agreement and
disagreement 4
"Group-soulness" of the
ancient Hebrews
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:23 pm
Subject: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews
Daniel:
It occurred to me that the problem with
this specific example is that it refers to the ancient Hebrews.
Since Peter does not have much of an understanding of Anthroposophy,
he wouldn't know that to Steiner everything has it's proper place
and time, and that for the ancient Hebrews, embodying the element
of group-soulness was a very good thing, and high praise of the
Hebrews. In Steiner's world-view, that time was the period (the
pre-Christian era) where group-soul characteristics were proper,
good, and healthy. 2000 to 2600 years later, Steiner considered
a continuation of such a trend unhealthy. But if you don't have
an understanding of Steiner's evolution of consciousness, you
would miss this. A proper researcher, on the other hand, would
take this into consideration.
Daniel – get a clue, get a clue, get
a clue. A "proper researcher" will look at both Steiner's
statement, and the fawning acceptance of it by anthroposophists,
in the context of intense skepticism toward "high praise"
for this or that ethnic group. That throws this person's "evolution
of consciousness" scheme into question right there, because
it is such an obvious way to justify or rationalize ancient prejudices.
"High praise" for the ancient Hebrews' supposedly former,
appropriate state of consciousness, complemented (no surprise)
by the assertion that, today, their mission is over, casts his
entire "evolution of consciousness" scheme into question
– not the other way around, as you would have, where if
critics would only, only understand evolution of consciousness
first, we would then, eureka, stop having a problem with the
idea that "group soulness" can be embodied in a particular
ethnic group.
Wake up and smell the coffee. It is not that
the critics "don't understand" Steiner's "evolution
of consciousness" (it is not exactly a complicated or original
scheme), or haven't read or properly understood the documents
you solemnly instruct us to read and understand. It is that Steiner's
evolution of consciousness looks very shaky the minute you notice
it justifies morally repugnant and intellectually junky ideas
like "group-soulness" as embodied in the Jews. Don't
make no difference, Daniel, if he meant in Biblical times or
the 21st century.
Your bias is showing, your polemic is transparent
and the more so the more you pontificate about "proper research."
Put it this way: ain't gonna come a day you
decide "proper research" shows Steiner to be a racist,
is there? Your "proper research" has a foregone conclusion
as obvious as Idaho.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:33 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "Group-soulness"
of the ancient Hebrews
Diana to Daniel:
Your bias is showing, your polemic is transparent
and the more so the more you pontificate about "proper research."
Blah blah blah...Smoke and mirrors Diana,
that's all you got going on. No matter how much you try to make
Peter look good you can't do it. Don't argue for his limitations,
Peter has a great mind and should or could use it for something
other than tearing things down. To me it shows a lack of having
faith in your own projects that you have to use others to give
you a boost.
Unfortunately you are not one with whom a
rational dialogue on anything pertaining to different cultures
can be had, as you see racism everywhere. Pro or con it doesn't
matter its not to be discussed.
Just found an article from 1997 where your
great vice president blamed Anthroposophy for the murder of a
Denver policeman. For shame.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:40 pm
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews
Dottie:
Unfortunately you are not one with whom
a rational dialogue on anything pertaining to different cultures
can be had, as you see racism everywhere.
Dottie, I certainly do not see racism everywhere.
Around me, I actually see many people working against racism.
Where did you get the idea I see racism everywhere? I see it
in anthroposophy, which is the subject of this list.
Different cultures? It's very enjoyable to
discuss different cultures.
Pro or con it doesn't matter its not to
be discussed.
Again that makes no sense. If you mean "pro
or con" racism, I think just the opposite, that either pro
or con racism is a good thing to discuss.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 7:59 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "Group-soulness"
of the ancient Hebrews
Dottie, I certainly do not see racism everywhere.
Around me, I actually see many people working against racism.
Where did you get the idea I see racism everywhere? I see it
in anthroposophy, which is the subject of this list.
Diana, your discussions with Tarjei where
you stated that it was bad to say even something postive about
the Jews was just mind boggling to read. That whole argument
was just flabergasting to listen in on. In your want to show
'your personal interpretations' of Dr. Steiners work on cultures
you throw common sense out the window.
So what, you think his work is racist. Does
that mean you are correct and the Steiner students wrong. You
don't get the gist of what is being spoken of and you don't seem
to want to either. That's all fine and good but did you ever
think to stop for a second and listen to why the Steiner students
don't decipher it the way you do? Did it ever cross your mind
that maybe you don't get what is really being said that maybe
those who study Dr. Steiner do? I mean did it ever occur to you
it is more than just 'well your a Steiner student of course you
wouldn't see it'? Ever? These are intelligent people on this
list with great minds do you really think the racism would pass
them by. We live in todays world do you really think we have
not grown up with this disgusting social habit?
You have seen how freedom minded most on this
list are have you ever considered that they have their own minds
and wouldn't mind stating it if they saw it. These are the most
accountable people I have ever been in contact with to the point
where they even say they misunderstood even knowing it will bring
ridicule by Peter or whomever. They actually say 'hey sorry about
that'. Did you ever see anything like this on your critics list?
I don't think so. You guys are on message and that is that. At
least the people here are not afraid to confront one another
nor stick up for one who is in direct confrontation with Dr.
Steiners work. If only the critics could be as open minded.
So what makes you think you are right about
Dr. Steiner and racism over the Steiner students?
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "Group-soulness"
of the ancient Hebrews
Dottie to Diana:
Just found an article from 1997 where your
great vice president blamed Anthroposophy for the murder of a
Denver policeman. For shame.
Diana, have you read the article from 1997
pertaining to Dan blaming the parents for having been Anthroposophists?
There son was in the KKK and Dugan blamed the point that the
parents were teachers and so forth and that the kid must have
heard all about it and decided to be a skin head. Crock of peanut
butter is what I say. Now I understand Tarjei's point a few years
back about Dugan and race/religion baiting: his son having to
worry about ignorance like Dugans coming back to haunt young
people in Waldorf schools.
Your group has gotten so far off the path
of what originally was a valid point for some of the parents
there. And it has lost any kind of warm feelings one might have
had towards its cause in the manner it has been used to promote
a Humanist point of view by Dugan and his promotion of Staudenmaier
and his nazi ridiculousness.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:13 pm
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews
Dottie:
Diana, your discussions with Tarjei where
you stated that it was bad to say even something postive about
the Jews was just mind boggling to read.
I'm aware it boggles your mind, but it is
indeed what I think - almost. Maybe you missed that I said it
is bad (well, I don't think I put it quite so simplistically)
to "say something positive" about the Jews as Jews
- to imply that they have either some inherent superiority
or inferiority as a result of being Jewish. When it's
based on that kind of misconception, Dottie, it isn't actually
saying anything positive, after all. There is such a thing as
prejudices that are positive, can't you think of examples yourself?
Like blacks have rhythm or something. People still say this and
think they are complimenting blacks. I heard the crossing guard
at the elementary school down the street from us say it to someone
the other morning. She meant to say a very nice thing about black
people. The statement is racist.
Did it ever cross your mind that maybe
you don't get what is really being said that maybe those who
study Dr. Steiner do?
Dottie, with all due respect for your personal
spiritual searches, with which, as I have told you, I am in great
sympathy and actually very much admire - but I can't go where
you want to go on this one. The fact is, I do think I "get"
what Rudolf Steiner was saying, I don't think there's a thing
wrong with either my reading or comprehension abilities or my
observations of this community's investment in Steiner the great
spiritual master and initiate and speaker of holy truths who
cannot be wrong, and certainly cannot be racist. No, I don't
think I am missing a thing there.
They actually say 'hey sorry about that'.
I guess I missed that. I never seem to miss
the jokes about dumping urine on peoples' heads, unfortunately.
'Night.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 8:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "Group-soulness"
of the ancient Hebrews
Diana:
Like blacks have rhythm or something. People
still say this and think they are complimenting blacks.
Dude, I have black kids that will fight you
for that exact point and an Anisthesiologist as well. You want
to be politically correct and not notice the differences of the
people around you that is fine, keep walking as if you do not
see and feel the various cultures surrounding us. The beauty
of the differences that add to the whole. But just because you
have this narrow world outlook don't expect everyone else to.
Politically correct bullshit is yours to have. You want to keep
it small by all means go ahead but don't blame others that want
to live life with all the colors of the rainbow expressed and
diaologued.
Diana
I heard the crossing guard at the elementary
school down the street from us say it to someone the other morning.
She meant to say a very nice thing about black people. The statement
is racist.
Dottie:
According to your own narrow minded definition
(not saying you have a narrow mind) You might be right and you
might be wrong I can not trust your judgement on this as you
follow a politically correct concept or at least it appears to
me from what you right on this list.
Saying a black person has rhythm is racist
in your mind. It is not in mine. Who is correct you or I? And
remember you are speaking with a cat who basically lives with
the black homeless kids that she is even considered againt her
'own people' by the caucasions and latinos. And no that does
not make me right but before you go and say I am being racist
I think you should just take that into consideration before pulling
a politically correct answer.
Diana:
The fact is, I do think I "get"
what Rudolf Steiner was saying, I don't think there's a thing
wrong with either my reading or comprehension abilities or my
observations of this community's investment in Steiner the great
spiritual master and initiate and speaker of holy truths who
cannot be wrong, and certainly cannot be racist.
Dottie:
No you don't Diana. You don't get it but you
think you do. But then again you have such a large window of
what is racist and what is not that its hard to tell if you misunderstand
Steiner or if you just have very rigid ideas of what racism is.
Diana:
No, I don't think I am missing a thing
there.
Dottie:
Yes you are. I think he can be wrong but I
have not seen it yet. But then again I do not understand all
he has said. And I have heard Daniel say something similar as
well as many other admirers of Dr. Steiner. Most are not of the
opinion that he is infallible as you state. They may find him
highly ethical and of a high moral standard and I would have
to agree. It was Dr. Steiners work that helped me to walk away
from the racism I was raised around in this society. It is his
work that has opened my mind to all different cultures without
having to call them 'cults' or devil worshippers and so forth.
Diana:
I guess I missed that. I never seem to
miss the jokes about dumping urine on peoples' heads, unfortunately.
'Night.
Dottie:
Yeah, not comfortable for me either but boys
will be boys and gross is all I can say. I just skipped the thread
completely after reading a few disgusting remarks pointed towards
you and Peter. But then again reading Peters terrible translations
and interpretations seem just as disgusting if not more including
Dugans race/religion baiting. One silly, one malicious. I'll
take the silly over malicious any day.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Sun Mar 14, 2004 10:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "Group-soulness"
of the ancient Hebrews
Dottie:
Your group has gotten so far off the path
of what originally was a valid point for some of the parents
there. And it has lost any kind of warm feelings one might have
had towards its cause in the manner it has been used to promote
a Humanist point of view by Dugan and his promotion of Staudenmaier
and his nazi ridiculousness.
Oh yeah and Dugan saying that the Nazis let
Waldorf continue because they like the idea that Waldorf was
keeping them down intellectually. Nice huh? How's that for a
VP of the critics? Twisted thats what it is. An expert, puhlease.
I'm on a roll, trying to find something out
about the 1921 article in the New York Times and instead I got
to keep finding slime by Dugan. Lies lies and vicious innuendo:
Lisa's cult list being from the PLANS people and passed on, as
if, as if it is a regular occurrance that Anthroposophy is considered
a cult. Ignorance is what it is.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:08 am
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews
winters_diana wrote:
I guess I missed that. I never seem to
miss the jokes about dumping urine on peoples' heads, unfortunately.
'Night.
Well, there's that.
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:12 am
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews
dottie zold wrote:
But then again reading Peters terrible
translations and interpretations seem just as disgusting if not
more including Dugans race/religion baiting. One silly, one malicious.
I'll take the silly over malicious any day.
Well, there's that.
...................................................................................................................................
From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 7:39 am
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews
dottie zold wrote:
Oh yeah and Dugan saying that the Nazis
let Waldorf continue because they like the idea that Waldorf
was keeping them down intellectually. Nice huh? How's that for
a VP of the critics? Twisted thats what it is. An expert, puhlease.
Then there's this; along with Dan's Heart
is pump advanced science theories and his "Hi my name is
Herb and I'm not medicine" Paracelsus would come after his
honky ass, along with the mountain herbalist, represented as
Felix Balde and anyone else who understand Golden Seal and Echanaea,
let along Native Americans chewing willow as aspirin.
"Bauemler's "Report on the Waldorf
Schools" and "Report on Rudolf Steiner and Philosophy"
are noteworthy attempts to understand the thoughts underlying
anthroposophy: Baeumler's hope was to find means to adopt aspects
of Waldorf pedagogy into National Socialist education. He concluded,
however, that the principles underlying anthroposophy contradict
the aims of the National Socialistic State.
"The fateful distinction", he wrote,
"occurs through the fact that Steiner replaces the theory
of heredity with a different, positive theory. Steiner does not
simply overlook the biological reality, but rather consciously
converts it to its opposite. Anthroposophy is one of the most
consequent antibiological systems." In that race and Volk
are discounted in ahroposophy as the essential determining factor
of individual capacity,..."
Attracting yourself toward hatefilled ideas,
the ideas gradually take you in like quicksand, so that any ole
lie will do. And you ask yourself, "How did I get here?
Is this my wife? Is this my happy life" something David
Byrneish.
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:00 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "Group-soulness"
of the ancient Hebrews
At 05:13 15.03.2004, Diana wrote:
I'm aware it boggles your mind, but it
is indeed what I think - almost. Maybe you missed that I said
it is bad (well, I don't think I put it quite so simplistically)
to "say something positive" about the Jews as Jews
- to imply that they have either some inherent superiority
or inferiority as a result of being Jewish.
I see. Saying that blacks play most excellent
basket ball, or that Indians have the prettiest eyes, makes them
superior and renders the rest of us inferior.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 9:06 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] "Group-soulness"
of the ancient Hebrews
At 04:23 15.03.2004, Diana wrote:
"High praise" for the ancient
Hebrews' supposedly former, appropriate state of consciousness,
complemented (no surprise) by the assertion that, today, their
mission is over, casts his entire "evolution of consciousness"
scheme into question – not the other way around, as you
would have, where if critics would only, only understand evolution
of consciousness first, we would then, eureka, stop having a
problem with the idea that "group soulness" can be
embodied in a particular ethnic group.
Wouldn't you expect the one and only Elohim
Being to ever tread the earth in the flesh, the God of the Spiritual
Sun, to incarnate in the most suitable body humanity could provide?
And wouldn't you expect the higher Powers to participate in the
preparations involved in producing such a body many generations
in advance?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Mar 15, 2004 2:07 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: "Group-soulness"
of the ancient Hebrews
I see. Saying that blacks play most excellent
basket ball, or that Indians have the prettiest eyes, makes them
superior and renders the rest of us inferior.
Racism! You never saw me play basketball.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Mon Mar 22, 2004 6:28 pm
Subject: Re: "Group-soulness" of the ancient Hebrews
Tarjei:
I see. Saying that blacks play most excellent
basket ball, or that Indians have the prettiest eyes, makes them
superior and renders the rest of us inferior.
I don't know why you can't grasp this simple
distinction. There is nothing wrong with saying Indians have
pretty eyes. Physical differences are obvious. It is when you
decide your white skin gives you a special mission that you turn
into a dangerous nutcase.
There ya go.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 2:25 am
Subject: Missions (was: "Group-soulness" of the ancient
Hebrews)
At 03:28 23.03.2004, Diana wrote:
I don't know why you can't grasp this simple
distinction. There is nothing wrong with saying Indians have
pretty eyes.
But it would be something wrong with
saying they're the best astral travellers in the world, and that
this may have something to do with their beautiful eyes?
Physical differences are obvious. It is
when you decide your white skin gives you a special mission that
you turn into a dangerous nutcase.
There we go again, this association thing.
Subtle smear tactic all over again. Shame on you, Diana. Hypothetically
speaking, of course, I could say something about my "white
skin", but why do you assume my skin is white in the first
place? Europeans have had a mission, and they probably still
have a mission. That's what's traditionally meant by "white-skinned"
people: Europeans. But these dangerous nutcases of yours, where
do they come from? Are they your redneck neighbors? Or do you
simply assume that believing in a mission makes you an Al Qaeda
cell of sorts with suicidal and homicidal plans? Are you so freaked
out about missions?
There ya go.
With a big blow?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 5:22 am
Subject: Re: Missions (was: "Group-soulness" of the
ancient Hebrews)
I wrote:
I don't know why you can't grasp this simple
distinction. There is nothing wrong with saying Indians have
pretty eyes.
Tarjei:
But it would be something wrong
with saying they're the best astral travellers in the world,
and that this may have something to do with their beautiful eyes?
I don't know. I really don't know much about
astral travel, so I'm not in a position to evaluate claims that
a particular race or ethnicity is better at it or whether there
is a correlation to eye color. Hm.
Physical differences are obvious. It is
when you decide your white skin gives you a special mission that
you turn into a dangerous nutcase.
There we go again, this association thing.
Subtle smear tactic all over again.
I don't get you, Tarjei. What smear? I am
referring to Rudolf Steiner's doctrines, which you and other
people here defend. Why would I have to "associate"
you with it to "smear" you? You associate yourself
with it, gladly. If you believe in these doctrines then why do
you consider yourself "smeared" if I acknowledge as
well that you believe in them?
I could say something about my "white
skin", but why do you assume my skin is white in the first
place?
Why do you think what I wrote has anything
to do with you? I was referring to Rudolf Steiner's doctrines,
which you defend. He stated that you can understand a great deal
about a person via their skin color, and he spun theories about
the missions of various races. You subscribe to these doctrines
if I'm not mistaken. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood
your position. No need though, since below you write:
Europeans have had a mission, and they
probably still have a mission. That's what's traditionally meant
by "white-skinned" people: Europeans. But these dangerous nutcases of yours, where do they
come from?
All walks of life, it would seem.
Are they your redneck neighbors? Or do
you simply assume that believing in a mission makes you an Al
Qaeda cell of sorts with suicidal and homicidal plans?
Most people on a mission, whether based on
skin color and race or something less misguided, never take their
ideas to the suicidal or homicidal level, but it is a definite
danger of "missions" historically.
Diana
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 23, 2004 10:36 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Missions (was: "Group-soulness"
of the ancient Hebrews)
Diana wrote:
I don't know why you can't grasp this simple
distinction. There is nothing wrong with saying Indians have
pretty eyes.
I (Tarjei) wrote:
But it would be something wrong
with saying they're the best astral travellers in the world,
and that this may have something to do with their beautiful eyes?
Diana:
I don't know. I really don't know much
about astral travel, so I'm not in a position to evaluate claims
that a particular race or ethnicity is better at it or whether
there is a correlation to eye color. Hm
Tarjei:
I suggested astral travel because you said
it was so objectionable to talk about the relationship between
racial and spiritual characteristics. And now you say you're
not in a position to evaluate anything! How can you call something
objectionable or unpalatable when you're not in a position to
evaluate it at all?
Diana:
Physical differences are obvious. It is
when you decide your white skin gives you a special mission that
you turn into a dangerous nutcase.
Tarjei:
There we go again, this association thing.
Subtle smear tactic all over again.
Diana:
I don't get you, Tarjei. What smear? I
am referring to Rudolf Steiner's doctrines, which you and other
people here defend.
Tarjei:
You try to misrepresent and smear Steiner's
teachings through your above remark. Folk soul missions are not
given by complexion or skin color, even though a given people
may happen to have a certain complexion in common. Folk soul
missions are given by the Archangeloi. Each people has a different
Archangel, which is why peoples have different missions. But
you're even blind to your own distortion here, aren't you? You're
suggesting that I am a white person who believes that his white
skin is giving him a mission.
Diana:
Why would I have to "associate"
you with it to "smear" you?
Tarjei:
You'll have to ask yourself that question.
Diana:
You associate yourself with it, gladly.
If you believe in these doctrines then why do you consider yourself
"smeared" if I acknowledge as well that you believe
in them?
Tarjei:
What you call "these doctrines"
don't even remotely resemble anything I believe in. And if you
don't understand the role of Archangeloi in human spiritual evolution,
you know nothing about races or nationalities or peoples' missions.
Every time you refer to these so-called "doctrines,"
you distort everything beyond recognition.
Tarjei:
I could say something about my "white
skin", but why do you assume my skin is white in the first
place?
Diana:
Why do you think what I wrote has anything
to do with you?
Tarjei:
Your post was addressed to me, and you addressed
me in the second person when you wrote:
It is when you decide your
white skin gives you a special mission that you turn into a dangerous
nutcase.
If that is not a white-supremacist-baiting
smear attempt in disguise, you're not even aware of what you're
writing!
Diana:
I was referring to Rudolf Steiner's doctrines,
which you defend.
Tarjei:
Perhaps you intended to refer to RS, but what
you wrote did not reflect any of Steiner's ideas. You're saying
that if I defend Steiner's doctrines, I automatically defend
your nonsense because you thought you were referring to them.
That does not hold water, Diana.
Diana:
He stated that you can understand a great
deal about a person via their skin color,
Tarjei:
Do you have a quote and a reference here?
Diana:
and he spun theories about the missions
of various races.
Tarjei:
I believe the mission of the Hebrews in particular
is a "spun theory" that is shared by most Christians,
and yet you say they are not racists. How come?
Diana:
You subscribe to these doctrines if I'm
not mistaken. Feel free to correct me if I've misunderstood your
position.
Tarjei:
Your misunderstandings, deliberate or subconscious,
are quite apparent.
Diana:
No need though, since below you write:
Europeans have had a mission, and they
probably still have a mission. That's what's traditionally meant
by "white-skinned" people: Europeans.
Tarjei:
I'm subscribing to a "doctrine"
by pointing out that so-called "white people" originate
from the European continent? If that's another spun tale, where
do "white people" originally come from in your opinion?
But these dangerous nutcases of yours,
where do they come from?
Diana:
All walks of life, it would seem.
Tarjei:
That's one hell of an answer, Diana.
Tarjei:
Are they your redneck neighbors? Or do
you simply assume that believing in a mission makes you an Al
Qaeda cell of sorts with suicidal and homicidal plans?
Diana:
Most people on a mission, whether based
on skin color and race or something less misguided, never take
their ideas to the suicidal or homicidal level, but it is a definite
danger of "missions" historically.
Tarjei:
The mission to bring unconditional love to
humanity, or to teach ancient wisdom - is there a definite danger
in those missions too?
You say "most people on a mission".
How thoroughly have you studied the kind of missions Steiner
was talking about, and how do they compare with the missions
you consider dangerous?
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
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
