Races
Disappearing - Steiner on Racial Evolution
Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
From: holderlin66
Date: Wed Mar 17, 2004 8:49 pm
Subject: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Peter
Staudenmaier
...reincarnate in an advanced
race; in the same way he who ignores the great teacher, who rejects
the great leader of humankind, will always reincarnate in the
same race, because he was only able to develop the one form.
This is the deeper meaning of Ahasver, who must always reappear
in the same form because he rejected the hand of the greatest
leader, Christ. Thus each person has the opportunity to become
caught up in the essence of one incarnation, to push away the
leader of humankind, or instead to undergo the transformation
into higher races, toward ever higher perfection. Races would
never become decadent, never decline, if there weren't souls
that are unable to move up and unwilling to move up to a higher
racial form.
Bradford leans forward;
Now Steiner used Ahasver as an example of
the old Moon condition that had much to do with the destiny of
the elemental kingdom. I will bring this, Ahasver, together with
another example in another post as well. Steiner drew a line
to Ahasver in relation to, if humanity, after countless offers,
as with certain elemental beings, still refused to move forward
in evolution, what would be the result?
That if humanity refused to move forward in
evolution they might very well become 'like' some of the retarded
beings of the Old Moon, when the Old Moon moved onto the Earth
condition. Retarded Angelic Beings, and elemental beings revealed
their capacity or lack there of, to maintain a steady evolutionary
course. Some became retarded and did not advance forward. (see
folks, we are headed into deep and politically incorrect waters
that mental midgets, really should stay away from)
The argument and explanation offered by Peter
Staudenmaier is way over his head. He doesn't have the grounding
to grasp, without Politically correct crutches - Just what Steiner
was indicating with the repeated example of Ahasver. To describe
higher beings that served a distinct purpose, as even some very
lofty retarded beings above man, those that did not progress
evenly from Saturn, Sun or Old Moon evolution, is something that
is so far over the head of the Politically Incorrect Mr. Staudenmaier,
that he gets the words but he can't place the meanings in his
brain. Nor should he until he grasps the faintest understanding
of the I AM.
This old Moon condition of Gold Spirit Lust,
was brought over in the very early Ring Saga of Wagner in the
character of Alberich: Part of the Elemental Kingdom that was
tied to the False Etheric Gold, Fools Gold of the I AM. Fools
Gold of the I AM is exactly what Peter Staudenmaier presents.
The Stream where the Rhinegold is flowing might even be incarnational
and hereditary waters, but the Gold, now the Gold is something
that has followed us all through Earth Evolution, all the way
to 1933 and the Etheric Christ Gold.
Peter S. has no grasp of the potential that
was in Wagner, but any fool can see that the ARtist and his Art
are two different potentials. We agree that Wagner was an unconscious
Initiate. He brought things over from the past, that simmered
in his subconscious soul life. The Man Wagner was going to pay
a heavy price for the artist Wagner's insights. One of the things
that Merlin saw, was the profound connection to the Elemental
worlds, the stream of heredity, the incarnation of Arthur and
the Celtic star and elemental kingdoms.
I should mention that the Celts plunked their
Silver in streams and sacred lakes and the Water was purified
through the Moon's working on the Silver in the waters. Minute
quantities of gold, served and swirled into the Celtic world,
and this Gold helped zero in on those souls who were coming from
the time of the Last Supper and incarnating westward into the
next phase.
It has been pointed out that Wolfram von Eschenboch
and the Poet's Contest in Wartburg Castle were designed realities
to bring into existence, fallen and distorted elemental star
beings, that became the inspiration for dialectical materialism.
This was the actual facts of Klingsor's interference and magical
attempt to poison thinking. The Michael School had to take this
into consideration as part of aspects of failed thinking, like
Peter's. These were historical events and they play into the
entire development of thinking that we have today. There were
purified and castigated as well as poisoned elemental star beings
that entered human thinking, and Klingsor was an active agent
in polluting thinking and the soul conditions of men. Anthro
babble is very specific, but you do have to know the code.
Wagner depicted the Old Moon Gnome/Dwarf being
of a previous condition of the Earth as Alberich. The Old Moon
condition was held over under the ancient Nordic and Celtic understanding
of Mistletoe as the fallen Hodar aspect. The failed forces of
vision that arose form the death of Baldur, the New Adam, would
be attacked under Loki and fallen sense and thinking agents.
Proof remains that the Mistletoe does not belong to the soil
of the Earth, it was left over from a previous condition of the
Earth, and was the source of a cure for terminal materialism,
Cancer.
"In the beginning, there
was an empty hall. Then came the gold. And with it, the curtain
opened on the theater of the world. "Das Rheingold"
begins with the creation of Wagner's mythological world: As the
earth goddess Erda dreams, the Rhine Daughters swim and play
with the river's golden treasure. When the dwarf Alberich disturbs
them, they thoughtlessly reveal the secret of the treasure: Whoever
renounces love can forge the gold into a ring that will allow
him to rule the world. Alberich steals the gold, thus setting
in motion a chain of events that runs through the four operas
and ultimately leads to the destruction of this world."
Bradford having left Peter way behind and
others I'm sure, gives Peter a cookie:
"Steiner geht nicht weiter
auf Ahasver oder irgendwelche Konnotationen dieser Gestalt ein,
die im zeitgenössichen antisemitischen Diskurs möglicherweise
eine Rolle spielten. Er gibt dieser Gestalt eine völlig
neuartige, allmenschliche Deutung, durch die er sie aus jedem
antijudaistischen Kontext herauslöst. Steiner hätte
ebenso gut die Gestalt des Fliegenden Holländers anführen
können, die einen vergleichbaren symbolischen Gehalt besitzt.
Er spricht von Ahasver nicht
als dem „ewigen Juden", sondern als von einer symbolischen,
mythischen Figur, deren Bedeutungsgehalt in einem präzisen
Sinn er auslegt. Er ist der symbolische Ausdruck eines seelischen
Verhaltens, das in jeder einzelnen Menschenseele liegt, unabhängig
von ihrer etwaigen religiösen oder ethnischen Zugehörigkeit.
Eine rekonstruktive, sinnerschließende
Hermeneutik wird sich darum bemühen, den Gesamtzusammenhang
zu erfassen, in dem die betreffenden Äußerungen Steiners
stehen. Sie bilden einen erläuternden Exkurs im thematischen
Kontext einer Erörterung über die sogenannten Elementarwesen,
Wesen, die von der abendländischen Tradition als Gnome,
Sylphen, Undinen und Salamander bezeichnet werden. Steiner entwickelt
ein komplexes gedankliches Modell, um diese Elementarwesen in
die gegliederte Struktur des Kosmos einzuordnen, ihre Herkunft
und ihr zukünftiges Schicksal zu beschreiben.
So wie die gegenwärtigen
Elementarwesen aus „Gruppenseelen" von Tieren hervorgegangen
sind, werden in der künftigen Evolution aus der Menschheit
Elementarwesen hervorgehen. Der Mensch ist als geistiges Wesen
ausgespannt zwischen seinen verschiedenen Leibern (physischer
Leib, Ätherleib, Astralleib), die das Ergebnis eines vergangenen
Evolutionsprozesses sind und einer künftigen Existenzform,
in der das Ich, die von den Schöpfermächten geschaffenen
Leiber zu seinem freien geistigen Eigentum umgewandelt haben
wird.
Das Ich steht gegenwärtig
vor der Aufgabe, den Astralleib in ein solches geistiges Eigentum,
in das Geistselbst umzuformen. Menschliche Vervollkommnung bedeutet
in diesem Zusammenhang, Triebe, Begierden und Leidenschaften
zu veredeln und sie in Willensstärke, Enthusiasmus und selbstlose
Tatkraft umzuwandeln.
Steiner versucht, die Frage
zu beantworten, wo der jeweils höhere Grad an Vollkommenheit
eigentlich herkommt. Er ist nicht Ergebnis eines vom Menschen
und seiner Verantwortlichkeit unabhängigen Prozesses, sondern
liegt in der Verantworung des Einzelnen. Die sittliche Höherentwicklung
lässt sich nur in einer Reihe von Inkarnationen erreichen,
durch die sich der Mensch als geistiges Wesen hindurchbewegt.
Er nimmt die Früchte der vorangegangenen Inkarnation in
die folgende mit. Er gestaltet seine folgende Inkarnation, ihre
Form, ihre Fähigkeiten und ihr Schicksal mit.
Die Wirkungen seiner Handlungen
in der Außenwelt kommen als Schicksal zu ihm zurück;
was er sich durch das vergangene Leben selbst einprägte,
metamorphosiert sich in seine Fähigkeiten und Begabungen.
Er ist also für die Gestaltung seines Schicksals und seiner
„inneren Organisation" mitverantwortlich. Die menschliche
Vervollkommnung besteht darin, dass der Einzelne immer mehr mit
dem göttlichen Grundwesen der Liebe verschmilzt, das seit
der Zeitenwende in den Tiefen der Menschheit wirkt, um diese
in die Gestalt einer neuen Schöpfung überzuführen.
Diese neue Schöpfung
ist die aus dem Auferstandenen wiedergeborene Menschheit. Je
mehr der Mensch von der göttlichen Liebe in sich aufnimmt,
um so mehr vermag er diese Liebe auch in seine Umgebung auszustrahlen
und ihr eine menschliche, solidarische, freiheitliche Form zu
geben. Vervollkommnung besteht letztlich darin, dass sich der
Mensch immer mehr seinem Erdenvorbild angleicht (theosis) und
zum Heiler all dessen wird, was als Folge der paulinischen „katabole"
den Status der Schöpfung geprägt hat."
Bradford concludes;
Matter, race, heredity are woven with enchanted
elemental beings who serve humanity and represent the Maya of
our little weighty selves. However Buddha freed up all that was
attached to the karma of his bones, all that was attached to
the karma of his fluids; all that was attached to the karma of
his lungs; all that was attached to the karma of his warm blood.
A whole host of humanized and freed up enchanted elemental forces
exist as servants of heredity, race and matter. It is only the
Sun Like condition of the growing I AM that frees them up and
releases, EMANCIPATES the slavery of matter and karma.
This freeing up of one aspect of the Air and
Sylph nature enchanted in matter, was depicted by Shakespeare
in his final Play THE TEMPEST, when the inspired Air-Sylph, Ariel,
the I AM of Shakespeare had so fully humanized it through his
poetry, that the Immortality of Shakespeare's plays would now
be overshadowed, as a complete world, by the great healing, Stormless
Sylph, full humanized Ariel. This Ariel, along with Buddha are
some of the first fruits of Earth's Mercurial stage of development.
This Emancipation is part of what the I AM
achieves, even though Shakespeare did not achieve it at the level
of Buddha. Buddha gave back to the Earth the whole constellation
of Beings that had helped him to arrive at the plateau of human
development where Angelic Beings already exist. Through Buddha's
efforts the Earth was magnificently changed, TWICE.
Bradford
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 2:43 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Gidday again Bradford,
As always a fine reply of yours to Peter's
posts evidencing racism in his `Steiner on racial evolution'
post.
But have you considered how, for example,
a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 4:40 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
----- Original Message ----- [Raymon:]
: Friday, March 26, 2004 11:43
AM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Gidday again Bradford,
As always a fine reply of yours to Peter's
posts evidencing racism in his `Steiner on racial evolution'
post.
But have you considered how, for example,
a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?
Excuse me , if I jump in Raymond, but the
Chinese must feel that if "his race" ( an outer "envelopment")
is on the way of decadence, he Himself, the "I AM"
kernel, is ever and ever of the way of become free from "nama
kè rupa". In other words: no racial or national feature
can overwhelm the Spiritual core of aech human being. The actual
difficulty is to see in clarity how are able to mix and mould
in a single personality those diffrent features.
About China: think also on the occult fact
that many today's chinese personalities are babies killed before
their births (abortion) in different "advanced" cultures
looking for a "road for the Earth". excuse me again,
buddy.
Andrea
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 7:41 am
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Raymond:
But have you considered how, for example,
a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?
Just as I thought. Nice try Raymond?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 26, 2004 8:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
I am most intrigued by Raymon's reply to Bradford
(not to mention Andrea's and Dottie's replies to Raymon). Raymon
seems to agree with Bradford et al. that Steiner's teachings
on racial evolution are not racist. But then he asks the obvious
question about what these teachings look like from the point
of view of the ostensibly 'decadent'. If they don't look racist
from that point of view, then what do they look like? I would
be very interested to hear other anthroposophist responses to
Raymon's question.
I'll be out of town once more for the next four days and will
do more catching up when I return.
Peter
Gidday again Bradford,
As always a fine reply of yours to Peter's
posts evidencing racism in his `Steiner on racial evolution'
post.
But have you considered how, for example,
a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 6:20 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
At 11:43 26.03.2004, Raymond wrote:
But have you considered how, for example,
a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?
I suggest that you ask a Chinese anthroposophists.
There are some in Hong Kong, including AS members, I believe.
But just in case there aren't any Chinese anthro's on this list,
why not ask American anthroposophists on this list how they feel
when reading that the American race is decadent, and will l degenerate
completely in the Seventh Sub-Race (i.e. in the 7th Cultural
Epoch) ?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 1:47 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
dottie zold wrote:
Just as I thought. Nice try Raymond?
Gidday Dottie.
And what was I trying? Clairvoyant now, are
we, haha.
I am on solid ground here. Most of my friends,
including my closest, are Chinese, for whom English is a second
language. I am guessing you have none – or if you do, and
are not afraid to lose a friendship, have him or her read these
passages of Peter's and perhaps you can report back to us.
There is a consolation – haha - by and
large they think the same thing about us (and perhaps they are
right haha); fortunately for us they did not, historically, have
the power to exercise this opinion. As we did towards them. Meanwhile,
we have forgotten – but they have not, and this is something
we will have to deal with later in the century I am sure.
No one on this list save Peter – and
I am confident from long reading of Diana's posts over the years
that she would too - has evinced any compassion for the feelings
of these ostensibly decadent fellow human beings when confronted
with such teachings of Steiner's. This would cause outsiders
to wonder whether the high minded ideals being promoted here
are any more than self-gratifying theory.
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 2:51 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
VALENTINA BRUNETTI wrote:
Excuse me , if I jump in Raymond, but the
Chinese must feel that if "his race" ( an outer "envelopment")
is on the way of decadence, he Himself, the "I AM"
kernel, is ever and ever of the way of become free from "nama
kè rupa"...
Gidday Andrea,
Jump in by all means. You raised an interesting
point at the end of your post.
Your first point may well be so. It seems
fine to pronounce such truths. But these people are but human,
and distressing them by announcing that they are decadent, and
that we are not, is hardly a practical means of convincing them
of the truth of this philosophy. They will simply see it as a
confirmation of the attitudes that led to the West's abuses against
them when they were weak. Having suffered these abuses, you see,
makes it difficult for them to accept the proposition that the
perpetrators are in any way `advanced' examples of humanity.
About China: think also on the occult fact
that many today's chinese personalities are babies killed before
their births (abortion) in different "advanced" cultures
looking for a "road for the Earth".
Excellent point. I had not thought of this.
You are suggesting that some who properly
should have incarnated in the `advanced' cultures (full marks
for your putting `advanced' in quotations) finish up instead
in China. This reminds me of one of Steiner's statements, that
many in the 18th century who were destined to incarnate in China
actually finished up in Europe due to Europe's opium-related
ravaging of so many Chinese physical bodies. (A grudge is still
held against the West for this, by the way.) Perhaps, ironically,
some of these decadent souls were anthroposophists in Steiner's
audience as he held forth with the lecture Peter quoted.
If what you say is true, it is not consistent
with Steiner's statement, jumbled as the latter is. Though –
haha – I am depending on what I assume is Peter's accurate
translation here. Steiner made a sweeping statement concerning
the Chinese – which is largely why it is so damaging; he
could easily have qualified it – whereas your point allows
that for all we know humans everywhere constitute a mixture of
whatever proportion.
You might consider that the reverse of what
you say may also be so – ie the population policy carried
out in China means that many who were destined to incarnate there,
finish up instead in Europe. And that perhaps you are one such,
haha. Or me for that matter I suppose. My posts surely appear
decadent to some…
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: elfuncle
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:02 pm
Subject: haha, heehee (was: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver)
raymon_ford wrote:
And what was I trying? Clairvoyant now,
are we, haha.
I guess so, heehee.
I am on solid ground here.
My ground consisting of Norwegian mountains
is more solid than yours, especially if you're anywhere near
Malibu, heehee, where the ground is so porous and crumbly heehee
that nobody is safe when it rains too much heehee.
Most of my friends, including my closest,
are Chinese, for whom English is a second language.
My own family is half Tibetan heehee and we
just can't wait to see the Chinese kicked out of Tibet heehee,
where there are solid mountains too heehee. And for us, English
is indeed a second language heehee.
I am guessing you have none – or if
you do, and are not afraid to lose a friendship, have him or
her read these passages of Peter's and perhaps you can report
back to us.
Reporting back to you? That'll be the day
heehee. And nobody who knows a little about Peter S can take
him seriously heehee.
There is a consolation – haha - by
and large they think the same thing about us (and perhaps they
are right haha); fortunately for us they did not, historically,
have the power to exercise this opinion. As we did towards them.
Meanwhile, we have forgotten – but they have not, and this
is something we will have to deal with later in the century I
am sure.
Yes, about getting their asses heehee out
of Tibet for instance. And heehee perhaps many Tibetans think
the same of the Chinese that Palestinians think of Israelis or
Norwegians thought of the German Nazis when they were occupied
heehee
No one on this list save Peter – and
I am confident from long reading of Diana's posts over the years
that she would too - has evinced any compassion for the feelings
of these ostensibly decadent fellow human beings when confronted
with such teachings of Steiner's.
And no one on this list save Yours Truly heehee
has evinced any compassion for the feelings of the Tibetans heehee.
This would cause outsiders to wonder whether
the high minded ideals being promoted here are any more than
self-gratifying theory.
heehee
See ya, Raymon
I doubt it heehee, because I'm not headed
for porous ground.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 3:35 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Tarjei Straume wrote:
I suggest that you ask a Chinese anthroposophists.
There are some in Hong Kong, including AS members, I believe.
Gidday Tarjei,
How ya doin'. Remember I work for a Norwegian
company, you know, and so one day may come knocking on ya door,
so be careful what you say haha. I do look forward to meeting
you one day; we can exchange notes on the European police –
I had a bad run in with Budapest's finest once upon a time…
I don't have to ask one of these people –
see my post to Dottie. How a Chinese feels when reading these
sorts of statements has nothing to do with what some Chinese
anthroposophist may have to say about the matter. For those who
don't know, they would feel humiliated, much more strongly and
painfully so than does one brought up in the Western culture.
And we should (oops the `S' word again) be aware of this.
Anyway the cultural divide here is too large
for you to predict with any accuracy how they will think on the
matter. (Incidentally I have always admired your ability to span
the European/US cultural divide, smaller though it is.) There
may well be these cosmic truths – I am not clairvoyant and
so cannot say with certainty haha – but Steiner's version
of them is Eurocentric and century-old. They tend not to see
anthroposophy as the be-all and end-all of world-outlooks, in
the way that Westerners from cultures allied with what was formerly
Steiner's can. My experience with the few Chinese anthroposophists
I have met, and with some Chinese sympathetic to Steiner's approach,
bear this out.
. ..why not ask American anthroposophists
on this list how they feel when reading that the American race
is decadent, and will l degenerate completely in the Seventh
Sub-Race (i.e. in the 7th Cultural Epoch) ?
The Chinese are not as inured to criticism
as are the Americans. But think what the Aussies must feel. We're
not even mentioned! Bloody hell! To be excluded from these hierarchies!
Fair dinkum – it all sounds a bit bodgy to me…
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 4:23 pm
Subject: Re: haha, heehee (was: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver)
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
elfuncle wrote:
I guess so, heehee.
heehee
Aw c'mon Tarjei, just for that I'll make you
pay for all the beers. I'll expect nothing less than Foster's,
of course. None of your European mongrel beer. A few liquid laughs
and we'll be right.
Steiner's wonderful wood carving, which I
have been to see, has a figure representing cosmic humor over
and above these great world-dramas of ours. Perhaps he is saying
that this is the ultimate `truth', the really big picture,
even above that which you defend so well. So can't we laugh about
it all sometimes? I have to, else I couldn't cope…
See ya, Raymon
PS Of course, when the anti-West rhetoric
gets too strong, and I feel the need to make my friends squirm,
I happily bring up the Tibetan question haha. (oops)
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Raymond:
I am on solid ground here.
Your'e on a mound of shit Raymond. Been there
done that. Why don't you go crawl back under the rock you been
hiding unless you want to get some truth flowing in your veins
a bit and come out of the closet? Try it you might like it.
We are way used to the smoke and mirror games
you and the critics play. Try a little honesty pal and maybe
someone might take your posts to actually mean something other
than too much hokey in the pokey.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 10:22 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
P:
I am most intrigued by Raymon's reply to
Bradford (not to mention Andrea's and Dottie's replies to Raymon).
Raymon seems to agree with Bradford et al. that Steiner's teachings
on racial evolution are not racist. But then he asks the obvious
question about what these teachings look like from the point
of view of the ostensibly 'decadent'. If they don't look racist
from that point of view, then what do they look like? I would
be very interested to hear other anthroposophist responses to
Raymon's question.
R:
But have you considered how, for example,
a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?
Mike:
He didn't ask "what they look like"
he asked about how the "Chinese must feel." An important
distinction that you love to subtly twist into your non companisionate
Steiner/racist drum beat from hell.
I'm sure a Chinese person would "feel" disgusted when
presented with the very select quotes that you selectively present
in your very select method that discards any attempt at metaphorical
understanding and implies it to be irrational. And conveniently
discards almost all inspirational material.
I'm also sure that a Chinese person would "feel" quite
gratified by much of other RS writings presented by someone who
might be inspired by some of RS's work.
IMO the Chinese as a people and culture have suffered much decadence
through the Maoist regime, and the drilling and drumming of the
worker-bee propaganda into their heads.
You know, the irony of you commenting on this question is what
prompted my response. For a minute there I thought you might
actually care about how other people might feel. But then I noticed
that you did your little word magic and the feeling part conveniently
disappeared.
Still grinding the same old polemic axe ay?
I think is quite bizarre that this is the only thing that interests
you about RS. There are a wide variety of topics on this list,
including some political, that might be right up your ally. But
you just keep on ranting...keep on ranting...keep on ranting...
like Dori the absent minded fish.
After a while it all starts to sound like Charlie Brown's class
teacher to me.
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 10:19 pm
Subject: Group soul conformity (was: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver)
At 00:35 28.03.2004, Raymond wrote:
Remember I work for a Norwegian company,
you know, and so one day may come knocking on ya door, so be
careful what you say haha.
I've never been careful with what I say about
corporations heehee, and they don't knock on my door either heehee.
I do look forward to meeting you one day;
we can exchange notes on the European police - I had a bad run
in with Budapest's finest once upon a time…
Is that where you picked up your giggle heehee
I got mine reading your "haha" heehee.
I don't have to ask one of these people
- see my post to Dottie. How a Chinese feels when reading these
sorts of statements has nothing to do with what some Chinese
anthroposophist may have to say about the matter.
Really? Becoming an anthroposophist, or reading
RS with depth of understanding, makes you non-Chinese, non-American,
non-French and so forth? Interesting observation. That's what
becoming a "homeless soul" is all about, when you no
longer identify with your nationality or race or ethnicity, but
with your inner Being. And what you're saying is that all non-anthroposophical
Chinese feel precisely the same way, like in a group-soul fashion.
For those who don't know, they would feel
humiliated, much more strongly and painfully so than does one
brought up in the Western culture. And we should (oops the `S'
word again) be aware of this.
Do you expect anthroposophists to humiliate
Chinese people by calling them decadent and so on? Or they would
insult them if they weren't aware that they might be sensitive?
Or do you feel that they OUGHT to be insulted by CRITICS who
pick out their own favorite RS quotes and tell the unsuspecting:
"Read this, because this is how anthroposophists think of
you all"?
Anyway the cultural divide here is too
large for you to predict with any accuracy how they will think
on the matter.
I understand that you're heavily into cultural.
and perhaps also racial, DIVISIONS. You like to elaborate and
exploit divisions, don't you? You prefer to fish for whatever
divides people, not what might unite them, right?
Are you suggesting that a billion Chinese
think and feel alike? They don't have individual identities and
idiocyncracies? What you're implying is that a billion Chinese
will react in a certain way if they hear or read a given statement,
but you can't predict exactly how. Why shouldn't there be one
billion different and unique reactions?
(Incidentally I have always admired your
ability to span the European/US cultural divide, smaller though
it is.)
Again, you're talking about divisions between
groups. Why are they so important to you?
There may well be these cosmic truths -
I am not clairvoyant and so cannot say with certainty haha -
but Steiner's version of them is Eurocentric and century-old.
Cosmic truths are not confined to a few decades
in history heehee. Are the cosmic truths in the Bible obsolete
because they were recorded millennia ago?
They tend not to see anthroposophy as the
be-all and end-all of world-outlooks, in the way that Westerners
from cultures allied with what was formerly Steiner's can. My
experience with the few Chinese anthroposophists I have met,
and with some Chinese sympathetic to Steiner's approach, bear
this out.
In other words, anthroposophists of the West
see anthroposophy as "the be-all and end-all of world-outlooks"?
All of them? What is an anthroposophist, how many are there in
the West, and do they think and feel alike, in a uniform way,
just the way you claim that all Chinese (non-anthroposophical)
people think and feel alike?
The Chinese are not as inured to criticism
as are the Americans.
Are you suggesting that Americans are superior
to Chinese because the latter can't handle criticism? Does this
mean that 250 million Americans react in the same way, and that
one billion Chinese react in another way, programmed by their
ethnicities or cultures? No individual reactions varying from
person to person on either continent?
If what Peter S
says is true, namely that all racial groups are equal, then American
and Chinese reactions to insults should be identical as well
as uniform. You seem to have a significant disagreement with
Peter S about this. Or perhaps you don't. Populations are grey
masses where individuals feel and think alike, but the masses
are not equal after all; their thoughts and feelings are dictated
by their respective national and racial makeup. Sounds like racism
to me.
But think what the Aussies must feel.
Perhaps you should ask those who knew Burnam
Burnam, the First Aborigine member of the Anthroposophical Society.
Find out what other members of his tribe have to say:
http://www.uncletaz.com/burnam.html
But I guess these people don't count if they
are anthroposophists. That would mean that they don't conform
to how all other Australians think and feel.
We're not even mentioned!
Where? In the Bible heehee?
Bloody hell! To be excluded from these
hierarchies!
The hierarchies don't talk about you heehee?
Fair dinkum - it all sounds a bit bodgy
to me…
Heehee
See ya, Raymon
Doubt it heehee
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
Continued
in the thread "What is equality?"
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 10:44 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: haha, heehee (was:
Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver)
At 03:23 28.03.2004, Raymond wrote:
Of course, when the anti-West rhetoric
gets too strong, and I feel the need to make my friends squirm,
I happily bring up the Tibetan question haha. (oops)
The Tibetan question is a family thing in
my case heehee and my old lady had an audience with the Dalai
Llama in India once heehee, so it has nothing to do with pro-West
or anti-West rhetoric heehee.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sat Mar 27, 2004 10:54 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Peter:
I am most intrigued by Raymon's reply to
Bradford (not to mention Andrea's and Dottie's replies to Raymon).
Raymon seems to agree with Bradford et al. that Steiner's teachings
on racial evolution are not racist. But then he asks the obvious
question about what these teachings look like from the point
of view of the ostensibly 'decadent'. If they don't look racist
from that point of view, then what do they look like? I would
be very interested to hear other anthroposophist responses to
Raymon's question.
Peter, just who do you and your friend Raymond
think you are fooling? Seriously.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Mar 28, 2004 12:31 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
----- Original Message -----
[A]
( an outer "envelopment") is
on the way of decadence, he Himself, the "I AM" kernel,
is ever and ever of the way of become free from "nama kè
rupa"...
[R]
Gidday Andrea,
Jump in by all means. You raised an interesting
point at the end of your post.
Your first point may well be so. It seems
fine to pronounce such truths. But these people are but human,
and distressing them by announcing that they are decadent, and
that we are not, is hardly a practical means
Andrea adds
To be "practical" : if those people
are "anthroguys" they have the means to come to terms
with the matter. If they are not (as the 99,99% of them) they
have got their another "sum of beliefs" to experience
and to live with. Taoism, Confucianism, Communism, "Struggle
for Money", "Sex Drugs & RR and so on), Doesn't
it ? (Cynical but....)
[R]
the West's abuses against them when they
were weak. Having
[A]
About China: think also on the occult fact
that many today's chinese personalities are babies killed before
their births (abortion) in different "advanced" cultures
looking for a "road for the Earth".
[R]
Excellent point. I had not thought of this.
You are suggesting that some who properly
should have incarnated in the `advanced' cultures (full marks
for your putting `advanced' in quotations) finish up instead
in China. This reminds me of one of Steiner's statements, that
many in the 18th century who were destined to incarnate in China
actually finished up in Europe due to Europe's opium-related
ravaging of so many Chinese physical bodies. (A grudge is still
held against the West for this, by the way.) Perhaps, ironically,
some of these decadent souls were anthroposophists in Steiner's
audience as he held forth with the lecture Peter quoted.
If what you say is true, it is not consistent
with Steiner's statement, jumbled as the latter is. Though –
haha – I am depending on what I assume is Peter's accurate
translation here. Steiner made a sweeping statement concerning
the Chinese – which is largely why it is so damaging; he
could easily have qualified it – whereas your point allows
that for all we know humans everywhere constitute a mixture of
whatever proportion.
You might consider that the reverse of
what you say may also be so – ie the population policy carried
out in China means that many who were destined to incarnate there,
finish up instead in Europe. And that perhaps you are one such,
haha. Or me for that matter I suppose. My posts surely appear
decadent to some.
Andrea adds:
Well I see it in the following way. We've
got from RS and others general point of views but we have also
to look. if we are able, at the fast, fast Mankind's Evolution
and most of all inside its changes. (For instance: asked about
the possibillity that the Russian folk Soul could have no more
able to have the chance of fulfill his task towards the Sixth
Epoch Age RS answered " well, in this case, the task will
be on the shoulders of Brasilian people(!!).....") Moreover:
we have also to look at the single issues , I mean facts about
the spiritual events concerning single personalities that we
know, in order to gain a standpoint able to actually understand
"what is actually happening here ?".
A.
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter
Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:22 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Group soul conformity (was:
Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver)
Hi again Tarjei, you wrote:
If what Peter S says is true, namely that
all racial groups are equal, then American and Chinese reactions
to insults should be identical as well as uniform.
That makes no sense. To say that all racial groups are equal
simply means that all racial groups are equal. It does not mean
that all individuals are equal. It does not mean that all racial
groups are identical. It does not mean that all members of a
given racial group are uniform. It has nothing whatsoever to
do with gray masses and so forth. It is entirely possible for
distinct categories to be equal without being either identical
or uniform.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Hi Dottie, you wrote:
Peter, just who do you and your friend Raymond think you are
fooling? Seriously.
Apparently we've fooled you. I don't have the faintest idea who
Raymon is.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:24 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Hi Mike, you wrote:
I'm sure a Chinese person would "feel"
disgusted when presented with the very select quotes that you
selectively present in your very select method that discards
any attempt at metaphorical understanding and implies it to be
irrational. And conveniently discards almost all inspirational
material.
I'm also sure that a Chinese person would "feel" quite
gratified by much of other RS writings presented by someone who
might be inspired by some of RS's work.
Great. So we agree that Steiner's work contains both racist and
non-racist strands?
You know, the irony of you commenting on this question is
what prompted my response. For a minute there I thought you might
actually care about how other people might feel.
You mean how you personally feel? No, I confess that I don't
care much about that. I don't have a particularly high opinion
of you as a person, to the extent that such assessments are even
possible from email discussion. But this has nothing to do with
the ideas you put forward. Those can be assessed regardless of
personal feelings.
I think is quite bizarre that this is the only thing that
interests you about RS.
It's not the only thing that interests me about Steiner, it's
just one of the two things I came here to talk about. Maybe this
strikes you as bizarre because you're not used to sustained focus
on specific subjects, or maybe it strikes you as bizarre because
you don't have much use for intellectuals. Or maybe there's some
other reason. In any case, I think there is nothing unusual about
concentrating our attention on particular aspects of anthroposophy,
especially those that are notably controversial.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 31, 2004 10:36 pm
Subject: Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Peter, I do not think we can go any further
without you answering the questions that I have asked you about
Mr. Farells 3 points of intellectual honesty.
Thanks if you choose to answer,
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: raymon_ford
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 1:11 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
VALENTINA BRUNETTI wrote:
... Well I see it in the following way.
We've got from RS and others general point of views but we have
also to look....
Gidday Andrea,
Thanks for your helpful post.
On another subject perhaps you can be of help
too. In 1997 in Italy there was an attempted start of a periodical
to do with Goethean Science: 'IL DIVANO MORFOLOGICO'; some of
those involved were Sandro Curti, Emilio Ferrario, Daniele Nani,
Silvia Nicolato. It seemed that it was to be conducted as a debate
within the academic mainstream. Can you tell me anything about
what happened here? Are you familiar with any of these people?
See ya, Raymon
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 7:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Hello Peter, I wrote:
I'm sure a Chinese person would "feel"
disgusted when presented with the very select quotes that you
selectively present in your very select method that discards
any attempt at metaphorical understanding and implies it to be
irrational. And conveniently discards almost all inspirational
material.
I'm also sure that a Chinese person would "feel" quite
gratified by much of other RS writings presented by someone who
might be inspired by some of RS's work.
P:
Great. So we agree that Steiner's work
contains both racist and non-racist strands?
M:
Please don't draw me into your twisted way
of thinking. I don't agree with that.
I think that you see it that way because you like to deconstruct
ideas that seem foolish to you because you really don't understand
their metaphorical significance. I'm sure that the deconstruction
of ideas has it's place. But the kind of deconstructionism that
you do with RS and anthroposophy is like me coming over to your
house and taking your bike apart to find a mechanical flaw, and
telling you that the chain is rusted to the core and then leaving
it there in your driveway in pieces for you.
M:
You know, the irony of you commenting on
this question is what prompted my response. For a minute there
I thought you might actually care about how other people might
feel.
P:
You mean how you personally feel? No, I
confess that I don't care much about that. I don't have a particularly
high opinion of you as a person, to the extent that such assessments
are even possible from email discussion. But this has nothing
to do with the ideas you put forward. Those can be assessed regardless
of personal feelings.
M:
No, I was talking about how the Chinese must
feel, in the context of Raymond's question that you put forth
as an example. Raymond asked about how the Chinese must feel,
because he cared about that. I thought that to be a noble question,
coming from someone that seems to like some of RS's writings.
For what it's worth, I have a high regard for you as a person,
as I try to have with every person that I meet. And I get to
meet allot of people that suffer the societal stigma of compartmentalized
thinking that leaves them in the category of disrespect as a
"Person," because they were raised by people that don't
understand the idea of compassion, and where it truly comes from.
I don't particularly care for the compassionless behavior that
allot of recovering dope-fiends exhibit; but on the occasion
when I have had the chance to offer them up some kind of compassionate
gesture, in spite of some seemingly dumb ideas or behavior, I
have seen big burley scary looking biker dudes break down in
tears. That's the "Person" that I'm talking about.
M:
I think is quite bizarre that this is the
only thing that interests you about RS.
P:
It's not the only thing that interests
me about Steiner, it's just one of the two things I came here
to talk about.
M:
And you wonder why you seem to have so much
difficulty "Talking to Anthroposophists."
I am not an Anthroposophist by the way. Unless of course you
want to label me as such. I consider myself more of a Human Being.
P:
Maybe this strikes you as bizarre because
you're not used to sustained focus on specific subjects, or maybe
it strikes you as bizarre because you don't have much use for
intellectuals. Or maybe there's some other reason. In any case,
I think there is nothing unusual about concentrating our attention
on particular aspects of anthroposophy, especially those that
are notably controversial.
M:
Alright, I'll give you the "nothing unusual"
thing. I just don't understand why you won't talk about other
subjects, of which there are a wide variety here; It paints a
bias sectarian picture. When Tarjei Dottie myself and others
were on the Critics list, we frequently engaged in different
topics. Tarjei has posted a great thread on morality on his web
site for instance.
And I wouldn't say that I "don't have much use for intellectuals."
It's the nihilistic potential of "intellectualism"
that bothers me.
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Apr 1, 2004 11:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Hi Mike, you wrote:
Please don't draw me into your twisted way of thinking. I
don't agree with that.
Okay, so you don't agree that Steiner's work contains both racist
and non-racist strands. I take it that this means you deny that
there are any racist elements whatsoever in Steiner's work?
I think that you see it that way because you like to deconstruct
ideas that seem foolish to you because you really don't understand
their metaphorical significance.
It sounds to me like you have confused several distinct issues.
First, I believe in analyzing important ideas regardless of whether
they seem foolish to me. Second, the metaphorical significance
of these ideas is precisely what is under dispute; it's silly
to pretend that I don't understand this siginificance. It would
make a lot more sense for you to simply outline your own understanding
of this significance, preferably with reference to Steiner's
published works on the matter. What do you say?
I'm sure that the deconstruction of ideas has it's place.
But the kind of deconstructionism that you do with RS and anthroposophy
is like me coming over to your house and taking your bike apart
to find a mechanical flaw, and telling you that the chain is
rusted to the core and then leaving it there in your driveway
in pieces for you.
Why would that be a problem? Unless I'm incapable of putting
the bike back together, I don't see what would be so unhelpful
about this. If you are trying to say that you don't know how
to put Steiner's doctrines back together after someone else has
criticized them and found a flaw within them, then I suppose
your analogy makes sense, but I don't know what relevance it
might have for me. Surely this is not a good reason to refrain
from critique.
[From
another thread - "Steiner on racial evolution":]
I am a bit irritated but I don't think I am
"mixed up." I think that I (and many others) have already
explained "why"above. But in brief I'll say it again:
Because it has metaphorical significance to those of us who aren't
just looking for examples of racist thought to explain in words.
Why would that make any difference? It is obvious that Steiner's
racial doctrines have lots of metaphorical significance for any
number of anthroposophists. This has nothing whatsoever to do
with the question of whether some of these doctrines are racist.
RS also frequently mentions the inadequacy of language in
trying to describe the world of spirit.
Indeed. But language isn't the problem here. Steiner taught that
the world of spirit is reflected in the physical world, and he
specifically included race. That's where it gets interesting,
from the point of view of determining whether some of his doctrines
are racist. Why don't we focus on those doctrines directly?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Fri Apr 2, 2004 4:33 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Mike wrote:
Please don't draw me into your twisted
way of thinking. I don't agree with that.
P:
Okay, so you don't agree that Steiner's
work contains both racist and non-racist strands. I take it that
this means you deny that there are any racist elements whatsoever
in Steiner's work?
M:
Well, lets see if I can play this twisted
intellectual masturbation/gymnastics game with you. I wonder
if all those chemically secreted thoughts create some kind addictive
chemical reaction in our brain. You know, like the carb junkie
thing. I bet it helps to get a little more brain orgasims to
ask a baited twisted question, in answer to someone else's questions
or statements; so here goes:
If I tell you what I think I mean when I say that I do not think
that there any "racist elements whatsoever in Steiner's
work," will you tell me what you think, that I think instead,
as you usually do? (oohhh, good brain orgasm)
M:
I think that you see it that way because
you like to deconstruct ideas that seem foolish to you because
you really don't understand their metaphorical significance.
It sounds to me like you have confused
several distinct issues. First, I believe in analyzing important
ideas regardless of whether they seem foolish to me. Second,
the metaphorical significance of these ideas is precisely what
is under dispute; it's silly to pretend that I don't understand
this siginificance. It would make a lot more sense for you to
simply outline your own understanding of this significance, preferably
with reference to Steiner's published works on the matter. What
do you say?
M:
What do I say? well, since you asked, I say - Fuck You!
Why should I waste my time with some snide ass condescending
pencil-neck intellectual-geek that gets off on playing intellectual
mind-games, and frequently implies that I and others on this
list are "confused," "foolish," "silly,"
or should be made fun of; that "anthroposophy is racist
to the core"; and that RS is connected to, and partly responsible
for the holocaust...
And I'm not pretending that you don't understand metaphorical
significance. You don't, as far as I can see. If you did, you
might quote a poem on occasion, or even post a few that you have
written. What do you say?
M:
I'm sure that the deconstruction of ideas
has it's place. But the kind of deconstructionism that you do
with RS and anthroposophy is like me coming over to your house
and taking your bike apart to find a mechanical flaw, and telling
you that the chain is rusted to the core and then leaving it
there in your driveway in pieces for you.
P:
M:
Well, I guess if you don't have a clue as
to what empathy is, then it wouldn't be a problem.
P:
Unless I'm incapable of putting the bike
back together, I don't see what would be so unhelpful about this.
If you are trying to say that you don't know how to put Steiner's
doctrines back together after someone else has criticized them
and found a flaw within them, then I suppose your analogy makes
sense, but I don't know what relevance it might have for me.
Surely this is not a good reason to refrain from critique
M:
If I liked another companies bikes, and was
bias about the way they were made, and found your chain to be
rusted to the core, because I could not recognize the new material
that was used to make your chain, and told you that your bike
was shit and worthless and dangerous because it has a rusty chain,
even though it was not rusty, but actually helpful.....
Why do I get the feeling that I am talking to a wall...
M:
I am a bit irritated but I don't think
I am "mixed up." I think that I (and many others) have
already explained "why"above. But in brief I'll say
it again: Because it has metaphorical significance to those of
us who aren't just looking for examples of racist thought to
explain in words.
P:
Why would that make any difference? It
is obvious that Steiner's racial doctrines have lots of metaphorical
significance for any number of anthroposophists. This has nothing
whatsoever to do with the question of whether some of these doctrines
are racist.
M:
To you maybe, to many others, that's just
crap
M:
RS also frequently mentions the inadequacy
of language in trying to describe the world of spirit.
P:
Indeed. But language isn't the problem
here. Steiner taught that the world of spirit is reflected in
the physical world, and he specifically included race. That's
where it gets interesting, from the point of view of determining
whether some of his doctrines are racist. Why don't we focus
on those doctrines directly?
M:
And what language should we use - sigh language
maybe? eurhythmy?
It all boils back to the words for you peter. You don't have
any experience with what they can mean when you put them into
practice for yourself, as in having a spiritual awakening.
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Apr 3, 2004 8:36 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
Hi Mike, you wrote:
Why should I waste my time with some snide
ass condescending pencil-neck intellectual-geek that gets off
on playing intellectual mind-games, and frequently implies that
I and others on this list are "confused," "foolish,"
"silly," or should be made fun of
I don't imply these things, I say them outright. You and some
other listmates are indeed confused about several important issues,
in my view. For example, several of you seem to think that the
term "evolution" means the same thing in biological
and in cultural contexts, in natural and in historical contexts.
That is a genuinely foolish belief, and when you make it public,
other people are going to make fun of it. If you don't like having
your beliefs subjected to scrutiny, you just need to keep them
to yourself. That's how critical public discussion works.
And I'm not pretending that you don't understand metaphorical
significance. You don't, as far as I can see.
But we've been discussing the metaphorical significance of Steiner's
racial and ethnic doctrines for some time now. Did that go right
over your head? People who use "the Negro race" as
a metaphor for primitiveness and immaturity are racists. People
who use "the Jews" as a metaphor for materialism and
closedness are antisemites. If you disagree, I encourage you
to explain why.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Mon Apr 5, 2004 8:16 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
There are quite a few Japanese Anthroposophists,
as well as a Waldorf initiative in Taiwan, and quite a bit of
anthroposophical work in Africa. I suppose those who are sure
that Anthroposophy is fundamentally racist must also maintian
that all of these people are also ignorant of this aspect. It
does pose a bit of a problem - how racist is an ideology that
is inspiring people of all races on five continents?
Daniel
----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Saturday, March 27, 2004 9:20 AM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Steiner on racial evolution/Ahasver
At 11:43 26.03.2004, Raymond wrote:
But have you considered how, for example,
a Chinese must feel when reading that his race is decadent?
I suggest that you ask a Chinese anthroposophists.
There are some in Hong Kong, including AS members, I believe.
But just in case there aren't any Chinese anthro's on this list,
why not ask American anthroposophists on this list how they feel
when reading that the American race is decadent, and will l degenerate
completely in the Seventh Sub-Race (i.e. in the 7th Cultural
Epoch) ?
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
March/April
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
