Sune Nordwall's
original post re Peter
On the writings of the "catch if you
can" con "historical scholar" Peter Staudenmaier
From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 5:16 pm
Subject: On the writings of the "catch if you can"
con "historical scholar" Peter Staudenmaier (I/II)
In a posting Thu, 8 Apr 2004 22:19:40 -0400
Daniel - in a response to a posting by PS - comments on what
I have at http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
at my site on PS:
[from
the thread "Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter"]
Peter Staudenmaier:
I did not discover Steiner's 'folk souls'
lectures. If you think the published versions of these lectures
are not authentic, go ahead and tell us why.
Daniel:
In those lectures you did "discover"
the nordic-germanic sub-race as well as references to the "aryan
race". You made them up! They are not in the original. You
have even admitted as much!
It is interesting to notice in retrospect
over the past years - having discussed with PS on different occasions
since 2000 - how very confusing the discussions with him on anthroposophy
repeatedly tend to become, even on simple points, and how easy
it is to be dragged into this confusion when trying to answer
and sort it out.
In the case of PS' con story about the lecture
series 'Mission of Folk Souls' one such confusing point develops
as a concern regarding what single 'words' the published, by
RS himself edited lecture series, as such first published in
1922, contains.
This tends to divert from an overview of the
more overall issue on this point, being the whole untruthful
story in the second part of the introduction in PS Major Opus
on anthroposophy, that he invents and adds as second part to
the first still somewhat truthful part in the introduction.
The mixture of the roughly truthful first
part of the introduction by PS in his article AaE on the lecture
series, only containing 'minor' errors, with the smashing and
selling more or less complete untruths in the second part of
the introduction, that together in a nutshell summarize the nature
of stories by demagogues, repeatedly, and smoothly when like
Peter Staudenmaier acting as a con 'historian', mixing truths
with untruths, at first glance usually are very difficult to
look through.
Just as a summarizing overview after the extensive
discussion on it on this list:
PS in the introduction:
In June 1910 Rudolf Steiner,
the founder of anthroposophy, began a speaking tour of Norway
with a lecture to a large and attentive audience in Oslo. The
lecture was titled "The Mission of Individual European National
Souls in Relation to Nordic-Germanic Mythology." In the
Oslo lecture and throughout his Norwegian tour Steiner presented
his theory of "national souls" (Volksseelen in German,
Steiner's native tongue) and paid particular attention to the
mysterious wonders of the "Nordic spirit."
The 'minor' errors in this part concern the
nature and title of the lecture series;
- It was a lecture series held in Oslo, not
a lecture tour of Norway. While PS in the discussion on this
list has argued for the view that it is proper to describe a
lecture series in Oslo as a lecture tour of Norway, writing in
the introduction: In the Oslo lecture and throughout his Norwegian
tour indicates that he erroneously - when writing it - thought
that only the first lecture in the series was held in Oslo, and
the rest of the lectures in other places than Oslo.
When 'revising' the article, he hasn't corrected
this misdescription, just applied a different meaning of 'lecture
tour' than he probably meant from the beginning, and kept the
description of the lecture series in Oslo as a 'lecture tour
of Norway', to cover up for his original untruthfulness.
- The title for the lecture series given is
erroneous with the primary source for the error being the text
part (p. 9) of Hans Maendl's book 'Der Geist des Nordens' from
1966. But the correct title is given in the literature list at
the end of the book by Maendl (p. 143), that PS seems to imply
that he has 'read' when referring to it.
But then comes the by PS made up smashing
and selling but profoundly untruthful story, that the last years
has been published and with his knowledge and silent approval
continues to be published at a number of places on the internet,
and that does not only concern single words, but the story in
its totality, that he makes up, whose untruthfulness has been
extensively documented and discussed on this list:
PS:
The "national souls"
of Northern and Central Europe were, Steiner explained, components
of the "germanic-nordic sub-race," the world's most
spiritually advanced ethnic group, which was in turn the vanguard
of the highest of five historical "root races." This
superior fifth root race, Steiner told his Oslo audience, was
naturally the "Aryan race."
This description is completely untruthful
with regard to the first lecture, that in the first part of the
introduction is implied as one source of what PS writes in the
second part in the introduction.
The errors with regard to the first lecture
are:
- The first lecture does with one word mentions The "national
souls" of Northern and Central Europe.
- It also does not say one word about a "germanic-nordic
sub-race".
- It also does not - not mentioning a "germanic-nordic sub-race"
- assert that it is the world's most spiritually advanced
ethnic group.
- It does not mention "root races".
- it does not tell that there are five historical "root
races."
- It also does not describe the - not mentioned - "germanic-nordic
sub-race" as the vanguard of the highest of five historical
"root races."
- In the lecture, Steiner also does not tell his Oslo audience
that 'naturally', the - also not mentioned - Aryan race
is the superior fifth root race.
Instead the lecture (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/Folkspirits/1-GeneralIntroduction.htm)
gives a basic introductory description of among other things
the spiritual nature of man and of some characteristics of the
spiritual beings that in the Jewish-christian tradition are described
as Angels and Archangels.
Just as a small reminder of PS' different
positions, when caught with his untruthful false description
of reality:
When seeing that his smashing made up intentionally
selling, but untruthful story is untrue and this is told on the
WC-list, PS on 1 May 2001 asserts that the 'lecture' he 'describes'
in the introduction not is found in the lecture series, but is
a lecture held by Steiner in Oslo, not published in the lecture
series. He also asserts that his description of the 'lecture'
to which he refers - according to him being something else than
the 'book', that according to him is 'based' on the (imaginary)
'lecture' he refers to - is well supported by the book.
(For the following story by PS, when seeing
that he cannot document the by him 'described' lecture as a lecture
held separate from the lecture series either, see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html)
PS on the WC:
Sune and I are talking
about two different things. He is referring to a book published
in 1918, and I was referring to a lecture given in 1910. Those
two things are closely related (the former is based on the latter),
but they are not identical. Even so, my description of the lecture
is, contrary to Sune's strenuous objections, well supported by
the book. ...
and adding - in the tradition of good con
artistry - that is, seemingly innocently and self assuredly:
I once again urge anyone
who finds Sune's arguments here compelling to consult this version,
the book version, in order to check my paragraph against Steiner's
text.
implying (as every con artist when caught
red handed) that his story - in this case about the first lecture
and the lecture series in its totality - is 'true'.
and
PS:
Everything I wrote in my
paragraph was based on secondary sources, several of which do
not agree with Sune's claim. If Sune can explain what on earth
this has to do with either my credibility or the substantive
dispute between us, I will gladly look into the matter and try
to find out why there are differing accounts of Steiner's 1910
itinerary. But it is difficult to imagine why this would be important
to anybody.
According to what he writes, and in contrast
to his otherwise seemingly well developed imagination - he does
not 'see' that not only writing and publishing untruths (but
also repeatedly defending them in different ways when their untruthfulness
is demonstrated), has implications for the credibility of the
one writing and defending them in the further discussion, especially
when the person in question repeatedly - like Peter Staudenmaier
- in different ways refers to himself as 'historian' and 'scholar'.
To any normal person, it is clear that the
assertion by PS that he does not 'understand' what the actual
truthfulness of his writings on well documented and published
historical sources has to do with his credibility as self proclaimed
'historical scholar' are vain efforts at damage control smoke
screens regarding his reputation as 'scholar'.
He also on 1 May 2001 tells that he has sent
an 'updated' implicitly 'corrected' version to PLANS, that he
- when writing it - seemingly thinks is published at PLANS website,
not being the case up to this day, one reason probably being
that it would reveal to the WC and others, that PS' repeated
defense on the WC of the untruths in the introduction, with the
support of Dan Dugan - while on the periphery on the net with
the help of John Holland of 'OpenWaldorf' having made public
a small effort to correct the most obvious ones - just has been
a repeated diverting song and dance performance for the galleries.
In addition he also - again untruthfully -
asserts:
Steiner uses the term "root
races" throughout this book
and, commenting on me in an earlier posting,
quoting PS in his introduction:
This superior fifth root race,
Steiner told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan
race."
with (me) commenting:
Again, this is a total
fantasy by Staudenmaier. In the lecture series, Steiner not once
mentions neither "root race", nor "fifth root
race", nor "superior fifth root race".
PS answering:
Readers can easily see
for themselves that "root races" are "mentioned"
throughout the book.
That is, not only in the two chapters/lectures
(six and seven), where Hauptrasse erroneously is mistranslated
in the 1970 English translation with the theosophical concept
and term 'root races', but throughout the book. As the
discussion on this list has indicated, a check of the published
lecture series reveals also this to be an untrue assertion by
PS.
This just as a small reminder of how - as
repeatedly demonstrated on this list - difficult it not only
is here, but has been for years to discuss the relation of what
PS writes in different contexts with him to the sources he says
he refers to, and being a reason I try to avoid it as much as
possible, and also have done on this list, as it repeatedly turns
out to be just tiring, time consuming and leading nowhere.
(Continued)
...................................................................................................................................
From: Sune Nordwall
Date: Sat Apr 10, 2004 5:18 pm
Subject: On the writings of the "catch if you can"
con "historical scholar" Peter Staudenmaier (II/II)
The two postings with the above subject are
an exception, that I make mainly to exemplify the repeated untruthfulness
and unreliability of PS in what he writes in this case in one
more instance (below) on me - again - indicating his nature as
con 'historian'.
For a more full description of the different
turns of the twisting by PS, see http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Staudenmaier.html
with regard to the first lecture in the series and http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Untruths-of-Staudenmaier.htm
with regard to the lecture series in its totality.
The latter link in the main documents that
the introduction, as with regard to the first lecture of the
series, also is untruthful on the following points with regard
to the series as a whole:
- The lecture series in its totality does
not only not at any point mention a "germanic-nordic sub-race".
- It also does not - not mentioning a "germanic-nordic sub-race"
- assert that it is the world's most spiritually advanced
ethnic group.
- It does not mention "root races".
- it does not tell that there are five historical "root
races."
- It also does not describe the - not mentioned - "germanic-nordic
sub-race" as the vanguard of the highest of five historical
"root races."
- In the lecture series, Steiner also does not tell *his Oslo
audience* that 'naturally', the - not mentioned - Aryan race
is the *superior fifth root race*.
That Steiner would have said what PS untruthfully
asserts also stands out as improbably in the perspective of that
Steiner half a year earlier (http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/Steiner/GA117-1909-12-04.htm)
specifically had criticized the way of using the concepts of
'root races' and 'sub races' in the theosophical tradition as
an expression of a 'child illness' of the tradition, that it
was necessary to overcome - which he then did in continuing to
develop anthroposophy separate from theosophy, for example demonstrated
by his written work 'Occult Science - An Outline' published the
same year as he held the lecture series on 'Mission of Folk Souls'.
What PS writes and puts in the mouth of Steiner
as a scandal story about 'the superior Aryan race' is just one
big bluff, that he in the main has kept also in his 'revised'
version of the article. Ant it needs to be noted that in the
'revised' version, PS has made public what he writes in it AFTER
- in contrast to when writing the first version of the article
- he during a trip to Europe has gotten hold of and possibly
also read the whole lecture series in the original, by RS himself
corrected version in German.
It means that when PS in the 'revised' version
of his article - in the name of 'free speech' made public and
published by John Holland at his 'OpenWaldorf' site last summer
- writes things like: This superior fifth root race, Steiner
told his Oslo audience, was naturally the "Aryan" race",
this stands out as a - this time clearly conscious - lie by PS,
who as one of his 'urges' to 'anthroposophists' has expressed
his wish (approximately) that they 'honestly' discuss the 'racial
doctrines' of anthroposophy - implicitly with him, and implicitly
based on his descriptions of them ...
As I've pointed out before: what PS writes
constitutes an insult to the concept of 'historical scholar'
with which he so self flatteringly seems to like to describe
himself.
Daniel quoting PS:
[from
the thread "Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter"]
Daniel wrote:
Peter, your original article invented new
content for Anthroposophy (such as the non-existent "nordic-germanic
sub-race", which only exists in your article). This new
content was produced as "evidence" of racism in Anthroposophy.
That seems pretty close to forgery to me.
Peter Staudenmaier:
It does? Then you don't understand what
forgery is. All you say above is that I misrepresented the content
of a text that Steiner wrote and published. You do not say that
I wrote and published the text myself under Steiner's name.
Daniel:
I note that you are not denying making
up references to the nordic-germanic sub-race and the "aryan
race". You can haggle over the use of the word "forgery".
I conceed the point (for the third time) - it is not technically
forgery in the conventional sense. But it is dishonest.
When I - as Swede and non American, never
having even visited the U.S. - have used the word 'forgery',
I have done it in the broad sense of 'untrue description of history'
that it is used also for example by the Swedish branch of the
CSISOP at its site.
I think it can be assumed that PS understands
this quite well, when repeatedly having made fun of it on the
WC as efforts at damage controlling smoke screens to try to cover
up for his repeated well documented untruthfulness, both with
regard to what he writes on a number of points on anthroposophy
and anthroposophically based activities, as also his description
of himself as 'historical scholar'.
Daniel wrote:
It is not the word I would have used, but
I can understand why Sune chose it.
Peter Staudenmaier:
I thought I originally understood his choice
of words as well, and I said to him what I just said to you time
and time again. Each time he insisted that forgery was
at stake, not misrepresentation. That is why the whole topic
is a waste of time, as I have also frequently pointed out. Aside
from Sune, as far as I can tell, all any of you really thinks
I did was misread and misportray an authentic text. You do not
really think I faked a non-existent text.
I have checked this description by PS against
the archives of the WC-list from the first publishing of his
con story on 'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism' on the list and up
to the time I was unsubbed by Dan Dugan from the list in September
2001 for telling that checking what PS writes in the story against
the sources he says he refers to tells that he is a liar (with
regard to a number of the things he writes in the story).
On this point, PS has argued that 'lying'
implies that someone consciously is telling what he or she knows
is untrue. Even with this narrow interpretation of the concept
'lie' in relation to 'untruth', it applies to what is published
by PS at a number of sites on the net - that he is well aware
of - _after_ the time he has found out it is not true, and not
seeing to it that it is corrected, which easily is done if you
take the truthfulness of you write and publish seriously, being
- in stages - from probably before 1 May 2001 and up to the present,
three years later with regard to the article AaE by PS.
For the way PS has acted with regard to this,
see a mail by him on Thu, 29 Nov 2001 to the undersigned, found
reproduced at the bottom of http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/pseudovetenskap/Staudenmaier-mail.htm
and telling in his own words, that he does not take it very seriously
that what is published by him on the net actually is truthful,
when found. It supports the impression he gives in different
other discussions about his writings, like on this list.
(If you disapprove of me at my site publishing
and here republishing mails by you, Peter, tell me and I will
replace them with descriptions of them instead.)
With regard to what PS writes about my description
of his introduction to what he has made into the foundation stone
of his musing on anthroposophy, as a 'forgery':
PS:
[from
the thread "Sune Nordwall's original post re Peter"]
I thought I originally understood his choice
of words as well, and I said to him what I just said to you time
and time again. Each time he insisted that forgery was
at stake, not misrepresentation.
The archives of WC does not support this description
by PS.
They only document one instance in the discussion,
where I in a mail have mentioned the word 'forgery' with regard
to PS writings. But the mail in question is not a posting by
me to the WC list. Instead it is a personal mail 15 Nov 2001
to PS and DD, not the WC-list, from which I then had been unsubbed
by Dan.
The mail can be found reproduced at [long
link]
Also, a posting from PS the same day, on Thu,
15 Nov 2001 21:16:51 -0600 where he comments on my personal mail
to him, quoted by Dottie in an earlier posting the same day (15
Nov 2001 10:29:51 -0800 (PST)), is the only posting that I find
on the WC-list, where PS directly answers a (the one, off-list)
mail from me found in the archives of the WC, where I call his
description of 'Mission ...' a 'forgery'.
Like in many discussions through different
phases with PS, what refers to what, is or becomes increasingly
difficult to sort out. This is the case with the different senses
of the word 'existence' with regard to the 'lecture' that PS
asserts that he describes in the introduction to AaE.
In 1910, RS held the lecture series, that
PS refers to in his introduction. Of course the lecture series
has a first lecture. In that sense the first lecture 'exists'
(in the reflected form of the published transcript of it).
But no more well known source tells that it
exists as described by Peter.
What I have referred to is this second meaning
of the term 'existence' with regard to the lecture. No source
I've found tells that it exists as PS describes it, except in
his own - repeatedly published - fantasy.
Seeing the way PS has made fun of my way -
as non American - of expressing myself, I have tried to make
clear the way I use the word 'existence'; that the lecture does
not exist _as described by PS_, and that what he writes about
it, and the lecture series in its totality, naturally not constitutes
a forgery in the physical sense, but in a spiritual sense of
an untruthful description of history.
As documented above, PS also at one stage
asserted that the lecture he 'describes' in the introduction
'exists' (in the sense actually was held by RS) as a lecture
in Oslo in 1910, separate from the published lecture series.
I have really tried to check this out with different people and
found nothing that supports this assertion by PS, indicating
it is one of the many by PS - again - untruthful stories, made
up by him to save his reputation as self proclaimed 'scholar'.
In a mail dated Sat Dec 22 15:49:15 2001,
he then - again, after having had two years after the first publication
of his article to check up closer on its actual basis - tells
another untruthful story about the lecture series, being:
... since the transcripts
of the lectures themselves have never been published, I did what
you're supposed to do in such cases: I relied on secondary sources,
written by anthroposophists and published in anthroposophist
periodicals, for my description of the lectures' content.
Except for the fact that PS never has told
more specifically what the sources are (both authors, periodicals,
and titles of the articles in question) that he says that he
refers to, he at that time ought to have known - if he had been
the careful and knowledgeable 'scholar' he likes to depict himself
as - that the first publication of the lecture series was published
as transcript in 1911, and then repeatedly later in a by RS himself
corrected form, as also - if he had understood some of the basic
ways to find publications in German - that one source, accessible
to everyone with an internet connection, on this is the German
http://www.amazon.de that,
all the times I have checked it, has told that the lecture series,
that PS describes in such untruthful detail in his major opus
'Anthroposophy and Ecofascism' - if used by PS - for some $10
+ stamp costs in few days would have provided him with the source
he up to this makes up such stories about.
Above and at my site, I have focused on what
everyone for him- or herself can check out what PS writes with
regard to the sources he says he refers to, as they can be found
on the net, or have been put there by me or others. But it indicates
the nature with regard to truthfulness that he continues to write
in the article, in other articles, on the WC, and here on this
list on anthroposophy and anthroposophically based activities.
http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Steiner-on-Heinrich-von-Treitschke.htm and http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/PS/Steiner-on-JuliusLangbehn.htm
document this with regard to two instances in the writings of
PS(/PZ), chosen because the source they say they refer, being
the autobiography of RS can be found on the net, and therefore
checked out for everyone with internet access.
A consistent strife for careful truthfulness
is necessary to start to understand on more than a superficial
level what anthroposophy is, as also to become an actual scholar
on any subject.
PS repeated well documented problem with this
possibly is one of the central factors that has prevented him
as con historical 'scholar' from having acquired even a by himself
on the net documented B.A., even though he - like con persons
like the 'Catch me if you can' Frank Abagnale Jr. http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0264464/
- seems to like to hang out and play a 'professional' in milieus
he feels drawn to, like the by him mentioned history department
of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, on the WC, and on this
list.
Peter Staudenmaier's repeated combination
of careless untruthfulness and ping-pong mind- and word games
in his numerous postings to this list as con 'historical scholar'
does not more than as superficial stand up comedy contribute
to an understanding and development of what anthroposophy is
and persistently diverts the intercourse from its topic and draws
it into his superficial and distorting word and mind games about
anthroposophy.
I therefore seriously suggest that the list
- however difficult it might seem at first - like Deborah Kahn
ignores and completely stops answering to his postings
to this list, and only again do it if and when he has corrected
his published writings on the internet in accordance with the
sources he writes that he bases them on, leaving him free to
search for other playgrounds for his different mind and word
games until he has done it.
For some comments on the issues of what anthroposophy
- in my view - is, see http://www.waldorfanswers.com/Anthroposophy.htm
For the situation for anthroposophical activities
in Germany during the time of the Nazis, see http://www.waldorfanswers.com/AnthroposophyDuringNaziTimes.htm
And for the myth about anthroposophy, that
PS seems obsessed with, see http://www.waldorfanswers.com/ARacistMyth.htm
In a posting: 'On PS on decadence, and non-comment
on his repeated untruthful demagoguery he last years', Date:
Mon, 08 Mar 2004 23:26:21 +0100, I have commented on what PS
has described as the basic view of RS on 'higher' and 'lower'
races, trying to support this with a quote from 'Knowledge of
Higher worlds'.
As the posting in conjunction with http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/comments1.htm
tells, the temporal context of the quote from 'Knowledge' indicates
that it not refers to 'the five races of mankind', being the
normal sense that 'race' refers to, but the successive human
forms during Cenozoic times, from the beginning of Tertiary up
to the end of Pleistocene, being what RS during the conferences
with teachers in general identifies as the time of 'Atlantis'
(and thereby the 'sub races of Atlantis') discussed in 'Cosmic
Memory', at about the same time as writing the article, that
then was published in 'Knowledge' as one of its chapters.
This just as one of a number of possible examples
indicating the superficiality, with which PS repeatedly argues
on the subject of 'races' in connection with anthroposophy.
I expect he will comment on this and the mentioned
pages, and therefore expressly again repeat my suggestion: _don't
answer him however tempting it may seem_ but leave him free to
leave this list and return to the WC or search for other playgrounds
for his games.
Greetings,
Sune
(As a P.S.: I don't read mails to the above
mail address, just use it for sending postings.)
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 10:42 am
Subject: Sune's confusion
Speaking of reading comprehension.... Sune
writes:
When 'revising' the article, he hasn't corrected this misdescription
That isn't true. I did remove the phrase "throughout his
Norwegian tour", precisely because it indicates a multi-city
trip, which the mere mention of "speaking tour" does
not. This is exactly why Tarjei's argument on this point is obviously
wrong: if I agreed with Tarjei about what a "speaking tour"
is, I would have removed that phrase, as well, in the revised
version.
The title for the lecture series given is erroneous with the
primary source for the error being the text part (p. 9) of Hans
Maendl's book 'Der Geist des Nordens' from 1966.
Yep. Hence if Sune considers this title erroneous, I recommend
he address his complaint to Mandl's departed spirit, not to me.
(I also recommend he take a peek at the revised version of my
article...)
PS on 1 May 2001 asserts that the 'lecture' he 'describes'
in the introduction not is found in the lecture series, but is
a lecture held by Steiner in Oslo, not published in the lecture
series.
That isn't true. The lectures I referred to are published in
the book. Sune just thinks I described them inaccurately.
What PS writes and puts in the mouth of Steiner as a scandal
story about 'the superior Aryan race' is just one big bluff,
that he in the main has kept also in his 'revised' version of
the article.
Yep. Funny how different people can read the same text differently,
huh?
I think it can be assumed that PS understands this quite well
Yes, I understand what forgery means. You don't. That's the problem.
Untrue claims about history are a dime a dozen. They have absolutely
nothing whatsoever to do with forgery.
On this point, PS has argued that 'lying' implies that someone
consciously is telling what he or she knows is untrue.
Yes, that is what lying means. If I agreed with your reading
of Steiner, then I would indeed be lying in describing this text
as racist. But I don't agree with your reading of Steiner. I
think the text is racist. Get it?
the temporal context of the quote from
'Knowledge' indicates that it not refers to 'the five races of
mankind', being the normal sense that 'race' refers to, but the
successive human forms during Cenozoic times, from the beginning
of Tertiary up to the end of Pleistocene, being what RS during
the conferences with teachers in general identifies as the time
of 'Atlantis' (and thereby the 'sub races of Atlantis') discussed
in 'Cosmic Memory'
Hmmm.... you'd better check with Detlef on that, Sune, lest you
fall into "error"....
Yours for reading comprehension,
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: danifyou
Date: Sun Apr 11, 2004 2:42 pm
Subject: Rép. : On the writings of the "catch if
you can" PS
What about adding a 'me' to this sentence...
So to have a real fiction to appear patent
Lo the Steven Spielberg's
'Catch Me If You Can'
Of Peter's Akashic Record!? ;)
What about Dugan as 'The Saint'?...
In the Astral we get a reverse;
Yet remains the image crooked!
My photographs pals.
Dan
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
April/May
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
