For Peter
From: eyecueco
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 1:55 pm
Subject: For Peter
Dear Peter,
Over at the Simon Wiesenthal Center there
is an interesting article, copyright ©1997, "Hitler's
Racial Ideology: Content and Occult Sources", by Jackson
Spielvogel and David Redles.
It is an interesting artice because we have
statements from the horse's mouth, so to speak, i.e., Hitler,
on his anti-Semtic views and origin of those views in a 1931
interview with a Leipzig newspaper editor where he, "Adolf
Hitler made a passionate declaration of the true significance
of his National Socialist movement".
The interesting thing is, Peter, this article,
nor any article I can find at the Simon Wiesental site mentions
Steiner in the vein you so constantly promote.
Why is that, do you think?
I mean, who is more interested in getting
to the heart of the matter on Anti-Semitism and what came about
in Nazi Germany than people like Simon Wiesenthal?
Why do yo suppose he and so many others like
him stand in opposition to the origins of the nazi ideas of Aryan
Supremacy?
Oh, speaking of which, Blatvatsky is mentioned
in this article. This, too is interesting. Here is what the authors
have to say
"It is important to observe
that there are also some striking differences between Blavatsky's
doctrine and Hitler's later racial ideas. Blavatsky herself did
not identify the Aryan race with the Germanic peoples. And although
her racial doctrine clearly entailed belief in superior and inferior
races and hence could be easily misused, she placed no emphasis
on the domination of one race over another."
-unquote
Here is the url for the article: http://motlc.wiesenthal.com/resources/books/annual3/chap09.html
Still waiting for you to provide the documentation
for your claim that Pohl spoke in regard to Steiner and his influence
at the Nuremberg Trials.
Sincerely,
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 7:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] For Peter
Hi Paulina, you wrote:
Over at the Simon Wiesenthal Center there
is an interesting article, copyright ©1997, "Hitler's
Racial Ideology: Content and Occult Sources", by Jackson
Spielvogel and David Redles.
A fine article. I cite it in my own work.
The interesting thing is, Peter, this article,
nor any article I can find at the Simon Wiesental site mentions
Steiner in the vein you so constantly promote.
Why is that, do you think?
Because it's an article about Blavatsky and Hitler, not about
Steiner. Steiner wasn't the link between the two, the ariosophists
were.
I mean, who is more interested in getting
to the heart of the matter on Anti-Semitism and what came about
in Nazi Germany than people like Simon Wiesenthal?
Wiesenthal didn't write the article, the journal it appeared
in is named after him.
Oh, speaking of which, Blatvatsky is mentioned
in this article.
Mentioned in?
"It is important to
observe that there are also some striking differences between
Blavatsky's doctrine and Hitler's later racial ideas. Blavatsky
herself did not identify the Aryan race with the Germanic peoples.
And although her racial doctrine clearly entailed belief in superior
and inferior races and hence could be easily misused, she placed
no emphasis on the domination of one race over another."
Quite so. In this sense her position was very
close to Steiner's.
Still waiting for you to provide the documentation
for your claim that Pohl spoke in regard to Steiner and his influence
at the Nuremberg Trials.
That isn't what I claimed. Here
is what I wrote to you about Pohl last week:
"While people like
Ohlendorf and Pohl, who had some admiration for Steiner, did
play major roles in the holocaust, as far as I know their views
on Steiner had nothing to do with their crimes against humanity.
I do not know of any anthroposophists who actively took part
in the genocide of European Jewry. Steiner's own views on Jews
were very different from those of the architects of the holocaust."
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:39 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] For Peter
----- Original Message -----
From: eyecueco
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:55 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] For Peter
Why is that, do you think?
Dear Paulina.
Adolph Hitler spoke about Steiner in an article
March 15 1921 (Volkische Beobachter) in which he claimed Steiner
to be a Simon's' advisor (false). claiming that Anthropos. was
a kind of "jewish soup" able to create harm to the
"good Germans'" brain. What an anthropop this Adolph....
Andrea
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 11:09 pm
Subject: Re: For Peter
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Hi Paulina, you wrote:
Over at the Simon Wiesenthal Center there
is an interesting article, copyright ©1997, "Hitler's
Racial Ideology: Content and Occult Sources", by Jackson
Spielvogel and David Redles.
Hello Peter, you wrote:
A fine article. I cite it in my own work.
That is good to know. Which work is that,
Peter. I do not recall the ref. Could you refresh my memory?
It wasn't the article you wrote on the Green Movement in Germany
was it?
PKL:
The interesting thing is, Peter, this article,
nor any article I can find at the Simon Wiesental site mentions
Steiner in the vein you so constantly promote.
Why is that, do you think?
PS:
Because it's an article about Blavatsky
and Hitler, not about Steiner. Steiner wasn't the link between
the two, the ariosophists were.
Actually that isn't correct, Peter.
In the article under discussion Hitler references
Gobineau and Chamberlain in relation to his racial ideology.
The article makes reference to Wagner, Schopenhauer,
Schonerer, Lueger, Besser, Mosse, Horbiger, Blavatsky, Olcott,
Rosenberg, Rauschning, List, von Liebenfels, Wannieck, Leadbeater,
Baltzli, Hartmann, Besant, the Bruckmanns, von Sebottendorf,Drexler,
Eckart, Hess, but, not Steiner.
PKL:
I mean, who is more interested in getting
to the heart of the matter on Anti-Semitism and what came about
in Nazi Germany than people like Simon Wiesenthal?
PS:
Wiesenthal didn't write the article, the
journal it appeared in is named after him.
Yes, I know that Wiesenthal did not write
the article, Peter. I stated the authors of the article at the
beginning of my post.
My point is that this article is on the Wiesenthal
site and the view of the authors and those at the center who
are actively involved in clarifying the issues surrounding what
happened to the Jews in Europe and why after the Nazis came to
power do not see Steiner in the way you have been misrepresented
him for the past couple of years.
That is my point.
PKL:
Oh, speaking of which, Blatvatsky is mentioned
in this article.
PS:
Mentioned in?
"Mentioned in" the article, Peter,
"Hitler's Racial Ideology: Content and Occult Sources",
by Jackson Spielvogel and David Redles." Then I quoted from
the article:
"It is important to
observe that there are also some striking differences between
Blavatsky's doctrine and Hitler's later racial ideas. Blavatsky
herself did not identify the Aryan race with the Germanic peoples.
And although her racial doctrine clearly entailed belief in superior
and inferior races and hence could be easily misused, she placed
no emphasis on the domination of one race over another."
You responded:
Quite so. In this sense her position was
very close to Steiner's.
Maybe.
The root races in Steiner's worldview begin
prior to physical incarnations and that is where a lot of your
and other's problems come in. If there is no physical incarnation,
there cannot possibly be a problem with race, ie.e., black, white,
red man, etc. At any rate, I am glad to hear you say this. So,
we can now agree that Steiner was not identifying the Aryan race
with the Germanic people when he spoke of Aryan race, correct?
:-)
PKL:
Still waiting for you to provide the documentation
for your claim that Pohl spoke in regard to Steiner and his influence
at the Nuremberg Trials.
PS:
That isn't what I claimed. Here
is what I wrote to you about Pohl last week:
"While people like
Ohlendorf and Pohl, who had some admiration for Steiner, did
play major roles in the holocaust, as far as I know their views
on Steiner had nothing to do with their crimes against humanity.
I do not know of any anthroposophists who actively took part
in the genocide of European Jewry. Steiner's own views on Jews
were very different from those of the architects of the holocaust.
I meant Ohlendorf,
and apologize for my mistake. I had to go back and check our
correspondence. Here is what
we exchanged previously:
PKL:
Where in the files of the Nuremberg Trials
is there one single solitary statement by any of the defendants
or one individual who testified who sited anything having to
do with Steiner?
PS:
Otto Ohlendorf, though he doesn't count
as an anthroposophist in my view.
I'd very much appreciate your ref. for this,
Peter. What exactly did Otto Ohlendorf say having to do with
Steiner and what is your ref for this? I cannot find anything
in the files of the Nurember Trials in 1946, nor Ohlendorf's
affidavit, Document UK-81, or his own trial in 1947. The only
Steiner I find mentioned in the Ohlendorf files is SS-General
Felix Steiner.
Sincerely,
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 11:28 pm
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] For Peter
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
"VALENTINA BRUNETTI" wrote:
----- Original Message -----
From: eyecueco
Sent: Tuesday, March 02, 2004 10:55 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] For Peter
Why is that, do you think?
Dear Paulina.
Adolph Hitler spoke about Steiner in an
article March 15 1921 (Volkische Beobachter) in which he claimed
Steiner to be a Simon's' advisor (false). claiming that Anthropos.
was a kind of "jewish soup" able to create harm to
the "good Germans'" brain. What an anthropop this Adolph....
Dear Andrea,
Hitler also called Steiner a Jew lover.
I'm getting so tired of all this. It is Lent
and look where our focus is.
Yuck.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 10:23 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: For Peter
Hi Paulina, You wrote:
That is good to know. Which work is that, Peter.
I cite the Spielvogel and Redles piece in two of my published
articles about anthroposophy, "The Art of Avoiding History"
and "Anthroposophy and its Defenders". I also cite
it in an article I finished recently about Steiner's views on
Jews, but I haven't submitted that one for publication yet.
It wan't the article you wrote on the Green Movement in Germany
was it?
No, of course not. It has nothing to do with the subject of that
article.
In the article under discussion Hitler
references Gobineau and Chamberlain in relation to his racial
ideology.
You don't say.
The article makes reference to Wagner,
Schopenhauer, Schonerer, Lueger, Besser, Mosse, Horbiger, Blavatsky,
Olcott, Rosenberg, Rauschning, List, von Liebenfels, Wannieck,
Leadbeater, Baltzli, Hartmann, Besant, the Bruckmanns, von Sebottendorf,Drexler,
Eckart, Hess, but, not Steiner.
Indeed. Nor does it mention Heise, Hubbe-Schleiden, Reichstein,
Dinter, Gorsleben, or any number of other interesting folks.
Am I misunderstanding you, or do you find something puzzling
about this?
My point is that this article is on the
Wiesenthal site
That's because it was published in the Simon Wiesenthal Center
Annual in 1986. A fine journal that has since ceased publication,
as far as I know.
the view of the authors and those at the
center who are actively involved in clarifying the issues surrounding
what happened to the Jews in Europe and why after the Nazis came
to power do not see Steiner in the way you have been misrepresented
him for the past couple of years.
That's a non sequitur. The article says nothing at all about
Steiner one way or the other. How would you have the faintest
idea what the authors think about Steiner?
The root races in Steiner's worldview begin
prior to physical incarnations and that is where a lot of your
and other's problems come in.
Why is that a problem?
If there is no physical incarnation, there cannot possibly
be a problem with race, ie.e., black, white, red man, etc.
But the black, white, red etc races emerge from the Lemurian
period onward, according to Steiner, and these are very much
physical incarnations in his view, just as they were for Blavatsky.
So, we can now agree that Steiner was not
identifying the Aryan race with the Germanic people when he spoke
of Aryan race, correct?
Yes, of course. Steiner says that the Aryan root race includes
the ancient Indians, the ancient Persians, the Egyptian-Chaldeans,
the Greeks and Romans, and then the Nordic-Germanic peoples.
I'd very much appreciate your ref. for this, Peter. What exactly
did Otto Ohlendorf say having to do with Steiner and what is
your ref for this?
Ohlendorf wrote an official memo about his relationship to anthroposophy
after his sentencing and before his execution. Uwe Werner quotes
extensively from this memo in his book Anthroposophen in der
Zeit des Nationalsozialismus (see pp. 246-248 in particular).
There Ohlendorf says that during his time with the SS and SD
he tried to oversee and positively influence the treatment of
anthroposophists by his colleagues. Ohlendorf's brother was an
anthroposophist, and Ohlendorf's doctor was an anthroposophist
as well, though Ohlendorf himself was not an anthroposophist
in my view, more of a sympathizer. Werner (chief archivist at
the Goetheanum) summarizes as follows: "In any case in 1937
there were two aspects of anthroposophy that drew Ohlendorf's
attention: on the one hand anthroposophy fulfilled tasks which
he expected from National Socialism as a movement for spiritual
renewal, but which National Socialism had so far not fulfilled;
and on the other hand the representatives of anthroposophy struggled
with perseverance and a willingness to sacrifice. This impressed
Ohlendorf and motivated him to campaign on behalf of the anthroposophists
to the extent possible." (Werner p. 247)
There is similar material about Ohlendorf in non-anthroposophist
sources as well. Here are several examples. Citing a 1947 interrogation
of Ohlendorf, Richard Breitman writes: "Ohlendorf claimed
that he was a casualty of Bormann's intervention [after Hess's
flight to Britain], because he had a reputation as a member of
an anthroposophical society. Heydrich supposedly offered him
a new position as the leader of an Einsatzgruppe." (Breitman,
Architect of Genocide p. 288) David Kitterman reports the same
incident but does not mention the Hess crisis, arguing instead
that Heydrich had tactical and organizational reasons for appointing
Ohlendorf to head one of the Einsatzgruppen. Kitterman writes:
"In this affair Heydrich apparently had the support of Himmler
and Bormann, who mistrusted Ohlendorf because he leaned towards
some of the anthroposophists' ideas." (Kitterman, "Otto
Ohlendorf" in Smelser and Syring, Die SS: Elite unter dem
Totenkopf, p. 385)
To forestall yet another misunderstanding: I do not think that
Ohlendorf's attitude toward anthroposophy tells us anything important
about what Steiner taught about Jews or about race. To get at
that topic, I think we need to look directly at Steiner's own
works and examine them within their historical context.
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 10:33 am
Subject: Re: For Peter
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
Hi Paulina, You wrote:
In the article under discussion Hitler
references Gobineau and Chamberlain in relation to his racial
ideology.
PS:
You don't say.
No, Peter, I did not say, Hitler did.
PKL:
The article makes reference to Wagner,
Schopenhauer, Schonerer, Lueger, Besser, Mosse, Horbiger, Blavatsky,
Olcott, Rosenberg, Rauschning, List, von Liebenfels, Wannieck,
Leadbeater, Baltzli, Hartmann, Besant, the Bruckmanns, von Sebottendorf,Drexler,
Eckart, Hess, but, not Steiner.
PS:
Indeed. Nor does it mention Heise, Hubbe-Schleiden,
Reichstein, Dinter, Gorsleben, or any number of other interesting
folks. Am I misunderstanding you, or do you find something puzzling
about this?
No, Peter, I don't think you are at all misunderstanding
me or my point. This is most exactly the kind of response you
give to deflect from dialog you do not wish to address directly
and why you are considered to be game playing. Actually, this
tendency on your part comes across as rather sociopathic than
dialectic, because you are a very intelligent individual and
understand precisely the point I was making..
PS:
The article says nothing at all about Steiner
one way or the other. How would you have the faintest idea what
the authors think about Steiner?
The same way as when one has a medical check-up
and test results arrive in the form of a card in the mail and
on this card if the he check marks are in the negative column
there is no concern for the area involved, but if the positive
column is checked one called the doctor back for more investigation
of the problem.
Now, if the authors writing the article under
discussion, (which you say is excellent and which you state you
have referenced several time in your own articles), felt that
Steiner had contributed to the issue of anti-Semitism that grew
like a cancer in Germany in the last century they would most
certainly have mentioned it given that the objective of this
article was to name, in the specific, what and who had influenced
Hitler's racist and anti-Semitic thinking.
PKL:
The root races in Steiner's worldview begin
prior to physical incarnations and that is where a lot of your
and other's problems come in.
PS:
Why is that a problem?
I don't know, Peter, WHY IS that such a problem
for you? If your problem with Steiner is that you see him as
racist but when he is talking about the origin of races he is
talking about a non-physical origin evolving from one archetypal
being know in Kaballah as Adam Kadmon how could this possibly
be a problem for you or anyone? It might not be agreeable with
your belief system, but that list of what you do not believe
in is looooooong, so why is Steiner and root race origins such
an obsession for you?
["All of the manifold
forms if men and women presently represented by ethnic groups
and races wee contained in this human archetype."
-Steiner, READING THE PICTURES OF THE APOCALYPSE, page 142"]
PKL:
If there is no physical incarnation, there
cannot possibly be a problem with race, ie.e., black, white,
red man, etc.
PS:
But the black, white, red etc races emerge
from the Lemurian period onward, according to Steiner, and these
are very much physical incarnations in his view, just as they
were for Blavatsky.
Lemuria was not about physical incarnations.
Atlantis was not about physical incarnations in the sense as
we think about now or the bodies we carry into doctors offices
for periodic check-ups.
PKL:
So, we can now agree that Steiner was not
identifying the Aryan race with the Germanic people when he spoke
of Aryan race, correct?
PS:
Yes, of course. Steiner says that the Aryan
root race includes the ancient Indians, the ancient Persians,
the Egyptian-Chaldeans, the Greeks and Romans, and then the Nordic-Germanic
peoples.
Incorrect and misleading.
The correct statement is:
"First, the pre-Vedantic
culture in southern Asia, in India. That was the beginning of
the Aryan cultures; second, the epoch of Zarathustra, including
the culture of ancient Persia; third, the Egyptian culture, the
epoch of Hermes, to which was attached the Chaldean and Semitic
culture."
Steiner was always talking about evolution
of consciousness, not the physical body. Here is where you and
the critics get lost time and again. I believe that there are
most definitely varying degrees of consciousness in the peoples
of the earth now and in the past. For me its a given. I think
anyone has to be a total and complete idiotic moron to think
otherwise.
The aborigine has a very different consciousness
than does the city dweller in Sydney. The city dweller does not
suddenly put down his tools and walk away from his job to go
'Walkabout', but, the aborigine does. Nor can the Australian
city dweller who goes on vacation in the outback enter into a
participating Dreamworld consciousness while on vacation in the
outback either.
The European of the 19th century might well
have traveled to the continent of Africa and been invited to
observe a specific tribal ritual, but this European observer
would not have been able to participate nor experience the "Timeless
Moment" that would have been a reality of the tribal members
involved as their consciousness became one, merged with, not
only all other members of their tribe, but, the memory of their
ancestors.
The 21st century Jew cannot pick up the Bible
and begin to recite the book of generation of Jesus Christ back
to Abraham and enter into the memory of their ancestors, but,
the Jew of Abraham's time could, and did, and this was the most
exact purpose of recitation of the generations, to enter into
a participating consciousness with one's ancestors.
But evolution leads to individual development
of ego and away from group participation. Different stages of
consciousness are carried in different races as the inevitable
process moves us along, like it or not. We can cooperate or hold
back.
PKL:
I'd very much appreciate your ref. for
this, Peter. What exactly did Otto Ohlendorf say having to do
with Steiner and what is your ref for this?
PS:
Ohlendorf wrote an official memo about
his relationship to anthroposophy after his sentencing and before
his execution.
I have read Ohlendorf's addendum to his testimony
and did not find anything listed on anthroposophy.
PS:
Uwe Werner quotes extensively from this
memo in his book Anthroposophen in der Zeit des Nationalsozialismus
(see pp. 246-248 in particular). There Ohlendorf says that during
his time with the SS and SD he tried to oversee and positively
influence the treatment of anthroposophists by his colleagues.
Ohlendorf's brother was an anthroposophist, and Ohlendorf's doctor
was an anthroposophist as well, though Ohlendorf himself was
not an anthroposophist in my view, more of a sympathizer.
First of all, even if all of the above is
verifiable via documentation your view is of no import to anyone;
only opinion on irrelevance. You said Ohlendorf gave evidence
in Nuremberg, and I asked you to provide the reference. You give
me Uwe Werner!!! Did you somehow think because this person speaks
from Dornach I care? Well, I don't. Yes, files are being released
all the time. Still this is irrelevant to the issue that Ohlendorf
gave testimony about Steiner at Nuremberg.
I had said that not one defendant had mentioned
Steiner and you replied that Ohlenforf had.
PS:
Werner (chief archivist at the Goetheanum)
summarizes as follows: "In any case in 1937 there were two
aspects of anthroposophy that drew Ohlendorf's attention: on
the one hand anthroposophy fulfilled tasks which he expected
from National Socialism as a movement for spiritual renewal,
but which National Socialism had so far not fulfilled; and on
the other hand the representatives of anthroposophy struggled
with perseverance and a willingness to sacrifice. This impressed
Ohlendorf and motivated him to campaign on behalf of the anthroposophists
to the extent possible." (Werner p. 247)
We were discussing the Nuremberg Trials, not
the archives at the Goetheanum.
PS:
There is similar material about Ohlendorf
in non-anthroposophist sources as well.
Yes, files are being released all the time.
Still this is irrelevant to the issue that Ohlendorf gave testimony
about Steiner at Nuremberg.
I had said that not one defendant had mentioned
Steiner and you replied that Ohlenforf had.
Here are several examples. Citing a 1947
interrogation of Ohlendorf, Richard Breitman writes: "Ohlendorf
claimed that he was a casualty of Bormann's intervention [after
Hess's flight to Britain], because he had a reputation as a member
of an anthroposophical society. Heydrich supposedly offered him
a new position as the leader of an Einsatzgruppe." (Breitman,
Architect of Genocide p. 288) David Kitterman reports the same
incident but does not mention the Hess crisis, arguing instead
that Heydrich had tactical and organizational reasons for appointing
Ohlendorf to head one of the Einsatzgruppen. Kitterman writes:
"In this affair Heydrich apparently had the support of Himmler
and Bormann, who mistrusted Ohlendorf because he leaned towards
some of the anthroposophists' ideas." (Kitterman, "Otto
Ohlendorf" in Smelser and Syring, Die SS: Elite unter dem
Totenkopf, p. 385)
Yes, files are being released all the time.
Still this is irrelevant to the issue that Ohlendorf gave testimony
about Steiner at Nuremberg.
I had said that not one defendant had mentioned
Steiner and you replied that Ohlenforf had.
Who cares if Ohlendorf's brother was reputed
to be "a member of an anthroposophical society?" This
is about as heavy weight as what you try and sell to the public
about Hess. You are into the guilt by association trips which
offends common sense. What does Timothy McVey's sister's church
affiliation have to do with the Oklahoma City bombing?
PS:
To forestall yet another misunderstanding:
I do not think that Ohlendorf's attitude toward anthroposophy
tells us anything important about what Steiner taught about Jews
or about race. To get at that topic, I think we need to look
directly at Steiner's own works and examine them within their
historical context.
On this we can agree, that Ohlendorf's attitude
toward anthroposophy tells history nothing important about Steiner,
nor Ohlendorf's brother nor tea in China. What stands as relevant
is Ohlendorf's record as Chief of Einsatzgruppe D during the
invasion of the USSR and his responsible for the killing of 90,000
human beings in the span of less than one year!
Additionally, he is known to have altered
documents, even Himmler's letters. This information is public
record in the U.S. National Archives & Records Administration.
As for examination of Steiner's work within
their historical context, please define what you think is significant
in regard to "historical context" if other than your
opinion that he was a racist and anti-Semitic. If that is all
you have to offer then don't waste my time as you seem to be
in a very singular and isolated place on this matter. Perhaps
that is why you showed up on Dan's list a couple of years ago.
Who else would want to listen to this ridiculous nonsense other
than those who are angry with Anthroposophy for their unfortunate
experiences with certain Waldorf situations and need to blame
Steiner for them rather than face up to their own failure to
investigate deeper, or, as in Lisa's case defer her maternal
instincts and parental responsibilities to a teacher who should
never have been in front of children in the first place if the
allegations about this individual are even half truth.
Sincerely,
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 8:43 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: For Peter
Hi Paulina,
I think the following paragraph is a good example of why you
and I have a hard time talking to one another. You wrote:
Now, if the authors writing the article
under discussion, (which you say is excellent and which you state
you have referenced several time in your own articles), felt
that Steiner had contributed to the issue of anti-Semitism that
grew like a cancer in Germany in the last century they would
most certainly have mentioned it given that the objective of
this article was to name, in the specific, what and who had influenced
Hitler's racist and anti-Semitic thinking.
The "most certainly would have mentioned it" claim
is false. If it were true, the authors "most certainly would
have mentioned" Arthur Dinter, for example. You also seem
to conflate antisemitism as such with Adolf Hitler's antisemitism
here. If you thought I was saying that Rudolf Steiner "influenced
Hitler's racist and anti-Semitic thinking", you were mistaken.
I also think that we are at last getting a bit closer to the
heart of the "race" matter. You wrote:
Different stages of consciousness are carried in different
races as the inevitable process moves us along, like it or not.
I think that is a fine summary of Steiner's position. I consider
this position racist. Different stages of consciousness are not,
in fact, carried in different races. Race has nothing to do with
the stage of one's consciousness. On that note, I have to wonder
about one of your specific claims:
The aborigine has a very different consciousness than does
the city dweller in Sydney.
There are no aborigines who dwell in Sydney?
Peter
...................................................................................................................................
From: eyecueco
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 10:14 am
Subject: Re: For Peter
--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com,
Peter Staudenmaier wrote:
There are no aborigines who dwell in Sydney?
Of course there are, and they have been known,
on occasion, put down what they are doing at their job and go
'Walkabout'.
As for different stages of consciousness in
the evolution of consciousness not being present in different
races I don't wonder if you did not manage to somehow bypass
your founation classes in college? Did you take any sociology
classes? Perhaps the answer to your problem in regard to Steiner
is that you are trying to grasp via the esoteric what is more
easily understood in the domain of or anthropolog. Did you ever
see the film, THE GODS MUST BE CRAZY? If so, then you have to
know that the Bushmen in the Kalahari most certainly do function
from a different level of consciousness than the European that
invaded the Bushmen's territory. It takes a certain level of
consciousness to worship an empty coke bottle thrown out of an
airplane, don't you think?
Don't you THINK, Peter?
Go to your bookstore and pick up a book on
Greek mythology and one on the myths of, say, the Ashanti, sit
down and read them together and then tell me that there is not
a different level of consciousness going on.
As for calling my statements racist, an individual
does not survive in inner-city settings for decades by being
of a racist mindset.
I always find it so amusing that the very
people who get involved with all the political correctness nonsense
and mindless concerns about what is and is not racist are the
very people who tend not to have ever had an immersion experience
with another race beyond some casual committee meetings or other
similar, but passing, superficial functions.
I tell you what, Peter, until you can match
my life record and success story with Black American students
and parents and administrators, just keep your sharp opinion
of my racist views in your hip pocket and sit on it often. :-)
Lol!
Can't wait to share this post with my former
7th grade student now age 42, my peer and good friend. He is
a black man (he does not call himself Afro-American, but, Black).
We talk on many occasions about the difference in consciousness
among the various races.
Now his opinion counts!!! :-)
Sincerely,
Paulina
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei
Straume
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 1:44 pm
Subject: Burnam Burnam (was: For Peter)
Paulina wrote:
The aborigine has a very different consciousness
than does the city dweller in Sydney.
[PS:]
There are no aborigines who dwell in Sydney?
Paulina may be talking about the difference
between Rousseau's "noble savage" and so-called "civilized
man" - a difference that Rudolf Steiner said a century ago
was about to disappear. In the near future, he said, there would
be no such difference between peoples.
What seems to be implied by expressions like
"civilized man" and "city dweller" is something
we might also call "secularized man" - the human being
adapted to a secular society. This secular society has an ahrimanic
character; it pays homage to natural science and the social sciences
like psychology, anthropology, sociology and so on, and is completely
neutral, and sometimes even hostile, to religion and other modes
of communion with the heavens. To a secular society, the heavens
are nothing more than what astro-physics have to tell us.
The New Age Movement, including Anthroposophy,
represents a challenge to the eternal preservation of secularism.
This Movement carries a promise to redeem our culture from materialism
and lift it to a re-union with our spiritual origins in the cosmos.
At the same time, the remnants of cultures that once belonged
to Rosseau's "noble savage" are often in a state of
depression and despondency and decadence if they have not succeeded
in renewing themselves through modern impulses. To a certain
extent, such impulses may come from the universities in terms
of better knowledge and understanding of one's past traditions.
New Age impulses are more effective, however, if they indeed
originate from the world of living spirit. And when this happens,
some astounding things can occur. Anthroposophists, or "the
Steiner people", are the "noble savages" of modern
times and of the future.
Of special interest in this regard is the
story of Burnam Burnam, the first Aboriginal member of the Anthroposophical
Society, who passed away five years ago.
Here is Kristina McDonald's article from the
January/February 1988 issue of the newsletter "News from
the Goetheanum":
[Old repost]
Burnam Burnam
Burnam Burnam, well-known
to many Australians as an actor and author, recently became the
first Aboriginal member of the Anthroposophical Society. A descendent
of the Wurundjeri tribe which lived in the area where the city
of Melbourne now stands, Burnam Burnam maintains a nomadic lifestyle
within modern society, embracing many fields of activity.
He was born in 1936 on a piece
of bark under the family eucalyptus tree, the same sacred place
where his father and his father's father were born. His life,
however, has expanded far beyond his humble beginning. He studied
law for three years at the University of Tasmania; travelled
the world comparing the indigenous development of various nations
with the situation of Aboriginal Australians; became a prominent
figure in sport; became the first Aborigine to gain a Bronze
Medallion in Surf Lifesaving; created the first private Community
School for Aborigines; worked as a Parliamentary Liasion Officer
to the Minister for Aboriginal Affairs, investigating peaceful
means of solving the land rights problems for Aborigines; ran
as an Independent candidate in two Senate Elections for New South
Wales; and most recently has become a respected actor in several
movies and documentaries.
He is currently writing a
book, "A Travellers' Guide to Aboriginal Australia"
which will be published in 1988, the Bicentennial Year. Many
celebrations are being planned to comemorate the landing of the
First Fleet in Australia. In contrast to the rising anger from
Aborigines over what the invasion of white society has meant
to the Aboriginal culture, Burnam Burnam chooses to preserve
a more positive way of dealing with people. This gentle approach
he feels is more indicative of the true spirit still living in
full-bloded Aborigines, showing the qualities of quiet nobility,
gentility, and dignity. His book is a contribution to a deeper
appreciation of the land itself for all Australians.
"As white Australians
become more Australianized and see Australia as their homeland,
there is going to be a need for an acute appreciation of the
mythologies which they will inherit through the landscape,"
he said. The book will expose non-Aboriginal people to the mythologies
connected with landmarks sacred to Aborigines all around Australia.
It was this spirit of gentleness,
what he calls "beingness of nature" or "Aboriginality",
which Burnam Burnam saw written on the faces of anthroposophists
he met at the Society's Bi-ennial Summer Conference held at the
turn of the year 1986/87, which made him decide to become a member.
"You Steiner people," he said, "are the Aboriginals
of the Universe."
Burnam Burnam has become a
volunteer consultant on Aboriginal culture to Waldorf Schools
in Australia. this contact has led him to the conviction that
Steiner education is precisely what Aboriginal children need.
Hopefully this cry and challenge can be met by pioneering spirits
within the Waldorf School Movement in Australia.
While at the Bi-ennial Conference
Burnam Burnam also discovered the existence of Eurythmy. After
seeing a video of a eurythmy performance by the Eurythmeum, Stuttgart,
showing Schubert's "Unfinished Symphony" and Mendelssohn's
"Hebridian Overture" he became convinced that this
art must also find its way to the Aborigines. In the past the
white race gave the worst of their society - alcoholism, drugs,
and disease - to the Aboriginal culture. He wants the best. In
exchange, eurythmists can learn much from the archetypal movements
of the traditional corroboree dances of the Aborigines. These
reveal an intimate knowledge of the land, animals and elemental
forces of Australia. If his wish to have eurythmy performed at
sacred Aboriginal sites such as Uluru (known as Ayers Rock) is
fulfilled, the very heart of Australia could be rejuvenated.
the idea alone has already begun to pulse fresh blood into the
arts. Contact has been made with the leading modern Australian
composer, Peter Sculthorpe, over the possibilities of uding his
music for eurythmy.
Because of Burnam Burnam's
deep love for the music of W. A. Mozart which has been a healing
solace to him in times of trial, he was attracted to "Idriart"
which aims to unite people of all races through music and the
arts. He hopes a festival of diverse cultures can be held in
the center of Australia, at a site sacred to Aborigines. He believes
"Culture, in all its various forms, unifies, provided human
beings can respect that unity within the diversity of the races."
His main ambition is to see all peoples come together to highlight
similarities rather than differences.
- Kristina McDonald (Eurythmist), Sydney,
Australia [January/February 1988]
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
[continued
in the thread ""Secularized man"?"]
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 6:36 pm
Subject: Re: For Peter
eyecueco
their tribe, but, the memory of their ancestors.
The 21st century Jew cannot pick up the
Bible and begin to recite the book of generation of Jesus Christ
back to Abraham and enter into the memory of their ancestors,
but, the Jew of Abraham's time could, and did, and this was the
most exact purpose of recitation of the generations, to enter
into a participating consciousness with one's ancestors.
But evolution leads to individual development
of ego and away from group participation. Different stages of
consciousness are carried in different races as the inevitable
process moves us along, like it or not. We can cooperate or hold
back.
As Paulina has indicated to His Royal Denseness:
R.S.
"Strange as it may seem,
in ancient times memory had an entirely different meaning and
power. What is memory today? Reflect on whether you can still
recall the events of your earliest childhood. Probably you can
remember very little, and beyond your childhood you cannot go
at all. You will remember nothing of what lies before your birth.
It was not like this in Atlantean times. Even in the first post-Atlantean
time man could remember what his father, grandfather, and ancestors
had experienced. There was no sense in saying that between birth
and death there was an ego. The ego reached back for centuries
in the memory. The ego reached as far as the blood flowed down,
from the remotest ancestors to the descendants.
At that time the group-ego
was not to be thought of as extended in space over the contemporaries,
but as proceeding upward in the generations. Therefore, the modern
man will never understand what appears as an echo of this in
the tales of the patriarchs: that Adam, Noah, and others grew
to be so old. They counted their ancestors through several generations
upward to their ego.
The modern man no longer can
form any conception of this. In those days there would have been
no sense in giving a single man a name between birth and death.
In the whole series of ancestors the memory continued upwards
for centuries. As far as man could remember through the centuries,
so far was he given his name. Adam was, so to say, the ego that
flowed with the blood through the generations.
Only when we are acquainted
with these actual facts do we know how things really were. Man
felt sheltered in this series of generations. This is what the
Bible means when it says, "I and Father Abraham are one."
When the adherent of the Old Testament said this, only then did
he rightly feel himself as man within the line of ancestry. Among
the first post-Atlanteans, even among the Egyptians, this consciousness
was still present. Men felt the community of the blood, and this
caused something special for the spiritual life."
Bradford comments;
Now this is part of the division between the
fallen capacities of our first Adam, as consciousness formerly
given, as general soul schematic inherited down the line; to
the shift to something totally knew that many heralds, Novalis
one and STeiner certainly another, were announcing. But the New
Adamic Soul, the AnthroSophic Soul is not based on the river
that flows down the stream of heredity, fallen capacities of
genetic dysfunction. The New Soul sheath of Sophia is based on
the new reality that each person having aquired through their
many experiences in the I AM. Now Reincarnating and memory of
the Individual I Am counters the Soul stream formerly anchored
by the blood.
Blood, Race and these root forces have taken
a 180 degree turn. Do we think that the whole shattered wreck
of Society, Wars and failures of humanity are not buckling against
the weight of these new changes? They are so mighty that it shatters
conservative thinking on the rocks of dried up and shrivelled
husks of thoughts. These are what now face Peter as just one
example, but faces everyone and they fear it. It is a prime symptom
of these times after 1879.
Now, when someone says to you that the Karma
Lectures are just some way out, goofy connections Steiner was
making and has nothing to do with AnthroSophia, New Soul capacities,
you slug em. The Core I AM that Steiner landed in the German
Thinking Capacity, now illuminates the vast field of I AM's.
There from the I AM core Steiner could trace the Immortal Secret
back to ancient Saturn and identify and meet the Gods in the
I AM itself. In the New relation to the Soul, as Race drops away,
the rising of our Thinking into the realm of the I AM brings
Memory into a new capacity, removed from the blood.
If you cling to race, "What my Daddy
done, or pursue the Jeff Foxworthy backwater or hide in some
religion or become Tony Soprano, you are going to be eaten by
the festering Soul forces of the old Adam.
My parents are not required to know my individuality,
in fact the current Symptomology of Black Sheepness, the James
Dean syndrome or Jack Kerouac and Dylan syndrome or the Frank
or Tarjei syndrome, is the fact that Parents are being taught
by the children coming, about the New ADAM or AnthroSophic Soul
being that is awakening in the I AM. But Parents are not taught
if children are brainwashed and have thinking drummed out of
them. That thinking is abstract, chemical and unlinked to the
immortal core of the I AM and their deepest talents and intuitions
is a lie of disintegrating genes and generations of blood. Therefore
Education and countless other arenas of life are cutting strongly
against the grain in violent and Fundamentalistic and dogmatic
hidden motives which they do not have the new intelligence to
comprehend. Politics, wealth and implants can't save one or spare
you from the new demands coming from I AM's.
It is a complete Change of inner dispostion
in regards to self as I AM's, and how cause and effect no longer
can be easily blamed on generations behind you, but rather how
you face your Soul and what you can understand and fathom that
makes your I AM unique and yet becoming a New ADam capacity configuration
will bring you directly to the into relation of thinking that
will arise in the heart like AnthroSophic Soul.
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 9:12 pm
Subject: Re: For Peter
holderlin66 wrote:
Now, when someone says to you that the
Karma Lectures are just some way out, goofy connections Steiner
was making and has nothing to do with AnthroSophia, New Soul
capacities, you slug em. The Core I AM that Steiner landed in
the German Thinking Capacity, now illuminates the vast field
of I AM's. There from the I AM core Steiner could trace the Immortal
Secret back to ancient Saturn and identify and meet the Gods
in the I AM itself. In the New relation to the Soul, as Race
drops away, the rising of our Thinking into the realm of the
I AM brings Memory into a new capacity, removed from the blood.
Adding this to the new Meaning of what the
New Faculty of the I AM, going back to Fichte and the 1880's
again, we see the enormous potential that the Germanic Forces
had. But who would understand the inner root and core of this
mystery? Yet here, when tracking the I AM there was no better
tracker or beholder than Steiner.
R.S.
"There is a narrative
that imparts clearly the significance of the Tree of Knowledge
and the Tree of Life. Seth stood at the Gates of Paradise and
begged to be allowed to enter. The Archangel guarding the portal
let him pass. This is a sign for initiation.
Seth, now in Paradise, found
the Tree of Life and the Tree of Knowledge closely intertwined.
The Archangel Michael, who stands in the presence of God, let
him take three seeds from these intertwining trees, which, standing
there as a single tree, pointed prophetically to the future of
mankind. Then the whole of humanity shall have been initiated
and shall have found knowledge. Only the Tree of Life will still
exist and death will be no more. For the time being, however,
only the initiate may take the three seeds from this Tree, the
three seeds that signify the three higher members of man.
When Adam died, Seth placed
these three seeds in Adam's mouth, and from them grew a flaming
bush. From the wood cut from this bush, new shoots and green
leaves continually burst forth. Within the flaming circle of
the bush, however, was written, "I am He Who was, Who is,
Who is to be." This points to the entity that passes through
all incarnations, the force of evolving man repeatedly renewing
himself, who descends from light into darkness and ascends from
darkness into light. "
Bradford comments;
The New Adamic Soul model... the Soul Schema
and model could be understood from Conjuring Helen in Goethe's
Faust. One could witness the old Adamic condition. The New Adamic
could be grasped as the Virgin factor in Shakespeare's last play,
"The Tempest". In the character of Miranda a reflection
and initial meeting of the Sophie Von Kuhn experience of the
AnthroSophic New soul condition can also be experienced. It is
a highly new quality.
In grasping the Tempest, we see how the rigid
Karmic cluster of Naples is shattered and from the Ship of State,
SHIP TO Shipwreck we witness what appears to be the wreck of
the Ship. It is only that the Karma, after a twelve year Jupiter
cycle, is turned inside Out and Prospero can resolve the State's
chaotic Karma, that lies hidden under the surface, and present
the new empire under the new AnthroSophic wedding between Miranda
and Ferdinand as "A Brave New World". This "Brave
New World" collided with the unredeemed and untransformed
old Adamic forces as Steiner surfaced with the plans for a "Brave
New World".
But far more wedded to concrete history and
the readiness of the new model of the AnthroSophic New Adamic,
unfallen Soul garment, is how the I AM in us rises to meet Her
and embraces her slowly, coyly and kisses every aspect of her
wisdom for she is one of Sophia's children, and this means this
is a blueprint for the new Soul condition. The future model of
the Soul will be AnthroSophic.
This means that all new souls who work towards
the I AM will encounter Sophiac laced wisdom or Race based lies.
The Souls who wend their way toward Sophiac based wisdom will
look differently in the future than those who have maintained
and pursued the old Race and blood bound Adamic Fallen Soul model.
In this sentence one of Peter's serious failures to grasp "The
Wandering Jew" Legend, is highlighted. The entire wandering
Jew paradigm is based on refusing to grow towards the new Sophiac
condition or growing into the new paradigms of the I AM.
In this shocking confrontation with the World
Events, the mighty ship of mankind, like the Titanic ran aground.
The future unfallen, I AM, Adam soul model was mightily resisted.
The I AM was understood, the Light through Steiner Shone into
the Darkness and the Darkness comprehended it, but it was horribly
rejected in favor of King of falsehoods. Each step backward,
that we pull away from the Divine, will cause horrific destruction
in culture and our doom will be horrible. Nature herself will
shatter and Mankind will fail.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
