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

Search this site powered by FreeFind