mindgames
Tarjei and mindgames
From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 10:32 am
Subject: Tarjei and mindgames
Tarjei:
Yes. What puzzles me is that your apparent
extensive study of Steiner's works through a number of years
has kept you spellbound on one topic only that you abuse in order
to misrepresent Anthroposophy and its founder. I am not less
puzzled when you subscribe to an anthroposophical email list
where all kinds of anthroposophically related topics are discussed,
only to insist upon this obsession of yours that is not even
a part of Anthroposophy.
Bradford comments;
Smear, character assassination, and the wonderful
song by Neil Young where he Young talks about the 'Needle and
the damage done and every junkie like a setting sun' had to do
with esoteric understanding of moral complicity. Addiction to
denial and addiction to lies and half-truths for buying momentary
INDULGENCES against the soul's defense are the unformed pockets
of excuses and unresolved denials in the soul. Now stabalizing
the point of view where your ethical compass can see through
your own lies, has brought Michael Moore and Fahrenheit 9/11
into the cross hairs. Is Michael Moore merely using the same
character assassination on Bush as P.S. has been using on Steiner
and Anthroposophy? Are both values the same?
Many Anthros, unlike Tarjei who has an opinion,
love to sit on some fence and say this is like this and everything
is equal. I for one have to admire Tarjei when he accused P.S.
of the kind of character assassination and guilt by association
that the entire Dan Dugan mission stems from. Steiner defended
our rights to be Anthros and to think into the future of Spiritual
Science and measure, beyond denials, the height of a being like
Christ that humanity is on the road to become. Steiner defended
our rights to think past dogmatism, fundamentalism and mass denial.
In sloppy esoteric development, amongst many
Anthros, such fierce defense and strong opinion unsettles the
stomach of Anthros. They like the idea that we can't really understand
things and opinion and hatreds or passions upset esoteric clarity.
How can anyone have esoteric clarity if they have passion about
something?
We had for years in the exoteric world attacks
by Right Wingers. It crept up into Liberal of all stripes and
general mockery and permitted mockery of anyone who takes homeopathy
or bio-dymanics or Waldorf Education seriously. Certain opinions
began to pollute the waters where real research into history
and humanity meet the sewage line of talk show hosts. The left
always has this wide live and let live attitude. Until recently.
But I wish to offer you the level of insight as to first, coming
to terms with discernment over bullshit and secondly the results
of lies. The results of lies, if Steiner was a liar obviously
that makes me a delusional idiot. That goes without saying, of
course.
So that leaves just basic floating opinions
and bickering and free speech, free to believe or speak about
a person anyway that makes sense in your opinion. Discerning,
high nose bleed, Logos navigation on the trail of Truth and sincerity
is really a lost art. Now is the time of moral relativism and
blinders.
Yet, let us compare, just for Goethean observation,
the Goethean observation of what happens when you later change
your opinion... Not just after death when you see the facts of
the afterlife...but when moral complicity and lies fail to inspire
your own sincere quest for truth after hating the very ideas
where truth might be located. We can actually study this in a
Goethean Manner. Here is one example and I'm sure others can
supply other examples. What do we defend? Why would we defend
it? How do we evaluate character and moral strength and how do
we evaluate moral weakness supported by false insights?
And in it all is the 'Theory of Angels' and
the task of inner development.
http://www.lewrockwell.com/rockwell/history-unthwarted.html
"If we aren't attentive,
Bill Buckley's antiwar pronouncement, issued in an interview
with the New York Times, could be relegated to a minor footnote
in this week's news pages, whereas it really speaks volumes about
the history of the last 50 years and the fall of American freedom
in the push for perpetual war.
What he said, in his famously
circuitous way, was this: "With the benefit of minute hindsight,
Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-territorial menace that
was assumed by the administration one year ago. If I knew then
what I know now about what kind of situation we would be in,
I would have opposed the war."
Thus does he implicitly concede
that the antiwar forces were right, and the warmongers were wrong,
and thus does he implicitly repudiate everything his magazine
and website have ever written about this subject, and thus does
he add his name to the roster of people who reject the main project
of the Bush administration and the main cause of the world's
woe.
Perhaps if the interviewer
had hung around a bit longer, Buckley would have repudiated the
sanctions of the 1990s that helped inspire the events of 9/11,
and perhaps even the original Gulf War that started this whole
mess and hurled US-Islamic relations onto this destructive path.
Why not? It's as easy as waving a hand.
The games played by a public
intellectual are a marvel of moral irresponsibility. He casually
suggests that a war would be a grand idea. The result is that
10,000 die and life is ruined for the living. Civilization is
replaced by shifting stenches of death, disease, and filth. Millions
swear retribution.
Ah, but then the intellectual
changes his mind! War wasn't all it was cracked up to be, or
so he tells a reporter for a newspaper, before clicking off his
cell and ordering up a nice lunch.
But he can't bring back the
dead. Neither American mothers and fathers, nor Iraqi children
and widows, are comforted by his change of mind. He can't drain
the streets of the sewage that flows freely where children play
amidst the wreckage. He can't bring electricity back to schools
and hospitals and homes and businesses, or will away the blazing
sun that bakes homes at night when people are trying to sleep
to escape the nightmare of the day, but they cannot because of
the explosions and screams. He can't take away the hate that
has swelled up the souls of young boys who see what the empire
did to their families, communities, faith, and freedoms.
He can't pay hundreds of billions
in debt accumulated to fund the war, or personally compensate
Iraqi merchants for their lost profits and livelihoods. He can't
persuade the suicide bombers not to give up their lives to kill
their enemies who gave them this war. He can't bring back the
rule of law to Iraq or solve incredibly intractable economic
problems. He can't expunge the culture of war that has shaped
a generation of the enlisted or perversely inspired teens around
the country to turn to violence as a means of settling disputes.
He can't heal the wounds,
physical and spiritual, of the innocents who were arrested, held
in prison, and tortured before being released only under international
pressure. He can't take away the humiliation of a people who
have lived for more than a year under martial law before they
regained "sovereignty" under a puppet regime that rules
from a frightened fortress.
He can't disarm the states
that are working on acquiring nuclear weapons as a way of protecting
themselves from the US, since everyone knows that US attacked
Iraq not because it had nukes but because it did not. There are
no means at his disposal to prevent a future nuclear holocaust
triggered because the old standards of diplomacy just seemed
so out of fashion in an age of terrorism.
No, he can't do any of this.
But he can walk away from it all, with just a few words. Had
he known, he would have opposed it. That he presided over a media
empire that made all of this possible, that even turned the opinion
of conservatives who should have opposed every bit of this into
a chorus of cheers for a regime that has been a calamity for
human liberty, for this he cannot be held responsible. He is
just a commentator after all. He doesn't own the wars he advocates,
so he bears no liability when they go wrong.
He knows full well that this
will be the only article that will draw attention to his personal
culpability for the tragedy. He is part of a class of thinkers
who treat world affairs like a parlor game: roll the dice, pick
the card, take a chance, win some, lose some. War is even better,
so far as these people are concerned, because there are no rules.
You play when you feel like it and crush opponents through violent
force.
War, these people know, isn't
like a real game of chess. You don't checkmate; instead you sweep
your hand across the board, declare yourself the winner, and
dare your opponent to disagree. The crucial thing is to pretend
that the people are chess pieces made of wood and stone rather
than flesh and blood.
All the warmongers have something
to answer for, but Buckley in particular. His goal at the start
of his career was to change the American right from peace-loving
to warmongering. He did that. He succeeded. Now, at 78, he should
look carefully at the ideological world he created, one where
his own movement parties as the victims of imperial violence
weep.
It didn't have to be this
way. Back when the madness first began, with Harry Truman's initial
call for a post-war US empire, Buckley could have stood athwart
history and yelled not "kill!" but "stop!"
Tarjei:
But those are the topics most of us here
are interested in. Anthroposophy is a worldview and cosmology,
and it rests upon the epistemology outlined in the PoF. For this
reason, we are interested in Christian theology, Judaism, Islam,
Buddhism, folklore, mythology, atheism, agnosticism, Marxism,
Platonism, the New Age Movement, etc. We are interested in how
various worldviews compare to Anthroposophy, what they have in
common and how they differ. We are curious about how different
members stand in relation to the many spiritual and philosophical
paths and views that are available to us all. But you're not
interested in any of this because you don't think it has anything
to do with "Steiner's racial or ethnic doctrines",
which might have been interesting if they could be discussed
in a normal manner. You discuss this only topic in a manner
that is not normal because your approach is not intellectually
honest, and for this reason, the result is blind alleys and endless
boredom.
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 12:15 pm
Subject: Re: Tarjei and mindgames
holderlin wrote:
We can actually study this in a Goethean
Manner. Here is one example and I'm sure others can supply other
examples. What do we defend? Why would we defend it? How do we
evaluate character and moral strength and how do we evaluate
moral weakness supported by false insights?
Bradford comments;
I include in this thread some debate on true
COURAGE. My first insight in looking over the word that is used
a great deal in the article below, is Courage. Courage was the
very Warmth that made up the atmosphere of Ancient Saturn. OOOps!
Already outside of some of our comprehension? Oh, I better make
an easier example than the origin of warmth, the heart and Courage
in the I AM, the very substance of the I AM out of which our
immoratality is founded, I guess we had better get closer to
home.
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19231019p01.html
R.S.
"So that in his soul-nature,
too, man is an image of the thoughts which weave through the
world with the birds and find expression in their plumage, and
of the world of feeling encircling the earth, which is to be
found in the lion in the balanced life of heart beat and breathing
and which, though milder in man, does indeed represent the inner
quality of courage — the Greek language made use of the
word [missing] [* The quality of the "great soul",
cf. Coeur de Lion.] for the qualities of heart and breast, the
inner quality of courage in man."
"Once upon a time a lion,
a wolf and a hyena set out upon a journey. They met an antelope.
The antelope was torn to pieces by one of the animals. The three
travelers were good friends, so now the question arose as to
how to divide the dismembered antelope between them. First the
lion spoke to the hyena, saying, "You divide it." The
hyena possessed his logic. He is the animal who deals not with
the living but with the dead. His logic is naturally determined
by the measure of his courage, or rather of his cowardice. According
to whether this courage is more or less, he approaches reality
in different ways. The hyena said: "We will divide the antelope
into three equal parts — one for the lion, one for the wolf,
and one for myself." Whereupon the lion fell upon the hyena
and killed him. Now the hyena was out of the way, and again it
was a question of sharing out the antelope. So the lion said
to the wolf, "See, my dear wolf, now we must share it out
differently. You divide it. How would you share it out?"
Then the wolf said, "Yes, we must now apportion it differently;
it cannot be shared out evenly as before. As you have rid us
of the hyena, you as lion must get the first third; the second
third would have been yours in any case, as the hyena said, and
the remaining third you must get because you are the wisest and
bravest of all the animals." This is how the wolf apportioned
it. Then said the lion, "Who taught you to divide in this
way?" To which the wolf replied, "The hyena taught
me." So the lion did not devour the wolf, but, according
to the wolf's logic, took the three portions for himself.
Yes, the mathematics, the
intellectual element, was the same in the hyena and the wolf.
They divided the antelope into three parts. But they applied
this intellect, this calculation, to reality in a different way.
Thereby destiny, too, was essentially altered. The hyena was
devoured because his application of the principle of division
to reality had different results from that of the wolf who was
not devoured. For the wolf related his hyena-logic — he
even said himself that the hyena had taught it to him —
to quite another reality. He related it to reality in such a
way that the lion no longer felt compelled to devour him too.
You see, hyena-logic in the
first case, hyena-logic also in the wolf; but in its application
to reality the intellectual logical element resulted in something
quite different.
It is thus with all abstractions.
You can do everything in the world with abstractions just according
to whether you relate them to reality in this or that way. We
must, therefore, be able to penetrate with insight into a reality
such as the correspondence between man, as Microcosm, and the
Macrocosm. We must be able to study the human being not with
logic only, but in a sense which can never be achieved unless
intellectualism is led over into the artistic element of the
world."
AN EXAMPLE OF PASSION:
"One friend I know describes
working in the media as shoveling coal for Satan. That's about
right. A worker in a tampon factory has dignity: He just uses
his sweat to make a product, a useful product at that, and doesn't
lie to himself about what he does. In this business we make commodities
for sale and, for the benefit of our consciences and our egos,
we call them ideas and truth. And then we go on the lecture circuit.
But in 99 cases out of 100, the public has more to learn about
humanity from the guy who makes tampons."
http://nypress.com/17/26/news&columns/MattTaibbi.cfm
SHOVELING COAL FOR SATAN
Christopher Hitchens collects check from Microsoft, calls Moore
a coward.
By Matt Taibbi
To describe this film as dishonest
and demagogic would almost be to promote those terms to the level
of respectability. To describe this film as a piece of crap would
be to run the risk of a discourse that would never again rise
above the excremental... Fahrenheit 9/11 is a sinister exercise
in moral frivolity, crudely disguised as an exercise in seriousness.
It is also a spectacle of abject political cowardice masking
itself as a demonstration of "dissenting" bravery.
—Christopher Hitchens,
Well, that's rich, isn't it?
Christopher Hitchens crawling out of a bottle long enough to
denounce Michael Moore as a coward. I can't imagine anything
more uplifting, except maybe a zoo baboon humping the foot of
a medical school cadaver.
All journalists are cowards.
Hitchens knows it, I know it, everybody in this business knows
it. If there were any justice at all, every last goddamn one
of us would be lowered, head-first, into a wood- chipper. Over
Arizona. Shoot a nice red mist over the whole state, make it
arable for a year or two. A year's worth of fava beans and endive
for the children of Bangladesh: I dare anyone in our business
to say that that wouldn't represent a better use of our rotting
bodies than the actual fruits of our labor.
No one among us is going to
throw that first stone, though. Not even Chris Hitchens, a man
who makes a neat living completing advanced Highlights for Children
exercises like the following: "Denounce a like-minded colleague,
using the words 'Lugubrious' and 'Semienvious.'" Such is
the pretense of modern journalism, that we are to be lectured
on courage by a man who has had his intellectual face lifted
so many times, he can't close his eyes without opening his mouth.
By a man who, if the Soviets had won the Cold War, would be writing
breathless features on Eduard Shevardnadze for three bucks a
word in Komsomolskaya Vanity Fair ("Georgia on His Mind:
Edik Speaks Out." Photos by Annie Liebowitz...).
Which is fine, good luck to
him, mazel tov. Everybody's got to make a living. But let's not
leave people confused out there. The idea that anyone in today's
media is either courageous or cowardly on the basis of what they
write or broadcast is ridiculous.
Hitchens, like me and everyone
else out there publishing, lives in a professional world where
the idea of courage is submitting nice words about George Bush
to the Nation, or maybe a "Rethinking Welfare Reform"
piece to the Wall Street Journal. What Hitchens calls courage
is really a willingness to offend one's intellectual constituency,
and what he really means by that is honesty—something very
different from courage. It's a nice quality, honesty, and the
pundit out there who has it and still manages to make a living
is, I guess, to be applauded. But again, let's not confuse that
with courage.
Courage is a willingness to
face real risks — your neck, or at the very least, your
job. The journalist with courage would have threatened to resign
rather than repeat George Bush's justifications for invasion
before it began. I don't remember anyone resigning last winter.
The journalist with courage would threaten to quit rather than
do a magazine piece about an advertiser's product, his fad diet
book or his magic-bullet baldness cure. It happens every day,
and nobody ever quits over it.
If journalists had courage,
they would form unions and refuse to work for any company that
made decisions about editorial content based on the bottom line,
on profit. Are there individual instances of reporters who quit
over this issue? Sure, there are a few. Lowell Bergman walked
out on 60 Minutes over this one. And there were those Fox TV
reporters in Tampa, Jane Akre and Steve Wilson, who famously
(and expensively, as it turned out) fell on their swords rather
than broadcast a bunch of cuddly bullshit about the Monsanto
corporation.
Yes, there are a few isolated
vertebrates out there in our business. But it wasn't like the
whole staff of WTVT in Tampa walked out in support of Akre and
Wilson. Janitors stick up for each other. Steelworkers stick
up for each other. Even camera operators and soundmen stick up
for each other. But journalists just sit still in their cubicles
with their eyebrows raised, waiting for it all to blow over,
in those very rare instances when a colleague walks the plank.
I've been around journalists
my entire life, since I was a little kid, and I haven't met more
than five in three-plus decades who wouldn't literally shit from
shame before daring to say that their job had anything to do
with truth or informing the public. Everyone in the commercial
media, and that includes Hitchens, knows what his real job is:
feeding the monkey. We are professional space-fillers, frivolously
tossing content-pebbles in an ever-widening canyon of demand,
cranking out one silly pack-mule after another for toothpaste
and sneaker ads to ride on straight into the brains of the stupefied
public.
One friend I know describes
working in the media as shoveling coal for Satan. That's about
right. A worker in a tampon factory has dignity: He just uses
his sweat to make a product, a useful product at that, and doesn't
lie to himself about what he does. In this business we make commodities
for sale and, for the benefit of our consciences and our egos,
we call them ideas and truth. And then we go on the lecture circuit.
But in 99 cases out of 100, the public has more to learn about
humanity from the guy who makes tampons.
I'm off on this tangent because
I'm enraged by the numerous attempts at verbose, pseudoliterary,
"nuanced" criticism of Moore this week by the learned
priests of our business. (And no, I'm not overlooking this newspaper.)
Michael Moore may be an ass, and impossible to like as a public
figure, and a little loose with the facts, and greedy, and a
shameless panderer. But he wouldn't be necessary if even one
percent of the rest of us had any balls at all.
If even one reporter had stood
up during a pre-Iraq Bush press conference last year and shouted,
"Bullshit!" it might have made a difference.
If even one network, instead
of cheerily re-broadcasting Pentagon-generated aerial bomb footage,
had risked its access to the government by saying to the Bush
administration, "We're not covering the war unless we can
shoot anything we want, without restrictions," that might
have made a difference. It might have made this war look like
what it is — pointless death and carnage that would have
scared away every advertiser in the country — rather than
a big fucking football game that you can sell Coke and Pepsi
and Scott's Fertilizer to.
Where are the articles about
the cowardice of those people? Hitchens in his piece accuses
Moore of errors by omission: How come he isn't writing about
the CNN producers who every day show us gung-ho Army desert rats
instead of legless malcontents in the early stages of a lifelong
morphine addiction?
Yeah, well, we don't write
about those people, because they're just doing their jobs, whatever
that means. For some reason, we in the media can forgive that.
We just can't forgive it when someone does our jobs for us. Say
what you want about Moore, but he picked himself up and did something,
something approximating the role journalism is supposed to play.
The rest of us—let's face it—are just souped-up shoe
salesmen with lit degrees. Who should shut their mouths in the
presence of real people.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jul 1, 2004 12:24 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Tarjei and mindgames
Hi Bradford,
You're quoting from (and linking to) a thread
that has been re-published with the backup-archives at:
http://www.uncletaz.com/at/febmar04/mindgames.html
This thread, "Mindgames", is an
extension of the incredibly long thread "agreement and disagreement"
that was started by PS when he introduced himself February 21.
For the record: The content of this thread
has nothing in common witth the excellent John Lennon song that
bears the same title:
MIND GAMES
(John Lennon)
We're playing those mind games
together
Pushing the barriers, planting seeds
Playing the mind guerrilla
Chanting the mantra, peace on earth
We all been playing those mind games forever
Some kinda druid dudes lifting the veil
Doing the mind guerrilla
Some call it magic, the search for the grail
Love is the answer and you
know that for sure
Love is a flower, you got to let it, you got to let it grow
So keep on playing those mind
games together
Faith in the future, outta the now
You just can't beat on those mind guerrillas
Absolute elsewhere in the stones of your mind
Yeah we're playing those mind games forever
Projecting our images in space and in time
Yes is the answer and you
know that for sure
Yes is surrender, you got to let it, you got to let it go
So keep on playing those mind
games together
Doing the ritual dance in the sun
Millions of mind guerrillas
Putting their soul power to the karmic wheel
Keep on playing those mind games forever
Raising the spirit of peace and love
Love...
I want you to make love, not war, I know you've heard it before
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Jul 2, 2004 11:02 am
Subject: Tarjei and mindgames
http://wn.elib.com/Steiner/Lectures/19231019p01.html
R.S.
"So that in his soul-nature,
too, man is an image of the thoughts which weave through the
world with the birds and find expression in their plumage, and
of the world of feeling encircling the earth, which is to be
found in the lion in the balanced life of heart beat and breathing
and which, though milder in man, does indeed represent the inner
quality of courage — the Greek language made use of the
word [missing] [* The quality of the "great soul",
cf. Coeur de Lion.] for the qualities of heart and breast, the
inner quality of courage in man."
"Once upon a time
a lion, a wolf and a hyena set out upon a journey. They met an
antelope. The antelope was torn to pieces by one of the animals.
The three travelers were good friends, so now the question arose
as to how to divide the dismembered antelope between them. First
the lion spoke to the hyena, saying, "You divide it."
The hyena possessed his logic. He is the animal who deals not
with the living but with the dead. His logic is naturally determined
by the measure of his courage, or rather of his cowardice. According
to whether this courage is more or less, he approaches reality
in different ways. The hyena said: "We will divide the antelope
into three equal parts — one for the lion, one for the wolf,
and one for myself." Whereupon the lion fell upon the hyena
and killed him. Now the hyena was out of the way, and again it
was a question of sharing out the antelope. So the lion said
to the wolf, "See, my dear wolf, now we must share it out
differently. You divide it. How would you share it out?"
Then the wolf said, "Yes, we must now apportion it differently;
it cannot be shared out evenly as before. As you have rid us
of the hyena, you as lion must get the first third; the second
third would have been yours in any case, as the hyena said, and
the remaining third you must get because you are the wisest and
bravest of all the animals." This is how the wolf apportioned
it. Then said the lion, "Who taught you to divide in this
way?" To which the wolf replied, "The hyena taught
me." So the lion did not devour the wolf, but, according
to the wolf's logic, took the three portions for himself.
Yes, the mathematics, the
intellectual element, was the same in the hyena and the wolf.
They divided the antelope into three parts. But they applied
this intellect, this calculation, to reality in a different way.
Thereby destiny, too, was essentially altered. The hyena was
devoured because his application of the principle of division
to reality had different results from that of the wolf who was
not devoured. For the wolf related his hyena-logic — he
even said himself that the hyena had taught it to him —
to quite another reality. He related it to reality in such a
way that the lion no longer felt compelled to devour him too.
You see, hyena-logic in
the first case, hyena-logic also in the wolf; but in its application
to reality the intellectual logical element resulted in something
quite different.
It is thus with all abstractions.
You can do everything in the world with abstractions just according
to whether you relate them to reality in this or that way. We
must, therefore, be able to penetrate with insight into a reality
such as the correspondence between man, as Microcosm, and the
Macrocosm. We must be able to study the human being not with
logic only, but in a sense which can never be achieved unless
intellectualism is led over into the artistic element of the
world."
Bradford comments;
Okay, so you sit back and you look at Steiner's
words and say to yourself, hmmmm Lion, hyena and Wolf... duh,
what might that mean? Friends, if, just on the wild gamble that
we were supposed to be trained to have intuition and we break
down the Sentient Soul, Intellectual Soul and Consciousness Soul
what more perfect examples of the Animal Totems inside these
three soul conditions would we need?
If we say the subject is MINDGAMES [one of
the greatest films out is a film you can rent called, "MINDWALK"]
we now can look over all that has been said about Sentient soul
sh-- faced Fundamentalism in Judaism, Islam and Christianity
and we could find ourselves up to our eyeballs in brilliant scholars,
the world over, brilliant scholars from east to west and on NPR,
who cannot tell you why the Koran talked about 72 Virgins. What
72 means to the Sun and human life.
Is the sentient soul, like unto shock, trash
media, Jerry Springer hyena ville? Oh they hunt in packs and
are ready to tear you apart if they can find a lone voice and
rip it apart if it isn't waving a Flag and calling upon Dashboard
Jesus. I would like to know how people in the Michael School
imagine such a tale and such meaning that Steiner so pointedly
places before us? I dare say most of us just wander goofily and
blindly around never putting the puzzle together.
The Wolf, well just look at the description
of the Wolf and see how the Intellectual Soul, the entire Congress
and House in the U.S. are not honorable men, they are breeds
of Ahrimanic wolf. In doesn't even get anyone but Danny when
Steiner might indicate that the Fenrir Wolf and the Wolf of Romulus
and Remus, Wolf Milk and children brought up on Wolf milk has
something to do with the intellectual Soul of cunning. That Imperial
America and Rome and a whole host of media hyenas and wolves
is what has become obvious in the use of intellect in our culture.
What kind of Education do we learn from absorbing
the slime of these mental states against the magnitude of understanding
an Elohim? We get to compliment ourselves for making all the
wrong choices for the future of humanity.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
July/August
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
