting Daniel:
Arguing that a different statement two
sentences earlier has a qualifier, and thus the reader should
infer the continual application of the qualifier throughout the
text in contradiction to your actual written words, appears disingenuous.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I disagree. I think that competent readers
will note that the entire post was directed toward a specific
mindset shared by some anthroposophists. It was quite explicitly
not directed toward all anthroposophists as such.
Daniel responds:
The competent reader can read the whole passage
at the top of this post and decide for themselves.
Quoting Daniel:
Shifting the argument to what does or does
not constitute a lie is moving away from the responsibility of
either writing what you mean or apologizing for lack of clarity.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't think the lack of clarity lies
with my writing in this case. I think I introduced the post in
a very clear fashion. But I am always happy to apologize for
any misunderstandings. I will try to be even clearer in the future.
Daniel responds:
If you don't feel that the lack of clarity
lies with your writing, then by implication we are addled for
reading it as we do. This fits the pattern of denigrating the
basic intellectual competence of those who disagree with you.
In this case the issue is fairly black and white (actually, it
is literally in black and white). If you stand to the death on
this, then we must assume that you will take a similar stance
on other, more substantive issues as well.
Quoting Daniel:
A statement that is not true, even though
the author believes it to be true, is still not true. A statement
that is not true, and the author knows it is not true, is a lie.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Yes, exactly. That is why it is beside
the point to bring "lying" into the discussion, when
all you mean is that the statement is untrue.
Daniel adds:
Unless, of course, you intend that the author
knew that something was untrue when they said it. This was Christine's
stance.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 3:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
At 18:05 03.03.2004, PS wrote:
My argument is that many anthroposophists
systematically misunderstand their own movement's history.
And you don't systematically misunderstand
the history of this movement?
[old repost: http://www.uncletaz.com/aproots.html
]
The roots and origins of Anthroposophy is
to be found in the spiritual world, on the other side of the
threshold of ordinary waking consciousness. Written documentation
probably does exist, but this is even more inaccessible than
books banned by lawsuits and censorship. If it exists, it's behind
lock and key among various occult brotherhoods, and in the exclusive
Vatican library.
Such unavailable records are, just like the
Biblical documents and similar literary works, the results of
seership, of claircoyant perceptions. It created quite a stir
in such occult circles when Rudolf Steiner decided - having been
given a green light by higher powers - to make public a body
of knowledge and wisdom that had been concealed from lay people
since antiquity. Some of these esoteric fraternities have pursued
a so-called left-handed path of initiation, i.e. black magic.
Western occult tradition speaks of a right-handed
and a left-handed occultism, which means, strictly speaking,
white and black magic. The right-handed path, which it is called,
is an extremely difficult and time-consuming approach, requiring
enormous patience and endurance. It is based upon the moral purification
of body, soul and spirit and the cultivation of total harmlessness
and unconditional selfless love toward all living creatures.
Because of the very lofty and difficult demands the candidate
must make upon himself, it takes many life-times, or incarnations,
to develop such spiritual-moral capacities to the point of intitiation,
or modern clairvoyance.
All religions and idealistic philosophies
that foster and encourage qualities of this kind, contribute
to the preparation for a right-handed initiatory development.
According to Rudolf Steiner, such a right-handed
occult development, or initiatory path, is entirely dependent
upon the Christ-impulse, or the Risen One (the Resurrection Body).
For this reason, it is also known as the Christian Initiation.
The best tool, or technique, for this development, is Buddha's
Eightfold Path, according to Steiner. He claimed that Buddhism
was the religion of the future, that would be properly understood
by the mainstream culture only in the future. For this reason,
it is very interesting to compare Rudolf Steiner's book, 'Knowledge
of the Higher Worlds: How is it Achieved?' with Buddha's Eightfold
Path. They are strikingly similar, though the latter is not the
source of the former. What they have in common is the spiritual
source beyond the threshold.
The advanced stages of this Christian initiation
involve inner experiences with close ties to the events in the
Gospels designated as the Mystery of Golgotha. 'The Crowning
of Thorns' for instance, means that the candidate patiently endures
the blaspheming and ridicule of everything that he holds most
sacred. 'The carrying of the Cross' signifies that the candidate
begins to feel his physical body as a cross which he carries
around on earth. (This latter is an interesting idea to contemplate
when we approach old age and the body becomes heavier to move.)
By 'initiation' is meant the awakening of
latent clairvoyance and clairaudience as a result of inner development.
There are many different stages of these supernatural conditions.
In order to perceive non-material phenomena in such an objective
way that research by the scientific method is made possible,
an extremely high level of initiation is required.
When Steiner begins his public mission as
it is called, exactly a century ago, after having demonstrated
the epistemological justification in his books published in the
1880's and 1890's of what he would later communicate as theosophy/anthroposophy,
he also becomes the oracle of the Archai (Zeitgeist or time spirit)
Michael, who in Old Testament times was the Archangel of the
Hebrews, the Jews, and whose future world leadership was prophesized
in the Book of Daniel (Daniel 12.1). The difference between an
Archangel and an Archai is that the former represents one people,
ethnic group, or nation and is the creator of its language, while
an Archai rules an era, an epoch, for humanity as a whole. According
to anthroposophical spiritual history, the role of Archai for
humanity passed from Gabriel to Michael in 1879. One of the most
characteristic distinctions to be made between the inspirations
of Gabriel and Michael is that Gabriel inspired national romanticism
and patriotism, but Michael seeks to emancipate people from such
group-consciousness and implement instead universality, internationalism.
As a herald of Michael's intentions, Rudolf Steiner promoted
the kind of idealistic thinking that transcends Gabriel: Blood,
race, tribe, family, ethnicity, and nationality.
There is an important aspect of the law of
evolution that needs to be pointed out here. If an ideal properly
belonging to a former epoch, or a future one, is revived at the
wrong time, i.e. anachronistically, it becomes destructive; it
becomes the property of "Opposing Powers" or "dark
forces." This means that the rise of nationalism, fascism,
and national socialism in the twentieth century was partly due
to humanity's failure in making the transition from the age of
Gabriel to the age of Michael.
This is why nineteenth century nationalism
or patriotism was not destructive in the case of national poets
like Henrik Wergeland in Norway and Walt Whitman in America.
But what also needs to be kept in mind is that although the Gabriel-Michael
transition took place beyond the threshold in 1879, the world
did not change before the explosion of 1914; that is when the
world went through changes in only four years that was equivalent
to centuries of changes before that time.
I will now proceed to two perspectives of
mine that are highly controversial - among anthroposophists and
non-anthroposophists alike - and that I offer exclusively of
my own accord, though it is not yet conclusive:
My first perspective is this: Rudolf Steiner's
public mission, which began in 1901, elicited hostile reactions
from certain quarters with vested interests in keeping such knowledge
secret. If we try to look at this from a higher perspective,
from the vantage point of the spiritual hierarchies where we
have the progressive hierarchies (Christ, Michael etc,) and the
Opposing Powers (especially the ahrimanic powers), Steiner's
work in the German-speaking world was so revolutionary - according
to my own view - that it caused an unforeseen avalance of reactions.
To put it in plain English: I believe the outbreak of both
world wars were assaults upon Michael's and Steiner's work.
The first world war was facilitated by the Opposing Powers succeeding
in dimming the consciousness of the political leaders.
My second perspective reads as follows: Because
Anthroposophy was so revolutionary and also capable of empowering
the autonomy of each single human being in an "anarchistic"
way - or to use a better expression I have coined, in an "anarchosophical"
way - it produced two counter-images, two adverse and destructive
mirror-images: The first of these was Nazism; the second was
Scientology.
[ See also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/24
]
Both of these systems, Nazism and Scientology,
represent the diametrically opposite pole of Anthroposophy. What
they have in common with Anthroposophy is the genius of occult
and psychological insight related to the deepest recesses and
longings in human nature. One important distinction between Nazism
and Scientology on the one hand, and Anthroposophy on the other,
is that the two former systems both have strong roots in Jesuitism
and in Aleister Crowley's left-handed occultism. Scientology
was also strongly influenced by Beria, the chief of Stalin's
secret police, which may be why Scientology resembles Stalinism
more than Nazism.
This is why Nazism and Scientology include
the cultivation of blind obedience to authority, another anachronism
from the past. Anthroposophy does not, and it never has.
All of the above contributes to an understanding
of why ultra-rationalists fail as a matter of course when they
try to explain the Nazi era, an unprecedented manifestation of
brutality and evil which can only be understood from an occult
perspective, and Anthroposophy, which can only be understood
from a viewpoint of spiritual history as it has unfolded on the
other side of the threshold of ordinary waking consciousness.
From the above perspective, it's also irrelevant
to the point in question what kind of confused "cross-overs"
may have stood on the stage of history, or how many such confused
individuals may be around today.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Daniel wrote:
Well, I would think that if anthroposophists
felt that they had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing
the primary documents and hope that no one notices.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That would be a very foolish strategy,
in my view. But I think this is beside the point. My argument
is not that anthroposophists are trying to hide primary documents.
My argument is that many anthroposophists systematically misunderstand
their own movement's history.
Daniel:
Yet on the contrary, they seem to be taking
a "full disclosure" approach and publishing everything
they can find in various archives.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That is Arfst Wagner's approach. You are
aware of how much grief he's taken from other anthroposophists
for doing this, aren't you?
Daniel:
Actually, no. I haven't heard anything of
the sort. I checked with a few other people, and no one was aware
of any. This is not to say that there might exist some critical
statements off the beaten path, but I am not aware of any such
public criticism in mainstream Anthropsophical circles. I haven't
talked to Wagner personally, so perhaps he recieved private correspondence
on the matter, but there is no public record that I have been
able to find. Wagner's work is in several larger Anthroposophical
libraries, and quite a few big names in Anthroposophy find his
work helpful. What makes you say he has "gotten grief"
for his work?
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 1:42 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 12:58 AM
Andrea Comments
Dear Tarjej. you put a ton of good food on
the desk, Some comments of mine about it:
This is why nineteenth century nationalism
or patriotism was not destructive in the case of national poets
like Henrik Wergeland in Norway and Walt Whitman in America.
A:
The same happened in my own country, Italy,
if you think to Giuseppe Mazzini, poet, philosopher, and political
activist.
But what also needs to be kept in mind
is that although the Gabriel-Michael transition took place beyond
the threshold in 1879, the world did not change before the explosion
of 1914; that is when the world went through changes in only
four years that was equivalent to centuries of changes before
that time.
I will now proceed to two perspectives
of mine that are highly controversial - among anthroposophists
and non-anthroposophists alike - and that I offer exclusively
of my own accord, though it is not yet conclusive:
My first perspective is this: Rudolf Steiner's
public mission, which began in 1901, elicited hostile reactions
from certain quarters with vested interests in keeping such knowledge
secret. If we try to look at this from a higher perspective,
from the vantage point of the spiritual hierarchies where we
have the progressive hierarchies (Christ, Michael etc,) and the
Opposing Powers (especially the ahrimanic powers), Steiner's
work in the German-speaking world was so revolutionary - according
to my own view - that it caused an unforeseen avalance of reactions.
A:
Scaligero told us the following "story". (It fits at
100%)
Curtain
1880.90.
You have to imagine a "board of Directors"
of Hindrance's Being looking at the Earth. "Well- one says
- everything is in our side .. Every occultism and philosophy
is our friend. Science is in our hands, Religion too. But...,
who is He ?
They're looking at a young man walking in
a Central Europe's town streets. - "Uhu- tells a Lucipheric
Being- there's nothing we can do about this guy. Don't you see
Who is near Him ?(And they saw the terrible, bright Michael's
face towering over Steiner's young face). They sit down, totally
in desperation.
A giant laughter , a terrible one , did resound.
The bald headed Ahriman jumped in , growling:
"Sure. he is out of our hand , but.... he will have a need
of disciples, and now.........""
Curtain.
To put it in plain English: I believe the
outbreak of both world wars were assaults upon Michael's
and Steiner's work. The first world war was facilitated by the
Opposing Powers succeeding in dimming the consciousness of the
political leaders.
A:
There is a well known occult background here.
RS tried twice to stop the outbreak of the
War by the means of a Sacred Rite held in different European
towns in 1913-14 with his inner circle of 12 that he has been
nourishing in the Esoteric School. ( We know some of the names
of the guys involved).
The aim was just the following. Since the
karmic evolution was leading Europe at the war there was a need
to be "alive" , all the 12, on the spiritual "area"
where is possible to change the physical karmic consequences
by the means of an action on the Spiritual roots, It means to
have the capacity to link "the chain" with the Highest
Spiritual Powers of Universe.
The Rite failed. Why and how ? It has very
little sense to discuss of this. At this level of spiritual struggle
the "failure" can be someone's ( among 13 people) two
seconds lack of concentration after AN HOUR of such an exercise.........
[ See also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/24
]
Both of these systems, Nazism and Scientology,
represent the diametrically opposite pole of Anthroposophy. What
they have in common with Anthroposophy is the genius of occult
and psychological insight related to the deepest recesses and
longings in human nature. One important distinction between Nazism
and Scientology on the one hand, and Anthroposophy on the other,
is that the two former systems both have strong roots in Jesuitism
Right, Adolph called Himmler "our Loyola"
and the whole "archetype" of SS is to be found in Jesuits'
agenda, Moreover Himmler coinceved Wewelsburg's Castle like a
"German Pagan Vatican". Moreover: think to the role
of Pacelli, either as a former "Nuntius" in Germany
( 1935 Concordate with the new nazi state) or as the Pope who
closed his eyes in front of Shoah (have a look at Gerstein's
autobiography) and we'll got a "full circle".
But there is a further , important feature
that can't be dismissed.
Without WESTERN MONEY ( the Brown-Bush-Thyessen
and the Schroeder-Warburg connections) and . most of all, without
Wall Street's crack, that gave birth to the giant escape of Western
investitors from Germany in 1929-32 the Weimar Republic did not
have to fall.
The Lodges, again.
(Don't you forget who was Philip Kerr , Lord
Lothian, the "little hand" who wrote the infamous "rule
221" of Versaille's Treaty in which the Germans were declared
"guilty" for the outbreak of WWI !)
A.
and in Aleister Crowley's left-handed occultism.
Scientology was also strongly influenced by Beria, the chief
of Stalin's secret police, which may be why Scientology resembles
Stalinism more than Nazism.
This is why Nazism and Scientology include
the cultivation of blind obedience to authority, another anachronism
from the past. Anthroposophy does not, and it never has.
All of the above contributes to an understanding
of why ultra-rationalists fail as a matter of course when they
try to explain the Nazi era, an unprecedented manifestation of
brutality and evil which can only be understood from an occult
perspective, and Anthroposophy, which can only be understood
from a viewpoint of spiritual history as it has unfolded on the
other side of the threshold of ordinary waking consciousness.
From the above perspective, it's also irrelevant
to the point in question what kind of confused "cross-overs"
may have stood on the stage of history, or how many such confused
individuals may be around today.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 11:45 am
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism/Hubbard
Tarjei Straume wrote:
destructive mirror-images: The first of
these was Nazism; the second was Scientology.
[ See also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/24
]
Both of these systems, Nazism and Scientology,
represent the diametrically opposite pole of Anthroposophy. What
they have in common with Anthroposophy is the genius of occult
and psychological insight related to the deepest recesses and
longings in human nature. One important distinction between Nazism
and Scientology on the one hand, and Anthroposophy on the other,
is that the two former systems both have strong roots in Jesuitism
and in Aleister Crowley's left-handed occultism. Scientology
was also strongly influenced by Beria, the chief of Stalin's
secret police, which may be why Scientology resembles Stalinism
more than Nazism.
This is why Nazism and Scientology include
the cultivation of blind obedience to authority, another anachronism
from the past. Anthroposophy does not, and it never has.
Bradford adds his quarter;
So, L.R. Hubbard.
The first thing we understand is that Hubbard
had very red hair. The second thing we understand is that Crowley
was one of his heroes. As I briefly looked around at the Hubbard
view of the world, I saw Hubbard shaping a path of initiation,
in 27 steps with auditiors, who you depended on for getting you
clear. These auditors, by skill of forcing and focusing the wandering
will, force the inidivual to face themselves even if they want
to run screaming from their auditior. Even if they have an incurable
disease, it is just a roadblock to getting clear. In fact when
you want to run screaming from your auditor is when you are probably
getting close to the sought for break through.
Unlike the Free Masons with a 33 degree Initiation
range, Hubbard used 0 (zero) of the Fool of the Tarot as the
highest of the phases and his Scientology levels or phases ran
up through 27 degrees. Auditors range from one to very nearly,
the highest auditor, at about Roman numeral XII. These have apparently
spider like advanced psychological skills.
If we imagined Knowledge of the Higher Worlds
as exercises we might do or not do, depending on our life.. our
style, our mood.. As one moves up the ladder of Scientology,
Clearing severing the Feeling life from its direct path between
thinking and will seems part of the goal.
To become co-dependent on auditors, is to
build into the system an echo of old enforced Jesuit like systems.
Knowing how distracted and will-less and easily unfocused humanity
is, easily brainwashed, Hubbard like Gurdjieff and Crowley brought
in the enforcement psycho police as "auditors" who
could out game, any game that the will might play. Like EST---------
The Initiates of the false will can force you to obey, obey even
your un-self whether it is in your best interest or not. Because
you have given them access to the core of your will.
*********** " In the late 1960s, Erhard
studied Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard became a significant influence.
Scientologists to this day accuse Erhard of having stolen his
main ideas for est from Hubbard. We do know that when Erhard
set up est he considered making it a church, as Hubbard had done
with dianetics and the Church of Scientology. But Erhard decided
to incorporate as an educational firm for profit in a broad market.
Erhard and his supporters accuse Scientology
of being behind various attempts to discredit Erhard, including
hounding by the IRS and accusations of incest by his children.
Erhard won a lawsuit against the IRS and the incest accusations
may have been based on false memories induced in therapy. Erhard
has even claimed that Scientologists have hired hit men to kill
him, though the most logical explanation for his continued survival
is probably that no one is really trying to kill him.
est is not dianetics
EST bears little resemblance to Dianetics
or Scientology, however. est is a hodgepodge of philosophical
bits and pieces culled from the carcasses of existential philosophy,
motivational psychology, Maxwell Maltz's Psycho-cybernetics,
Zen Buddhism, Alan Watts, Freud, Abraham Maslow, L. Ron Hubbard,
Hinduism, Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale, P.T. Barnum, and
anything else that Erhard's intuition told him would work in
the burgeoning Human Potential market.
What did Erhard promise those who would shell
out hundreds or thousands of dollars for his programs? He promised
he would "blow their minds" and raise them to a new
level of consciousness. In short, he would make them special.
He would first tell them that their problem was that they needed
to have their consciousness "rewired" and his program
would do the rewiring.
Once they got their consciousness on straight,
life would be good or at least different. They would be powerful,
confident, successful because they would be independent and in
control. They would learn to see things in radically different
ways. Nothing would change and yet everything would change. (The
same promise was made by Watts for the disciples of Zen.) Nothing
could stand in their way and deprive them of all those opportunities
in life they had heretofore been denied because of bad programming
or wiring. Through est they would be set free and born again!
All problems and limitations are in the mind.
Just rewire the mind, i.e.,deconstruct personality, exorcise
all negativity, quit blaming others, and learn to accept things."
Bradford continues;
To "get clear" to clear the will
of inhibitions and debris that could block the insight into the
higher Self or as it is termed in Scientology, A THETAN- A Thetan
is able to operate freely from the physical body, able to cause
effects at a distance by will alone. Hubbard used intention or
intentions as a term for will and claimed out of the body, astral
experiences. Military applications of "Remote Viewing"
have also borrowed and have twisted basic Initiation capacities.
Hubbard like Crowley and Gurdjieff, Stalin,
Hitler, Jim Jones, Heavens Gate, Werner Erhard all sought initiation
paths. Hubbard, Crowley, Gurdjieff sought the path of initiation
through the dark field of the will. Steiner through the I AM
that has been recently discussed.
The goddess Diana and Dianetics are very interesting
because Hubbard secretly connected himself to the Whore of Babylon.
Hubbard had a Red Haired Angel who he often saw that pulled him
out of difficult scrapes. Sometimes he would see this Angel on
the wings of Planes. Hubbard was not a War hero and he sought
psychiatric help from the Military but was denied it.
There is speculation as to what he might have
become had he gotten the help he sought. He was free develop
his psychosis and it has filled a great need in the ongoing addictive
and dysfunctional nature of society. Ancient Jesuit and karmic
associations could be redirected in a new age.
People need quick fix systems. They suspect
that the Higher Self and Reincarnation exists, as it certainly
does. Hubbard affirmed all that in a Wizard of Oz sort of way.
America's chief dysfunction is the Wizard of OZ syndrome or dogma
served as refried beans. Many Americans have been given bogus
understanding of the Spritual Worlds by a group of occultists
inspired by Avatar Eastern Lodge lunacy. But a dangerous lunacy.
Severing the feeling from thinking and willing
is going back to yin-yang dualism of merely Lucifer and Ahriman.
Hubbard, EST, Hitler all sought "the end justifies the means".
What could be the final solution? These enhanced religio-military
codes are interwoven in all forms of covert intelligence schools
today.
Ah, those terms Lucifer and Ahriman, yes this
brings us to discernment and smelling the difference between
the Freedom of the Heart and entrenched systems of occult slavery.
Anthroposophy sounds exactly like any other
entrenched system to the mere outside observer. One has to have
developed discernment that is not impressed with Personalities
of the Will who flare up and offer quick fix solutions along
with magnetic co-dependency.
Anthroposophy as a cult is under the same
critics guns as Scientology or EST or any of the various cults
that arise. There is no way to develop discernment in souls who
lack it, save tragedy and fully conscious confrontation with
our doubles. There is no way to prove to someone that Steiner
is not Ron Hubbard. Eastern Lodges and Ahrimanic western lodges
knew that humanity would lose discernment and become captivated
in the hall of esoteric mirrors. This Karmic carry over from
the Catholic Priesthood attracted and diverted thousands with
unresolved authority issues.
Culture, with its fast food mentality does
not promote clarity of thinking. Knowledge of the Higher Worlds
is true for the Thetan of Scientology, Crowley, EST, Jung...
it is a truth, so do you hire thought police or join churches
and become Egregorial victims of Catholicism, Fundamentalism
(Islamic or Christian); Do you hide yourself once more in "the
chain of command"? Do you hide yourself in new age churches,
Jim Jones or Heavens Gate or Scientology and find yourself in
a web of dysfunctions and insanity? Hell you can marry a Red
Neck and get all the personal training in dysfunction your little
heart desires.
Certain Eastern Lodges and Ahrimanic Western
ones have made a Mephisto contract with the human soul on Earth
to take the human soul captive in its confusion with media, educational
lies and a plethora of cultural destiny diversions. These occult
groups find the human soul vulnerable and without the Philsophy
of Freedom or Spiritual Acitivity to develop clarity of discernment
the captive human spirit can be brought blind folded, (spiriutually)
to a new location away from Earth and the Christ Event. This
effectively continues beyond the threshold of death, where the
future vision of humanities becoming and retardation of great
impulses, like Kaspar Hauser and Wagner become as current as
David Kelly.
By training the chaotic forces of the will,
without the triad of thinking, feeling and will intact, certain
initiates are gaining Dominating force influence with the dead
and the astral world of shells of human souls that are the released
astral forms that lay between the moon and the earth.
For black Initiates it is the same as for
White Initiates. That which you can do on Earth... but strong
spiritual patrols cast out most of the bad guys onto Earth during
the 1879 warehouse clearance and War in Heaven. But now these
cast off spiritual world, sub-class beings swirl in the soul
life and inspire will and impulse wherever they can find unconscious
pockets. Ideologies, deceptions, lies, and Political and fundamental
dispositions attract these cast off beings. Spiritual Science
was given as an antidote for our Earthly life. These cast off
beings are now part of psychology and schools of retarding brotherhoods.
By having auditors and outside forces act
as your conscience...co-dependency that extends beyond the grave
is won again from the dark side. Manipulation of your conscience
(most, most distasteful to me) by priest or boss or sugar daddy,
chains you to beings that can influence the will not only on
earth but also after death. The after death world under occult
domination causes all good impulses to become turned to their
opposite. The rise of Nazism was a massive assault of beings
that had been thrust out of the Spiritual World and entered the
unconscious forces of the Germanic Soul life. They could have
developed the new I AM culture, but were steered away and beast
was set loose and now operates in our human will and impulses.
Now with all bad sides there is a good side
to Scientology, fundamentalism and the like; They help you to
try to be good and true and disciplined. But in the background
of spiritual life, hooks, claws and various vampire forces are
growing and feeding off the weakened conscience and weakened
level of discernment that modern culture allows to grow. For
here, dear reader, the term Legion is very clear. Legion was
sent into a herd of pigs, but the very nature of pig blood and
human blood have to do with transfusions and the so called orgin
of flus and viruses. So many choices, so many poisons in food,
drugs, water, super markets... So many ads, so much media...
eye candy, eye candy, eye candy and the will becomes limp and
disconnected from the Spirit.
The I Am no longer is able to take love, insight,
free action and conscience of the indivdual into the daily life,
will and intentions without Priest, Masochist, Auditor, Jesuit,
miltary ranks... trained to keep your wayward soul in line because
you cannot think, eat, choose a mate, job, or go to the church
of your choice without dangers to the heart and mind. Lodges
and certain brotherhoods know the condition of the West and it
knows that it will want some Leader... Christ in the Flesh to
bail them out, guide them out of themselves and that will be
supplied in due time.
********** "reportedly when young Hubbard
went as a teenager to the Library of Congress with his mother,
and there discovered a work written by Crowley.
Thereafter, he was fascinated by Crowley's
"Magick," and Crowley became a mentor for Hubbard,
a relationship that would last until Crowley's death in 1947.
In one of his later lectures, Hubbard would refer to Crowley
as "mygood friend."
Crowley's most famous work was called The
Book of the Law in which he expressed his philosophy of life:
"Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law."
It is a philosophy Hubbard was to live by throughout his life.
Crowley wrote, in The Book of the Law:
We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit:
let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is
the vice of Kings: stamp down the wretched and the weak: this
is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the
world.
I am of the snake that giveth Knowledge and
Delight, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship
me take wine and strange drugs.... They shall not harm ye at
all. It is a lie, this folly against self.... Be strong, Oh man!
Lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture ... the kings of
the earth shall be kings forever: the slaves shall serve.
Them that seek to entrap thee, to over throw
thee, them attack without pity or quarter, and destroy them utterly.
I am unique and conqueror. I am not of the
slaves that perish. Be they damned and dead! Amen.
Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I
am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled and the consoler!
(17)
Perhaps this explains why, in Scientology,
sympathy is considered to be a "low-toned" emotion.
Scientologists learn in their training not to feel sympathy.
According to Ron (Hubbard) Jr., his father
considered himself to be the one "who came after";
that he was Crowley's successor; that he had taken on the mantle
of the "Great Beast." He told him that Scientology
actually began on December the 1st, 1947. This was the day Aleister
Crowley died. (18)
Following in Crowley's footsteps, Hubbard
adopted some of the practices of the black magician, including
the use of drugs and the use of affirmations."
Bradford continues;
Hubbard believed in a choatic jumble of past
life experiences. For Hubbard and Crowley and many, many others,
Christ was a hypnotic implant. Hubbard and many, many Eastern
influenced Avatar Initiates have contempt for Christianity. Scientology
claims that Hubbard's work of over 2,500 recorded lectures, registered
trademarks, books is the largest collection of works ever produced
by one man.
But you see we know that other men have done
amazing deeds that match or surpass this. But what an effort
it would be to confuse and compare numbers and volumes and content
between a man like Hubbard and man like Steiner. It is all 'cult'
comparison by quantity and certain Beings realize that by saying
a few Occult or psychological things to certain souls, with will
and intent, they can put in the supermarket dozens of look alike
Initiates and who is going to be able to tell the difference?
Certainly not you.
The real problem is that the occult actually
exists and that the Higher Self and out of the body experiences
exist and Hubbard and every other Initiate will tell you that.
Scientology has its words to describe the experience and other
groups have their methods. All of them tell you that Beings,
invisible to man exist.
With Hubbard 45 or 75 million years ago in
galaxies far away... like Star Wars.. such ideas suit Hubbard
well. "Dune" suits souls very well. "Lord of the
Rings" is a closer paradigm to the mighty Imaginations behind
the Consciousness Soul, and yet it was Wagner himself that rose
like a mighty Whale, thar she blows! who brought his Celtic wealth
to the altars of the I Am capacity of German Thinking. False
paradigms suit every little trendy nerd very well.
Hubbard having been a race car driver in another
planetary system 45 million years ago etc...(so he claims) and
having multiple beings and facets inside his will is all part
of the esoteric game. We all have mulitiple beings inside our
wills and that is the nature of half-truth vs Initiate clarity.
The only question Clint Eastwood and I would ask, "do you
feel lucky today?" You think you can yet discern the activity
of Luciferic and Ahrimanic forces in yourself?
In Hubbard's "History of Man" he
tells fragments and pieces of truths, like Blavatsky did.. Hubbard
says that we are all inhabitied by seven foreign spirits and
the leader of which is called the "crew chief". This
crew chief commands a whole host of Egregorial entities of which
we prefer to live unconscious. Safeguarding the I AM from becong
associated with such a concept as "Crew Chief" is why
Steiner offered the POF. Now the Higher Self that made and moves
freely might be a Thetan, a Cretan, or a Crew Chief. Since there
is no traced orgin of the I AM, as in Steiner's profound work
linking Christ to ancient Saturn evolution and "Occult Science
an Outline", your "crew chief" is either Christ
or another being, if it is not your I Am. But see how that begs
the question? What for god sake is the history of the I Am? Therefore
we arrive at the Christ or we avoid the Christ.
For Hubbard, 75 million years ago, Xenu, the
overlord of 76 planets, rounded up most of the people of his
empire, some 178 billion per planet and brought them to Earth.
Here they were exploded in volcanoes using hydrogen bombs and
the spirits of the Thetans collected on electronic ribbons. Disorientated
from the massacre, the disembodied thetans were subjected to
some 36 dyas of hypnotic implanting and clustered together....
Must we review the comparison with The Titans
of Greek mythology and Sauron and his pet Volcanoe? Must we advise
you to understand the nine layers of the inner earth and the
nine gates in the Aztec mystery in conjuction with Dante? Obviously
for otherwise thousands of people head off in twisted directions
under the paradigms offered and fed into the I AM, via Hubbard's
cosmology.
Hubbard wanted people to call him the Maitrya
Buddha which he thought he was.
I found the Personality of Hubbard to be an
exciting study in itself. Think, if you look for some answer
to this mega labryinth of our science you will go insane; Stephen
Gould who has just died of Cancer was an alarming materialistic
Darwinist. Education towards----A BEAUTIFUL MIND like John Nash
crown the insane; Politics Insane, Religion and each person's
little private belief system the same; including our own, my
own, yours... as nutty... or as clear as the tale Dr. Steiner
unfolds about the Noble foundations of mineral, plant animal
and humanity through the planetary developments? If you really
can't tell the difference you are bait. Luciferic and Ahrimanic
bait.
That dysfunction from either a Red Neck marriage,
Baptist, Catholic, Islamic, Scientology, EST, corporate mediocrity,
Political democrat or republican... How could you determine the
compass for the Resurrected Christ? Could you find your way in
this swamp with ten thousand sign posts towards addiction, stupidity,
mediocrity, genius, success, financial temptations? Good luck
and pity on our children. The beauty of it all, is that from
a mere 200 years ago, those incarnating in the west have been
overwhelmed by choice and confusion and watering down of everything.
It is true that you can Wag the Dawg all the way up to god himself!
It is true that you cannot clear others egregore's
until you clear your own. So easily said isn't it. It is also
true that if you can't fight, and have lost the compass and the
will to keep the egregore's off your back you will probably give
into them and a portion of your incarnation will be claimed as
not your own will. It is also true that Freedom is a knife edge
of discernment and all of this is prepartory school for dealing
with the 5th Post-Atlantean epoch.
You want to do Deeds, jump up and make things
happen, tired of waiting, hearing true words, false words, lies...
The Matrix had two different pills for that problem and I suggest
you take one of them, because the long haul with the Christ Being
and the Earth is not for you. But without you Earth fails and
Christ refuses to take no for answer, 7 X 7 X 7. It is the Grail
Path, the Gradual Path, not the quick fix, fast food solution
that I would advise. Learn to use your own tools of discernment
be Normal, healthy and hold snake and dove in your heart as navigational
tools of discernment.
Bradford
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Hi again Daniel, you wrote:
Well, I would think that if anthroposophists
felt that they had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing
the primary documents and hope that no one notice.
Peter Staudenmaier:
That would be a very foolish strategy,
in my view.
Daniel:
Indeed. Eventually someone would unearth them.
But there is no indication that such a strategy was ever contemplated.
Anthroposophists are as interested as anyone (and perhaps more
so) about the history of their movement during the Nazi era.
That is why it is Anthroposophists are the ones unearthing and
publishing this information. I must point out that you, for all
your interpretation, have not uncovered any new primary source
material from any archives on the subject. All you have accomplished
so far is to arrange a narrow selection of these documents that
you have culled from sources that Anthroposophists have published
into such a pattern that it paints the picture that you would
like to present. You have made no attempt whatsoever to determine
what the majority of Anthroposophists thought about Hitler or
Nazism at the time. You have picked through for the few prominent
examples that support your case, and made it your job to publicize
these as representative of the movement as a whole. This is not
indicative of the work of a real historian.
Peter Staudenmaier:
But I think this is beside the point. My
argument is not that anthroposophists are trying to hide primary
documents. My argument is that many anthroposophists systematically
misunderstand their own movement's history.
Daniel:
Well, so we are arguing interpretation then.
Good. My fundamental stance is not that the documents you have
found don't support the case you make. Rather, my point is that
the documents you have found represent a small aspect of Steiner's
work and the history of the movement (well under 1%). The other
99.9% tell a vastly different story. The problem is how to integrate
the two parts - your small collection of documents and the 88,600
pages of other material - into a consistent whole and examine
that. This is what a serious historian would attempt. But you
have given no indication of being in the least bit interested
in such an undertaking. Instead you have said that it would be
"an abdication of responsibility" (to what or whom,
I must wonder) for you to attempt to be objective, even for one
article. I appreciate your honesty in such a stance, but I don't
see how anyone can take your writing seriously given such a stance.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
HI Daniel, you wrote:
This seems incredibly disrespectful of
anthroposophists.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think perhaps we disagree about what
counts as respectful discourse. I know absolutely nothing about
calculus, for example. You show me no disrespect whatever if
you point out that fact.
Daniel responds:
Well, your counterexample nicely sidesteps
my original accusation. Of course I would show you no disrespect
if I were to accuse you of ignorance of calculus and knew this
to be true (As a side note, I must say, mathematics in general
and calculus specifically is a wonderful training in clear, logical
thinking; among other things, in math the answer is right or
wrong, and you can't argue over how to apply an exponent to a
variable or whether a negative sign really applies to the entire
expression). Your original accusation did not accuse a specific
person of ignorance. You accused an entire group of thousands
of individuals of ignorance, in a case where you are in a position
to know that in at least a few cases the accusation is not true
(and I grant you, it may have been inadvertent, and thus not
technically a "lie"). This type of generalization is
what I termed disrespectful. If I were to accuse all Waldorf
Critics of being unable to think logically and consistently,
that too would be disrespectful. Among other things, I have no
way of knowing whether my accusation really applies to all such
critics or just the ones I have come in contact with so far.
In making such a gross generalization, I would just be shooting
off my mouth.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 3:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Daniel wrote:
However, since for the most part it doesn't
support the version you would like to read, so you simply dismiss
it out of hand.
Peter Staudenmaier
That's silly. It makes no sense to dismiss
something out of hand simply because it doesn't support one's
own reading of the material.
Daniel:
Indeed. Which is why I have to wonder why
you seem to do so so frequently in the case of the significant
anti-racist and anti-discrimination stances inherent in Anthroposophy.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 3:47 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
All you have accomplished so far is to
arrange a narrow selection of these documents that you have culled
from sources that Anthroposophists have published into such a
pattern that it paints the picture that you would like to present.
I think you are mistaken about the range of sources I use, as
well as their provenance. I rely on a broad array of anthroposophical
publications, as well as a large number of non-anthroposophical
publications.
You have made no attempt whatsoever to determine what the
majority of Anthroposophists thought about Hitler or Nazism at
the time.
Indeed. What I focus on is what anthroposophical periodicals
published at the time, what anthroposophical officials said at
the time, and so forth.
You have picked through for the few prominent examples that
support your case, and made it your job to publicize these as
representative of the movement as a whole.
Aside from the fact that I look at a lot more than just a few
examples, whether these examples are representative of the movement
as a whole remains an interesting question, in my view. Do you
think that this question is not worth exploring?
This is not indicative of the work of a real historian.
If I may say so, I think you have an odd conception of what historians
do. Picking through the available evidence and analyzing prominent
examples is a big part of the job.
Well, so we are arguing interpretation then.
Yes, that's what we've been doing all along.
My fundamental stance is not that the documents you have found
don't support the case you make. Rather, my point is that the
documents you have found represent a small aspect of Steiner's
work and the history of the movement (well under 1%). The other
99.9% tell a vastly different story.
Vastly different in what sense? If you mean vastly different
in the sense that much of Steiner's work is irrelevant to the
topics I examine, then I largely agree. If you mean that the
preponderance of his work on race, for example, is anti-racist,
then I disagree. If you're talking about his teachings on Jews
and Jewishness, I think it's pretty much split down the middle,
as I've explained before.
The problem is how to integrate the two parts - your small
collection of documents and the 88,600 pages of other material
- into a consistent whole and examine that.
I don't think that would be a sensible way to approach the matter.
If you want to study Annie Besant's atheist writings, for example,
you'd do well to set aside her Theosophical writings.
But you have given no indication of being in the least bit
interested in such an undertaking.
It is certainly true that I am not interested in trying to force
everything Steiner wrote into some "consistent whole".
That would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of
historical reconstruction.
Instead you have said that it would be "an abdication
of responsibility" (to what or whom, I must wonder) for
you to attempt to be objective, even for one article.
There is nothing objective about pretending that Steiner's entire
work forms a consistent whole, if that's what you're getting
at. But I think you and I simply disagree about what sort of
objectivity is appropriate in any case. Suspending critical judgement
is very much the wrong kind of objectivity.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 4:35 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
In a message dated 3/5/2004 6:58:36 PM Eastern
Standard Time, pstauden writes:
(Daniel)
My fundamental stance is not that the documents
you have found don't support the case you make. Rather, my point
is that the documents you have found represent a small aspect
of Steiner's work and the history of the movement (well under
1%). The other 99.9% tell a vastly different story.
(Christine)
Actually, the way Daniel phrases the first
sentence above, it could be taken as if Peter Staudenmeir had
found whole documents by Steiner advocating or supporting a racist
viewpoint. What Staudenmeier has brought forth so far are four
short passages within much longer treatises, all of which
(the full treatises) conclude with definite anti-racist conclusions.
They are four passages within a body of work that is estimated
to be 350 VOLUMES in size. Therefore the four
passages brought forward by Peter are actually far less than
1% of the body of Rudolf Steiner's work.
(Peter Staudenmeier)
Vastly different in what sense? If you
mean vastly different in the sense that much of Steiner's work
is irrelevant to the topics I examine, then I largely agree.
(Christine)
NO Peter, Daniel means quite clearly a "vast
difference" between the 1% (or less) of Steiner's words
that you choose to interpret as racist and the 99% of the rest
of Rudolf Steiner's own words. NOT different to the "other"
topics that "you examine."
(Peter Staudenmeier)
If you mean that the preponderance of his
work on race, for example, is anti-racist, then I disagree.
(Christine)
You disagree that the "preponderance"
of Dr. Steiner's "work on race" is anti racist. This
would mean the body of work that does not include the four passages
you have cited previously to support your thesis. Therefore,
there would have to be more passages besides those four that
you can directly quote to support your statement that "the
preponderance of his work on race" IS racist. Produce those
additional passages.
(Peter Staudenmeier)
If you're talking about his teachings on
Jews and Jewishness, I think it's pretty much split down the
middle, as I've explained before.
(Christine)
Since you have already established for us
that Rudolf Steiner was a pro-semitic assimilationist, where
are the passages that equally support the theory that he was
an anti-semitic assimilationist. There will have to be an equal
amount or an equality of serious meaning in the additional passages
that you choose in order to establish that "(Steiner's)
teaching on Jews and Jewishness (is) pretty much split down the
middle..."
Answer directly and not tangentally, please.
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Hi Daniel, you wrote:
All you have accomplished so far is to
arrange a narrow selection of these documents that you have culled
from sources that Anthroposophists have published into such a
pattern that it paints the picture that you would like to present.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I think you are mistaken about the range
of sources I use, as well as their provenance. I rely on a broad
array of anthroposophical publications, as well as a large number
of non-anthroposophical publications.
Daniel:
Your first statement is a classic "wiggle"
move of argumentation. You are countering a different point than
the one I made. I said nothing derogatory about the range of
sources you use or their provenance. I questioned the usefulness
of the entire collection.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 6:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Daniel wrote:
You have made no attempt whatsoever to
determine what the majority of Anthroposophists thought about
Hitler or Nazism at the time.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Indeed. What I focus on is what anthroposophical
periodicals published at the time, what anthroposophical officials
said at the time, and so forth.
Daniel:
And this is what sets you apart from serious
historians. Further, the mere fact that you focus on what anthroposophical
periodicals published at the time and what anthroposophical officials
said at the time, etc. does not tell the whole story, for you
only focus on those aspects of these sources that support your
contention, and not what all these sourcs say on the balance.
You are stuck in polemic if all you do is look for the parts
you like and ignore the whole.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 6:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Daniel wrote:
You have picked through for the few prominent
examples that support your case, and made it your job to publicize
these as representative of the movement as a whole.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Aside from the fact that I look at a lot
more than just a few examples, whether these examples are representative
of the movement as a whole remains an interesting question, in
my view. Do you think that this question is not worth exploring?
Daniel:
I think the question is worth exploring. I
am exploring it myself. The mere fact that you look at a lot
of examples belies the fact that you systematically ignore the
ones that don't support your case (again evidence of polemical
writing and not history).
Daniel wrote:
This is not indicative of the work of a
real historian.
Peter Staudenmaier:
If I may say so, I think you have an odd
conception of what historians do. Picking through the available
evidence and analyzing prominent examples is a big part of the
job.
Daniel:
While picking through the available evidence
and analyzing prominent examples is a big part of the job of
a historian, the job does not end there. A historian has the
responsibility for attempting to the best of their ability to
fairly present the entire case, and not just the part that fits
their pet theory. Subsequent scholars generally have a dim view
of so-called historians with obvious biases.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Daniel wrote:
My fundamental stance is not that the documents
you have found don't support the case you make. Rather, my point
is that the documents you have found represent a small aspect
of Steiner's work and the history of the movement (well under
1%). The other 99.9% tell a vastly different story.
Peter Staudenmaier:
Vastly different in what sense? If you
mean vastly different in the sense that much of Steiner's work
is irrelevant to the topics I examine, then I largely agree.
If you mean that the preponderance of his work on race, for example,
is anti-racist, then I disagree. If you're talking about his
teachings on Jews and Jewishness, I think it's pretty much split
down the middle, as I've explained before.
Daniel:
It is precicely in the fact that you fail
to see how the rest of Steiner's work relates to his views on
race that I consider your greatest weakness.
Daniel wrote:
The problem is how to integrate the two
parts - your small collection of documents and the 88,600 pages
of other material - into a consistent whole and examine that.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I don't think that would be a sensible
way to approach the matter. If you want to study Annie Besant's
atheist writings, for example, you'd do well to set aside her
Theosophical writings.
Daniel:
If you did that, you would have an incomplete
view of Besant. You could not claim to understand Besant, only
her athiest writings. The same applies to Steiner. If you want
to be an expert on those quotes that make Steiner appear racist,
so be it. If you want to be an expert on Steiner, you'll have
to do a little more work than that. I can understand you hesitency
to attempt an full understanding of Steiner - it is a lot of
work, after all - but I don't feel that you can get around the
basic problem that if you don't understand Steiner's main points,
you simply don't possess the historical context in which to evaluate
the rest of the quotes.
Daniel wrote:
But you have given no indication of being
in the least bit interested in such an undertaking.
Peter Staudenmaier:
It is certainly true that I am not interested
in trying to force everything Steiner wrote into some "consistent
whole". That would be a fundamental misunderstanding of
the nature of historical reconstruction.
Daniel:
On the contrary, it is a prerequisite for
historical reconstruction. I have precious little hope of understanding
Stalingrad if I don't know how the Germans got there or why they
refused to leave. At best I can describe the who, what, where
and when, but I have no chance of properly explaining the why
unless I possess a fairly comprehensive understanding of the
psychology a certain short Austrian 1500 miles away. You are
fine with your Steiner quotes as long as you stay with the who,
what, where and when, but as soon as you attempt the why you
are lost unless you have at least some understanding of how Steiner
thought.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Daniel wrote:
Instead you have said that it would be
"an abdication of responsibility" (to what or whom,
I must wonder) for you to attempt to be objective, even for one
article.
Peter Staudenmaier:
There is nothing objective about pretending
that Steiner's entire work forms a consistent whole, if that's
what you're getting at. But I think you and I simply disagree
about what sort of objectivity is appropriate in any case. Suspending
critical judgement is very much the wrong kind of objectivity.
Daniel:
Granted:
Suspending critical judgement is not desireable.
We are back to philosophical subjectivism versus philosophical
idealism. It is only out of a relativist subjectivism that you
can claim that Steiner's work does not form a consistent whole.
And only if it does not form a consistent whole can you claim
that it is pointless to attempt to understand it. If, however,
you stand on relativist subjectivism, the ground under your feet
is shaky indeed.
Steiner's work either forms a consistent whole, or it does not.
If it does form a consistent whole then it is possible to be
objective about it. If it does not, then it is not possible to
be objective about that, or anyting else, for that matter.
A whole may contain contradictory or appearently contradictory
aspects. Identifying appearent contradictions is easy. Reconciling
appearent contradictions requires considering both sides. No
one has objectivity who has not considered both sides.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 8:55 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Daniel wrote
All you have accomplished so far is to
arrange a narrow selection of these documents that you have culled
from sources that Anthroposophists have published into such a
pattern that it paints the picture that you would like to present.
Peter S wrote:
I think you are mistaken about the range
of sources I use, as well as their provenance. I rely on a broad
array of anthroposophical publications, as well as a large number
of non-anthroposophical publications.
If that is the case, how come you never quote
any of Steiner's innumerable warnings against racism and nationalism
vis-à-vis your selection of racist remarks?
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter
Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 11:17 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Hi Christine, you wrote:
What Staudenmeier has brought forth so far are four short
passages within much longer treatises, all of which (the
full treatises) conclude with definite anti-racist conclusions.
Could you clarify which four passages you have in mind? What
are the anti-racist conclusions that Steiner reaches in these
treatises?
NO Peter, Daniel means quite clearly a "vast difference"
between the 1% (or less) of Steiner's words that you choose to
interpret as racist and the 99% of the rest of Rudolf Steiner's
own words. NOT different to the "other" topics that
"you examine."
But it isn't true that 99% of Steiner's published works are about
race. What are you trying to say?
You disagree that the "preponderance"
of Dr. Steiner's "work on race" is anti racist.
Yes.
Therefore, there would have to be more passages besides those
four that you can directly quote to support your statement that
"the preponderance of his work on race" IS racist.
Yes, of course. There are dozens of them.
Produce those additional passages.
I've 'produced' quite a few of them already, and pointed them
out to you before. I once again recommend you visit the openwaldorf
site, where I 'produced' many such passages. You'll find it here:
http://pub21.ezboard.com/fopenwaldorffrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=10.topic&start=1&stop=20
Since you have already established for us
that Rudolf Steiner was a pro-semitic assimilationist, where
are the passages that equally support the theory that he was
an anti-semitic assimilationist. There will have to be an equal
amount or an equality of serious meaning in the additional passages
that you choose in order to establish that "(Steiner's)
teaching on Jews and Jewishness (is) pretty much split down the
middle..."
That's exactly what I did in my first post to this list. You
can find that post here:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/2117
Are you trying to say that you missed all
that, or that you forgot it, or simply that you disagree with
my reading of Steiner?
Peter
Continued
in another thread
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 11:31 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism
Hi Tarjei, you asked:
If that is the case, how come you never quote any of Steiner's
innumerable warnings against racism and nationalism vis-à-vis
your selection of racist remarks?
I do quote these kinds of remarks, on this list, on the waldorf
critics list, on the waldorf-diskurs list, and at openwaldorf.
I disagree that such remarks are innumerable, and I disagree
that they neutralize Steiner's racist and nationalist remarks.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................