Morality and Racism

From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 5:48 pm
Subject: Fwd: Morality and Racism

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 7:47 am
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com

Hi Walden, thanks for your contributions on the morality and racism thread. You wrote:

What a wonderful chance for discussion of Steiner's ideas (racism, anti-Semitism - or not) and what do we see? The Staudenmaier Inquisition complete with character attacks and paranoia.

I think there is a logic to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline to endorse this basic error. The recent discussion of my politics is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right in with the notion that critically describing and discussing Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner was as a person.

Peter S.

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 6:56 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism

[PS wrote on the WC:]

It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context,

Are you saying, Peter that none of the people on this list have "come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief sytems?" Are you saying that none of the people on this list, and by extension "all" Anthroposophists have any knowledge or experience by which to examine racism and/ or antisemitism as "belief systems, as world views"? Are you saying that there is something that "we" don't recognize about these "belief systems [these] world views" in regard to their historical contexts? Mind you - you said "historical contexts" NOT "Anthropsophical contexts". Are you saying that we are all too stupid and/ or uneducated to be able to understand racism and antisemitism as "belief systems [and] world views" within their "historical contexts" and therefore are unable to "assess [them] on that basis."?

Because that is exactly what you are saying AND what would make it "much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context," would be if we all were actually too stupid and uneducated to assess racism and antisemitism within their historical contexts. That way, we would all just accept what you say about the issue as truth and say "Amen, brother" and oh, boy, it would certainly be easier for you to talk with all of us, now wouldn't it?

Christine

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:14 pm
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism

Peter Staudenmaier:

I think there is a logic to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline to endorse this basic error. The recent discussion of my politics is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right in with the notion that critically describing and discussing Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner was as a person.

Point one:

It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed on that basis.

Daniel:

This seems incredibly disrespectful of anthroposophists. You are basically accusing us of not understanding what racism and anti-Semitism are, now or in the past. While that might be true in a few cases, it is untenable when applied to all anthroposophists (you just got done praising Sonnenberg, and labled him an anthropsophist). But putting it like this certainly paints a dismal picture of anthroposophists as a group. It is simply not true, and you of all people certainly know this.

Point two:

Once that recognition is in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner was as a person.

Daniel:

I really don't hold much hope that you'll ever be satisfied. Much has been published by anthroposophists attempting to place Steiner and Anthroposophy in the proper historical context. However, since for the most part it doesn't support the version you would like to read, so you simply dismiss it out of hand. Don't you find it odd that the raw source material for most all the information of the behavior of anthroposophists during the Third Reich comes from anthroposophists themselves?

Daniel Hindes

PS: Notice that in order to avoid the charge of selective quotation, and to leave readers free to judge the entire argument based on all of what was said, I have not selectively quoted you or otherwise mischaracterized your statements to make my own argument appear more informed. I would like to suggest this format for future correspondence on this list.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:49 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

HI Daniel, you wrote:

This seems incredibly disrespectful of anthroposophists.

I think perhaps we disagree about what counts as respectful discourse. I know absolutely nothing about calculus, for example. You show me no disrespect whatever if you point out that fact.

You are basically accusing us of not understanding what racism and anti-Semitism are, now or in the past.

I am certainly not accusing you in particular of that, Daniel. You are one of the few members of this list who have shown a serious interest in the topic.

While that might be true in a few cases, it is untenable when applied to all anthroposophists

Indeed it is.

But putting it like this certainly paints a dismal picture of anthroposophists as a group.

I didn't paint a picture of anthroposophists as a group, I painted a picture of those anthroposophists who believe that people cannot discuss racism without impugning one another's moral status.

Much has been published by anthroposophists attempting to place Steiner and Anthroposophy in the proper historical context.

Yes, and most of it is of really low quality as far as the history of antisemitism and racism go.

However, since for the most part it doesn't support the version you would like to read, so you simply dismiss it out of hand.

That's silly. It makes no sense to dismiss something out of hand simply because it doesn't support one's own reading of the material.

Don't you find it odd that the raw source material for most all the information of the behavior of anthroposophists during the Third Reich comes from anthroposophists themselves?

No, not in the least. Hardly anybody else studies anthroposophy's history. Why do you find this odd, if I may ask?

Notice that in order to avoid the charge of selective quotation

Selective quotation is only a bad idea when others do not have access to the original. That is obviously not the case on a public email list. Everybody reading your reply to me has already read the post that you're replying to, and so forth. In these circumstances it makes much more sense to quote the specific portion you'd like to reply to. The rest of us can always go back and check the earlier post for the full argument.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:32 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

I think perhaps we disagree about what counts as respectful discourse. I know absolutely nothing about calculus, for example. You show me no disrespect whatever if you point out that fact.

On again! Come on Peter! Shake it to the left and shake it to the right, shake it all about and do the holey pokey and turn your self around.... Yeah !!! Peter!!! Shake it out baby, you can do it. One, two, three, breaaaaaaaaaattttttttthhhhhhhhhheeeeeeeeee ahhhhhhh

Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 9:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Daniel:

Don't you find it odd that the raw source material for most all the information of the behavior of anthroposophists during the Third Reich comes from anthroposophists themselves?

Peter Staudenmaier:

No, not in the least. Hardly anybody else studies anthroposophy's history. Why do you find this odd, if I may ask?

Daniel:

Well, I would think that if anthroposophists felt that they had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing the primary documents and hope that no one notices. Yet on the contrary, they seem to be taking a "full disclosure" approach and publishing everything they can find in various archives.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 8:20 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism

Hi Christine, thanks for your post. You wrote:

Are you saying, Peter that none of the people on this list have "come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief sytems?

No, I'm saying that some of you have not done so, as far as I can tell.

Are you saying that none of the people on this list, and by extension "all" Anthroposophists have any knowledge or experience by which to examine racism and/ or antisemitism as "belief systems, as world views"?

No, but I do think this is true of many of the anthroposophists I have encountered.

Are you saying that there is something that "we" don't recognize about these "belief systems [these] world views" in regard to their historical contexts?

Yes, several of you are apparently unfamiliar with some of the basic historical context of antisemitic thinking, for example. I think that is getting in the way of an informed discussion of the matter.

Are you saying that we are all too stupid and/ or uneducated to be able to understand racism and antisemitism as "belief systems [and] world views" within their "historical contexts" and therefore are unable to "assess [them] on that basis."?

No, I don't think that stupidity or education level have anything to do with it.

That way, we would all just accept what you say about the issue as truth and say "Amen, brother" and oh, boy, it would certainly be easier for you to talk with all of us, now wouldn't it?

No, that would obviously make it much harder to talk meaningfully about the topic. You shouldn't believe anything anybody says just because they say it. In this case, I have not offered my own private views on the general historical context, I have provided very well established background information in order to frame our more specific discussion of Steiner's doctrines. I've offered you all sorts of book recommendations and article recommendations about the history of antisemitism and the history of racist thought. I think we could have a more fruitful discussion if you would take a moment to look into some of them. What do you say?

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 9:15 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism

In a message dated 3/2/2004 11:20:25 PM Eastern Standard Time, pstauden writes:

Subj: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
Date: 3/2/2004 11:20:25 PM Eastern Standard Time
From: Peter Staudenmaier

Hi Christine, thanks for your post. You wrote:

Are you saying, Peter that none of the people on this list have "come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief sytems?"

No, I'm saying that some of you have not done so, as far as I can tell.

NO Peter - you are bold-faced Lying!! You DID NOT say "some of you"

You said:

Some anthroposophists genuinely believe that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline to endorse this basic error.

But you went on to say:

It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed on that basis.

"EVENTUALLY ANTHROPOSOPHISTS" not "some anthroposophists" "anthroposophists like...(certain people you may be directly speaking with on the subject)" not "a few anthroposophists" or even "a few misguided anthroposophists."

Which is a blanket statement and covers ALL Anthroposophists, not the "some" who "believe...who you are is more important than what you say." Even though this is NOT a basic error!! Politicians and leaders of all kinds say many, many things expressly to mislead and who they are in reality is a very important thing to understand when trying to decipher truth from falsehood in their words.

Your statement above is indubitably arrogant and presumptious and false in its assumptions - the truth of which shine darkly through the thin veil of your subsequent lies.

Christine

Subj: Re: Morality and Racism
Date: 3/2/2004 10:49:06 AM Eastern Standard Time
From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com

Hi Walden, thanks for your contributions on the morality and racism thread. You wrote:

What a wonderful chance for discussion of Steiner's ideas (racism, anti-Semitism - or not) and what do we see? The Staudenmaier Inquisition complete with character attacks and paranoia.

I think there is a logic to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline to endorse this basic error. The recent discussion of my politics is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right in with the notion that critically describing and discussing Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner was as a person.

Peter S.

Are you saying that none of the people on this list, and by extension "all" Anthroposophists have any knowledge or experience by which to examine racism and/ or antisemitism as "belief systems, as world views"?

No, but I do think this is true of many of the anthroposophists I have encountered.

Are you saying that there is something that "we" don't recognize about these "belief systems [these] world views" in regard to their historical contexts?

Yes, several of you are apparently unfamiliar with some of the basic historical context of antisemitic thinking, for example. I think that is getting in the way of an informed discussion of the matter.

Are you saying that we are all too stupid and/ or uneducated to be able to understand racism and antisemitism as "belief systems [and] world views" within their "historical contexts" and therefore are unable to "assess [them] on that basis."?

No, I don't think that stupidity or education level have anything to do with it.

That way, we would all just accept what you say about the issue as truth and say "Amen, brother" and oh, boy, it would certainly be easier for you to talk with all of us, now wouldn't it?

No, that would obviously make it much harder to talk meaningfully about the topic. You shouldn't believe anything anybody says just because they say it. In this case, I have not offered my own private views on the general historical context, I have provided very well established background information in order to frame our more specific discussion of Steiner's doctrines. I've offered you all sorts of book recommendations and article recommendations about the history of antisemitism and the history of racist thought. I think we could have a more fruitful discussion if you would take a moment to look into some of them. What do you say?

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:30 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism

Peter:

I've offered you all sorts of book recommendations and article recommendations about the history of antisemitism and the history of racist thought. I think we could have a more fruitful discussion if you would take a moment to look into some of them. What do you say?

Oooh phase two in action. Yeah Peter! I cant' wait till we get to phase three which should probably be in about two weeks or maybe a week and a half depending on how long you need for a closing argument. :) It must be hard to live a life like this ey Peter. Try a little real conversation something with a little 'life' in it. Come on I know you can do it.

Have you reread anything the Anthroposophists have offered up for you to look further for a better understanding?

Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 10:44 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Peter Staudenmaier:

No, not in the least. Hardly anybody else studies anthroposophy's history. Why do you find this odd, if I may ask?

Ohhh phase 2 again:) Daniel, why do you find this odd, if I may ask?:)))))))))))))))))))))) Whew Peter your getting a little to easy to catch onto these days.

Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 9:00 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism

Hi Christine, you wrote:

NO Peter - you are bold-faced Lying!!

If you mean that, then you and I disagree about what lying means. People who believe what they are saying are not lying, plain and simple.

You DID NOT say "some of you"

I started out by saying "some anthroposophists" and spelled out which ones I meant. My post was about those anthroposophists.

Which is a blanket statement and covers ALL Anthroposophists, not the "some" who "believe...who you are is more important than what you say."

I disagree. My "blanket statement" referred to those anthroposophists who believe that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important than what you say.

Even though this is NOT a basic error!!

It is according to standard catalogues of logical fallacies. A good way to approach public discussion of controversial topics is to ignore who you think your interlocutors are and concentrate on what they say.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 9:05 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi again Daniel, you wrote:

Well, I would think that if anthroposophists felt that they had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing the primary documents and hope that no one notices.

That would be a very foolish strategy, in my view. But I think this is beside the point. My argument is not that anthroposophists are trying to hide primary documents. My argument is that many anthroposophists systematically misunderstand their own movement's history.

Yet on the contrary, they seem to be taking a "full disclosure" approach and publishing everything they can find in various archives.

That is Arfst Wagner's approach. You are aware of how much grief he's taken from other anthroposophists for doing this, aren't you?

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 5:09 am
Subject: Fwd: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism

From: Peter Farrell
Date: Tue Mar 2, 2004 11:00 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism
To: waldorf-critics@topica.com

Christine Natale wrote:

NO Peter - you are bold-faced Lying!! You DID NOT say "some of you"

G'day Christine,

I hope Dan will call you on this as well but I will criticise you for it anyway. It is absolutely pointless fo you to accuse Peter of lying, particularly when you can't prove that he is, and when such an acuusation will get you booted off this list. Nothing you wrote after this claim demonstrates that Peter lied. At best, you might argue that something Peter said was inconsistent with some other thing. That may simply be a matter of Peter being less than perfectly clear, or typographical. The evidence you would need to establish that he was lying is essentially impossible to get from the list. Instead, the only interpretation you can make is the same interpretation he makes about you and others, that is that he is mistaken. This kind of accusation is precisely why I turned down your invitation to take part in AT. It is very instructive to read Peter's posts over there. He never responds to this kind of nonsense except to call it irrelevant. He addresses the arguments and the evidence.

See you, Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Wed Mar 3, 2004 3:55 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism

The whole thing again for reference:

Peter Staudenmaier:

I think there is a logic to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline to endorse this basic error. The recent discussion of my politics is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right in with the notion that critically describing and discussing Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner was as a person.

Christine:

NO Peter - you are bold-faced Lying!!

Peter Staudenmaier:

If you mean that, then you and I disagree about what lying means. People who believe what they are saying are not lying, plain and simple.

Daniel:
Your statement "It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will..." has no qualifier; it applies to all anthroposophists. Arguing that a different statement two sentences earlier has a qualifier, and thus the reader should infer the continual application of the qualifier throughout the text in contradiction to your actual written words, appears disingenuous. Shifting the argument to what does or does not constitute a lie is moving away from the responsibility of either writing what you mean or apologizing for lack of clarity. At best your statement was inadvertently overly broad.

Daniel Hindes

PS: A statement that is not true, even though the author believes it to be true, is still not true. A statement that is not true, and the author knows it is not true, is a lie.

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 3:45 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism

At 18:00 03.03.2004, PS wrote:

A good way to approach public discussion of controversial topics is to ignore who you think your interlocutors are and concentrate on what they say.

"Happiness is a Warm Gun." - John Lennon

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism

At 02:48 03.03.2004, PS wrote:

I think there is a logic to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline to endorse this basic error.

Basic error? Even a serial killer may be capable of uttering a piece of wisdom or an interesting word of advice, but it would be thoughtless to ignore what kind of person stands behind a given quote. Racism and morality are closely linked for the very reason that racism is a disease of the soul, a pathology. And the the most important reason why Rudolf Steiner is not considered a racist among those who have studied his life and work in honesty and in depth - whether they are anthroposophists or not - is that he had no symptoms of such a disease of the soul. On the contrary, he had one of the healthiest souls history has produced.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 7:43 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Fwd: Morality and Racism

One more time:

The whole thing again for reference:

Peter Staudenmaier wrote for the WC list:

I think there is a logic to this approach, one that lines up well with the premise that people cannot discuss topics like racism without impugning one another's moral status. Some anthroposophists genuinely believe that for purposes of public discussion, who you are is more important than what you say, and are quite baffled when others decline to endorse this basic error. The recent discussion of my politics is a perfect example of this view of 'morality'; it fits right in with the notion that critically describing and discussing Steiner's racial doctrines is in and of itself insulting to his moral character. It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will need to come to terms with racism and antisemitism as belief systems, as worldviews, that can be examined within their historical contexts and assessed on that basis. Once that recognition is in place, I think it will become much easier to talk about what Steiner said, and assess these doctrines within their historical context, without thereby creating an unbridgeable gulf between anthroposophist and non-anthroposophist conceptions of who Steiner was as a person.

Christine:

NO Peter - you are bold-faced Lying!!

Peter Staudenmaier:

If you mean that, then you and I disagree about what lying means. People who believe what they are saying are not lying, plain and simple.

Daniel:

Your statement "It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will..." has no qualifier; it applies to all anthroposophists. Arguing that a different statement two sentences earlier has a qualifier, and thus the reader should infer the continual application of the qualifier throughout the text in contradiction to your actual written words, appears disingenuous. Shifting the argument to what does or does not constitute a lie is moving away from the responsibility of either writing what you mean or apologizing for lack of clarity. At best your statement was inadvertently overly broad.

Peter Staudenmaier addressed this in parts.

Quoting Daniel:

Your statement "It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will..." has no qualifier; it applies to all anthroposophists."

Peter Staudenmaier:

Only in the sense that it will indeed take some time for all anthroposophists to recognize this. You don't really disagree with that part, do you? Surely you don't mean that all anthroposophists currently have an adequate grasp of racism and antisemitism as belief systems?

Daniel responds:

Peter, you are wiggling here. It is unseemly. If you can't even understand your own writing, I have to wonder how well you do with a thinker like Steiner. If you want to clarify your original statement, say so. Don't argue that your new meaning somehow lies in the original. It does not, and anyone who can read English can see this. We are not discussing whether I think all anthroposophists currently have an adequate grasp of racism and antisemitism as belief systems (of course I don't), we are discussing how to read a sentence that starts: "It may take some time, but eventually anthroposophists will..."

Quoting Daniel:

Arguing that a different statement two sentences earlier has a qualifier, and thus the reader should infer the continual application of the qualifier throughout the text in contradiction to your actual written words, appears disingenuous.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I disagree. I think that competent readers will note that the entire post was directed toward a specific mindset shared by some anthroposophists. It was quite explicitly not directed toward all anthroposophists as such.

Daniel responds:

The competent reader can read the whole passage at the top of this post and decide for themselves.

Quoting Daniel:

Shifting the argument to what does or does not constitute a lie is moving away from the responsibility of either writing what you mean or apologizing for lack of clarity.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I don't think the lack of clarity lies with my writing in this case. I think I introduced the post in a very clear fashion. But I am always happy to apologize for any misunderstandings. I will try to be even clearer in the future.

Daniel responds:

If you don't feel that the lack of clarity lies with your writing, then by implication we are addled for reading it as we do. This fits the pattern of denigrating the basic intellectual competence of those who disagree with you. In this case the issue is fairly black and white (actually, it is literally in black and white). If you stand to the death on this, then we must assume that you will take a similar stance on other, more substantive issues as well.

Quoting Daniel:

A statement that is not true, even though the author believes it to be true, is still not true. A statement that is not true, and the author knows it is not true, is a lie.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Yes, exactly. That is why it is beside the point to bring "lying" into the discussion, when all you mean is that the statement is untrue.

Daniel adds:

Unless, of course, you intend that the author knew that something was untrue when they said it. This was Christine's stance.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 3:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

At 18:05 03.03.2004, PS wrote:

My argument is that many anthroposophists systematically misunderstand their own movement's history.

And you don't systematically misunderstand the history of this movement?

[old repost: http://www.uncletaz.com/aproots.html ]

The roots and origins of Anthroposophy is to be found in the spiritual world, on the other side of the threshold of ordinary waking consciousness. Written documentation probably does exist, but this is even more inaccessible than books banned by lawsuits and censorship. If it exists, it's behind lock and key among various occult brotherhoods, and in the exclusive Vatican library.

Such unavailable records are, just like the Biblical documents and similar literary works, the results of seership, of claircoyant perceptions. It created quite a stir in such occult circles when Rudolf Steiner decided - having been given a green light by higher powers - to make public a body of knowledge and wisdom that had been concealed from lay people since antiquity. Some of these esoteric fraternities have pursued a so-called left-handed path of initiation, i.e. black magic.

Western occult tradition speaks of a right-handed and a left-handed occultism, which means, strictly speaking, white and black magic. The right-handed path, which it is called, is an extremely difficult and time-consuming approach, requiring enormous patience and endurance. It is based upon the moral purification of body, soul and spirit and the cultivation of total harmlessness and unconditional selfless love toward all living creatures. Because of the very lofty and difficult demands the candidate must make upon himself, it takes many life-times, or incarnations, to develop such spiritual-moral capacities to the point of intitiation, or modern clairvoyance.

All religions and idealistic philosophies that foster and encourage qualities of this kind, contribute to the preparation for a right-handed initiatory development.

According to Rudolf Steiner, such a right-handed occult development, or initiatory path, is entirely dependent upon the Christ-impulse, or the Risen One (the Resurrection Body). For this reason, it is also known as the Christian Initiation. The best tool, or technique, for this development, is Buddha's Eightfold Path, according to Steiner. He claimed that Buddhism was the religion of the future, that would be properly understood by the mainstream culture only in the future. For this reason, it is very interesting to compare Rudolf Steiner's book, 'Knowledge of the Higher Worlds: How is it Achieved?' with Buddha's Eightfold Path. They are strikingly similar, though the latter is not the source of the former. What they have in common is the spiritual source beyond the threshold.

The advanced stages of this Christian initiation involve inner experiences with close ties to the events in the Gospels designated as the Mystery of Golgotha. 'The Crowning of Thorns' for instance, means that the candidate patiently endures the blaspheming and ridicule of everything that he holds most sacred. 'The carrying of the Cross' signifies that the candidate begins to feel his physical body as a cross which he carries around on earth. (This latter is an interesting idea to contemplate when we approach old age and the body becomes heavier to move.)

By 'initiation' is meant the awakening of latent clairvoyance and clairaudience as a result of inner development. There are many different stages of these supernatural conditions. In order to perceive non-material phenomena in such an objective way that research by the scientific method is made possible, an extremely high level of initiation is required.

When Steiner begins his public mission as it is called, exactly a century ago, after having demonstrated the epistemological justification in his books published in the 1880's and 1890's of what he would later communicate as theosophy/anthroposophy, he also becomes the oracle of the Archai (Zeitgeist or time spirit) Michael, who in Old Testament times was the Archangel of the Hebrews, the Jews, and whose future world leadership was prophesized in the Book of Daniel (Daniel 12.1). The difference between an Archangel and an Archai is that the former represents one people, ethnic group, or nation and is the creator of its language, while an Archai rules an era, an epoch, for humanity as a whole. According to anthroposophical spiritual history, the role of Archai for humanity passed from Gabriel to Michael in 1879. One of the most characteristic distinctions to be made between the inspirations of Gabriel and Michael is that Gabriel inspired national romanticism and patriotism, but Michael seeks to emancipate people from such group-consciousness and implement instead universality, internationalism. As a herald of Michael's intentions, Rudolf Steiner promoted the kind of idealistic thinking that transcends Gabriel: Blood, race, tribe, family, ethnicity, and nationality.

There is an important aspect of the law of evolution that needs to be pointed out here. If an ideal properly belonging to a former epoch, or a future one, is revived at the wrong time, i.e. anachronistically, it becomes destructive; it becomes the property of "Opposing Powers" or "dark forces." This means that the rise of nationalism, fascism, and national socialism in the twentieth century was partly due to humanity's failure in making the transition from the age of Gabriel to the age of Michael.

This is why nineteenth century nationalism or patriotism was not destructive in the case of national poets like Henrik Wergeland in Norway and Walt Whitman in America. But what also needs to be kept in mind is that although the Gabriel-Michael transition took place beyond the threshold in 1879, the world did not change before the explosion of 1914; that is when the world went through changes in only four years that was equivalent to centuries of changes before that time.

I will now proceed to two perspectives of mine that are highly controversial - among anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists alike - and that I offer exclusively of my own accord, though it is not yet conclusive:

My first perspective is this: Rudolf Steiner's public mission, which began in 1901, elicited hostile reactions from certain quarters with vested interests in keeping such knowledge secret. If we try to look at this from a higher perspective, from the vantage point of the spiritual hierarchies where we have the progressive hierarchies (Christ, Michael etc,) and the Opposing Powers (especially the ahrimanic powers), Steiner's work in the German-speaking world was so revolutionary - according to my own view - that it caused an unforeseen avalance of reactions. To put it in plain English: I believe the outbreak of both world wars were assaults upon Michael's and Steiner's work. The first world war was facilitated by the Opposing Powers succeeding in dimming the consciousness of the political leaders.

My second perspective reads as follows: Because Anthroposophy was so revolutionary and also capable of empowering the autonomy of each single human being in an "anarchistic" way - or to use a better expression I have coined, in an "anarchosophical" way - it produced two counter-images, two adverse and destructive mirror-images: The first of these was Nazism; the second was Scientology.

[ See also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/24 ]

Both of these systems, Nazism and Scientology, represent the diametrically opposite pole of Anthroposophy. What they have in common with Anthroposophy is the genius of occult and psychological insight related to the deepest recesses and longings in human nature. One important distinction between Nazism and Scientology on the one hand, and Anthroposophy on the other, is that the two former systems both have strong roots in Jesuitism and in Aleister Crowley's left-handed occultism. Scientology was also strongly influenced by Beria, the chief of Stalin's secret police, which may be why Scientology resembles Stalinism more than Nazism.

This is why Nazism and Scientology include the cultivation of blind obedience to authority, another anachronism from the past. Anthroposophy does not, and it never has.

All of the above contributes to an understanding of why ultra-rationalists fail as a matter of course when they try to explain the Nazi era, an unprecedented manifestation of brutality and evil which can only be understood from an occult perspective, and Anthroposophy, which can only be understood from a viewpoint of spiritual history as it has unfolded on the other side of the threshold of ordinary waking consciousness.

From the above perspective, it's also irrelevant to the point in question what kind of confused "cross-overs" may have stood on the stage of history, or how many such confused individuals may be around today.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Thu Mar 4, 2004 8:05 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Daniel wrote:

Well, I would think that if anthroposophists felt that they had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing the primary documents and hope that no one notices.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That would be a very foolish strategy, in my view. But I think this is beside the point. My argument is not that anthroposophists are trying to hide primary documents. My argument is that many anthroposophists systematically misunderstand their own movement's history.

Daniel:

Yet on the contrary, they seem to be taking a "full disclosure" approach and publishing everything they can find in various archives.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That is Arfst Wagner's approach. You are aware of how much grief he's taken from other anthroposophists for doing this, aren't you?

Daniel:

Actually, no. I haven't heard anything of the sort. I checked with a few other people, and no one was aware of any. This is not to say that there might exist some critical statements off the beaten path, but I am not aware of any such public criticism in mainstream Anthropsophical circles. I haven't talked to Wagner personally, so perhaps he recieved private correspondence on the matter, but there is no public record that I have been able to find. Wagner's work is in several larger Anthroposophical libraries, and quite a few big names in Anthroposophy find his work helpful. What makes you say he has "gotten grief" for his work?

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 1:42 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Friday, March 05, 2004 12:58 AM

Andrea Comments

Dear Tarjej. you put a ton of good food on the desk, Some comments of mine about it:

This is why nineteenth century nationalism or patriotism was not destructive in the case of national poets like Henrik Wergeland in Norway and Walt Whitman in America.

A:

The same happened in my own country, Italy, if you think to Giuseppe Mazzini, poet, philosopher, and political activist.

But what also needs to be kept in mind is that although the Gabriel-Michael transition took place beyond the threshold in 1879, the world did not change before the explosion of 1914; that is when the world went through changes in only four years that was equivalent to centuries of changes before that time.

I will now proceed to two perspectives of mine that are highly controversial - among anthroposophists and non-anthroposophists alike - and that I offer exclusively of my own accord, though it is not yet conclusive:

My first perspective is this: Rudolf Steiner's public mission, which began in 1901, elicited hostile reactions from certain quarters with vested interests in keeping such knowledge secret. If we try to look at this from a higher perspective, from the vantage point of the spiritual hierarchies where we have the progressive hierarchies (Christ, Michael etc,) and the Opposing Powers (especially the ahrimanic powers), Steiner's work in the German-speaking world was so revolutionary - according to my own view - that it caused an unforeseen avalance of reactions.

A:
Scaligero told us the following "story". (It fits at 100%)

Curtain
1880.90.

You have to imagine a "board of Directors" of Hindrance's Being looking at the Earth. "Well- one says - everything is in our side .. Every occultism and philosophy is our friend. Science is in our hands, Religion too. But..., who is He ?

They're looking at a young man walking in a Central Europe's town streets. - "Uhu- tells a Lucipheric Being- there's nothing we can do about this guy. Don't you see Who is near Him ?(And they saw the terrible, bright Michael's face towering over Steiner's young face). They sit down, totally in desperation.

A giant laughter , a terrible one , did resound.

The bald headed Ahriman jumped in , growling: "Sure. he is out of our hand , but.... he will have a need of disciples, and now.........""

Curtain.

To put it in plain English: I believe the outbreak of both world wars were assaults upon Michael's and Steiner's work. The first world war was facilitated by the Opposing Powers succeeding in dimming the consciousness of the political leaders.

A:

There is a well known occult background here.

RS tried twice to stop the outbreak of the War by the means of a Sacred Rite held in different European towns in 1913-14 with his inner circle of 12 that he has been nourishing in the Esoteric School. ( We know some of the names of the guys involved).

The aim was just the following. Since the karmic evolution was leading Europe at the war there was a need to be "alive" , all the 12, on the spiritual "area" where is possible to change the physical karmic consequences by the means of an action on the Spiritual roots, It means to have the capacity to link "the chain" with the Highest Spiritual Powers of Universe.

The Rite failed. Why and how ? It has very little sense to discuss of this. At this level of spiritual struggle the "failure" can be someone's ( among 13 people) two seconds lack of concentration after AN HOUR of such an exercise.........

[ See also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/24 ]

Both of these systems, Nazism and Scientology, represent the diametrically opposite pole of Anthroposophy. What they have in common with Anthroposophy is the genius of occult and psychological insight related to the deepest recesses and longings in human nature. One important distinction between Nazism and Scientology on the one hand, and Anthroposophy on the other, is that the two former systems both have strong roots in Jesuitism

Right, Adolph called Himmler "our Loyola" and the whole "archetype" of SS is to be found in Jesuits' agenda, Moreover Himmler coinceved Wewelsburg's Castle like a "German Pagan Vatican". Moreover: think to the role of Pacelli, either as a former "Nuntius" in Germany ( 1935 Concordate with the new nazi state) or as the Pope who closed his eyes in front of Shoah (have a look at Gerstein's autobiography) and we'll got a "full circle".

But there is a further , important feature that can't be dismissed.

Without WESTERN MONEY ( the Brown-Bush-Thyessen and the Schroeder-Warburg connections) and . most of all, without Wall Street's crack, that gave birth to the giant escape of Western investitors from Germany in 1929-32 the Weimar Republic did not have to fall.

The Lodges, again.

(Don't you forget who was Philip Kerr , Lord Lothian, the "little hand" who wrote the infamous "rule 221" of Versaille's Treaty in which the Germans were declared "guilty" for the outbreak of WWI !)

A.

and in Aleister Crowley's left-handed occultism. Scientology was also strongly influenced by Beria, the chief of Stalin's secret police, which may be why Scientology resembles Stalinism more than Nazism.

This is why Nazism and Scientology include the cultivation of blind obedience to authority, another anachronism from the past. Anthroposophy does not, and it never has.

All of the above contributes to an understanding of why ultra-rationalists fail as a matter of course when they try to explain the Nazi era, an unprecedented manifestation of brutality and evil which can only be understood from an occult perspective, and Anthroposophy, which can only be understood from a viewpoint of spiritual history as it has unfolded on the other side of the threshold of ordinary waking consciousness.

From the above perspective, it's also irrelevant to the point in question what kind of confused "cross-overs" may have stood on the stage of history, or how many such confused individuals may be around today.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 11:45 am
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism/Hubbard

Tarjei Straume wrote:

destructive mirror-images: The first of these was Nazism; the second was Scientology.

[ See also http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/24 ]

Both of these systems, Nazism and Scientology, represent the diametrically opposite pole of Anthroposophy. What they have in common with Anthroposophy is the genius of occult and psychological insight related to the deepest recesses and longings in human nature. One important distinction between Nazism and Scientology on the one hand, and Anthroposophy on the other, is that the two former systems both have strong roots in Jesuitism and in Aleister Crowley's left-handed occultism. Scientology was also strongly influenced by Beria, the chief of Stalin's secret police, which may be why Scientology resembles Stalinism more than Nazism.

This is why Nazism and Scientology include the cultivation of blind obedience to authority, another anachronism from the past. Anthroposophy does not, and it never has.

Bradford adds his quarter;

So, L.R. Hubbard.

The first thing we understand is that Hubbard had very red hair. The second thing we understand is that Crowley was one of his heroes. As I briefly looked around at the Hubbard view of the world, I saw Hubbard shaping a path of initiation, in 27 steps with auditiors, who you depended on for getting you clear. These auditors, by skill of forcing and focusing the wandering will, force the inidivual to face themselves even if they want to run screaming from their auditior. Even if they have an incurable disease, it is just a roadblock to getting clear. In fact when you want to run screaming from your auditor is when you are probably getting close to the sought for break through.

Unlike the Free Masons with a 33 degree Initiation range, Hubbard used 0 (zero) of the Fool of the Tarot as the highest of the phases and his Scientology levels or phases ran up through 27 degrees. Auditors range from one to very nearly, the highest auditor, at about Roman numeral XII. These have apparently spider like advanced psychological skills.

If we imagined Knowledge of the Higher Worlds as exercises we might do or not do, depending on our life.. our style, our mood.. As one moves up the ladder of Scientology, Clearing severing the Feeling life from its direct path between thinking and will seems part of the goal.

To become co-dependent on auditors, is to build into the system an echo of old enforced Jesuit like systems. Knowing how distracted and will-less and easily unfocused humanity is, easily brainwashed, Hubbard like Gurdjieff and Crowley brought in the enforcement psycho police as "auditors" who could out game, any game that the will might play. Like EST--------- The Initiates of the false will can force you to obey, obey even your un-self whether it is in your best interest or not. Because you have given them access to the core of your will.

*********** " In the late 1960s, Erhard studied Scientology and L. Ron Hubbard became a significant influence. Scientologists to this day accuse Erhard of having stolen his main ideas for est from Hubbard. We do know that when Erhard set up est he considered making it a church, as Hubbard had done with dianetics and the Church of Scientology. But Erhard decided to incorporate as an educational firm for profit in a broad market.

Erhard and his supporters accuse Scientology of being behind various attempts to discredit Erhard, including hounding by the IRS and accusations of incest by his children. Erhard won a lawsuit against the IRS and the incest accusations may have been based on false memories induced in therapy. Erhard has even claimed that Scientologists have hired hit men to kill him, though the most logical explanation for his continued survival is probably that no one is really trying to kill him.

est is not dianetics

EST bears little resemblance to Dianetics or Scientology, however. est is a hodgepodge of philosophical bits and pieces culled from the carcasses of existential philosophy, motivational psychology, Maxwell Maltz's Psycho-cybernetics, Zen Buddhism, Alan Watts, Freud, Abraham Maslow, L. Ron Hubbard, Hinduism, Dale Carnegie, Norman Vincent Peale, P.T. Barnum, and anything else that Erhard's intuition told him would work in the burgeoning Human Potential market.

What did Erhard promise those who would shell out hundreds or thousands of dollars for his programs? He promised he would "blow their minds" and raise them to a new level of consciousness. In short, he would make them special. He would first tell them that their problem was that they needed to have their consciousness "rewired" and his program would do the rewiring.

Once they got their consciousness on straight, life would be good or at least different. They would be powerful, confident, successful because they would be independent and in control. They would learn to see things in radically different ways. Nothing would change and yet everything would change. (The same promise was made by Watts for the disciples of Zen.) Nothing could stand in their way and deprive them of all those opportunities in life they had heretofore been denied because of bad programming or wiring. Through est they would be set free and born again!

All problems and limitations are in the mind. Just rewire the mind, i.e.,deconstruct personality, exorcise all negativity, quit blaming others, and learn to accept things."

Bradford continues;

To "get clear" to clear the will of inhibitions and debris that could block the insight into the higher Self or as it is termed in Scientology, A THETAN- A Thetan is able to operate freely from the physical body, able to cause effects at a distance by will alone. Hubbard used intention or intentions as a term for will and claimed out of the body, astral experiences. Military applications of "Remote Viewing" have also borrowed and have twisted basic Initiation capacities.

Hubbard like Crowley and Gurdjieff, Stalin, Hitler, Jim Jones, Heavens Gate, Werner Erhard all sought initiation paths. Hubbard, Crowley, Gurdjieff sought the path of initiation through the dark field of the will. Steiner through the I AM that has been recently discussed.

The goddess Diana and Dianetics are very interesting because Hubbard secretly connected himself to the Whore of Babylon. Hubbard had a Red Haired Angel who he often saw that pulled him out of difficult scrapes. Sometimes he would see this Angel on the wings of Planes. Hubbard was not a War hero and he sought psychiatric help from the Military but was denied it.

There is speculation as to what he might have become had he gotten the help he sought. He was free develop his psychosis and it has filled a great need in the ongoing addictive and dysfunctional nature of society. Ancient Jesuit and karmic associations could be redirected in a new age.

People need quick fix systems. They suspect that the Higher Self and Reincarnation exists, as it certainly does. Hubbard affirmed all that in a Wizard of Oz sort of way. America's chief dysfunction is the Wizard of OZ syndrome or dogma served as refried beans. Many Americans have been given bogus understanding of the Spritual Worlds by a group of occultists inspired by Avatar Eastern Lodge lunacy. But a dangerous lunacy.

Severing the feeling from thinking and willing is going back to yin-yang dualism of merely Lucifer and Ahriman. Hubbard, EST, Hitler all sought "the end justifies the means". What could be the final solution? These enhanced religio-military codes are interwoven in all forms of covert intelligence schools today.

Ah, those terms Lucifer and Ahriman, yes this brings us to discernment and smelling the difference between the Freedom of the Heart and entrenched systems of occult slavery.

Anthroposophy sounds exactly like any other entrenched system to the mere outside observer. One has to have developed discernment that is not impressed with Personalities of the Will who flare up and offer quick fix solutions along with magnetic co-dependency.

Anthroposophy as a cult is under the same critics guns as Scientology or EST or any of the various cults that arise. There is no way to develop discernment in souls who lack it, save tragedy and fully conscious confrontation with our doubles. There is no way to prove to someone that Steiner is not Ron Hubbard. Eastern Lodges and Ahrimanic western lodges knew that humanity would lose discernment and become captivated in the hall of esoteric mirrors. This Karmic carry over from the Catholic Priesthood attracted and diverted thousands with unresolved authority issues.

Culture, with its fast food mentality does not promote clarity of thinking. Knowledge of the Higher Worlds is true for the Thetan of Scientology, Crowley, EST, Jung... it is a truth, so do you hire thought police or join churches and become Egregorial victims of Catholicism, Fundamentalism (Islamic or Christian); Do you hide yourself once more in "the chain of command"? Do you hide yourself in new age churches, Jim Jones or Heavens Gate or Scientology and find yourself in a web of dysfunctions and insanity? Hell you can marry a Red Neck and get all the personal training in dysfunction your little heart desires.

Certain Eastern Lodges and Ahrimanic Western ones have made a Mephisto contract with the human soul on Earth to take the human soul captive in its confusion with media, educational lies and a plethora of cultural destiny diversions. These occult groups find the human soul vulnerable and without the Philsophy of Freedom or Spiritual Acitivity to develop clarity of discernment the captive human spirit can be brought blind folded, (spiriutually) to a new location away from Earth and the Christ Event. This effectively continues beyond the threshold of death, where the future vision of humanities becoming and retardation of great impulses, like Kaspar Hauser and Wagner become as current as David Kelly.

By training the chaotic forces of the will, without the triad of thinking, feeling and will intact, certain initiates are gaining Dominating force influence with the dead and the astral world of shells of human souls that are the released astral forms that lay between the moon and the earth.

For black Initiates it is the same as for White Initiates. That which you can do on Earth... but strong spiritual patrols cast out most of the bad guys onto Earth during the 1879 warehouse clearance and War in Heaven. But now these cast off spiritual world, sub-class beings swirl in the soul life and inspire will and impulse wherever they can find unconscious pockets. Ideologies, deceptions, lies, and Political and fundamental dispositions attract these cast off beings. Spiritual Science was given as an antidote for our Earthly life. These cast off beings are now part of psychology and schools of retarding brotherhoods.

By having auditors and outside forces act as your conscience...co-dependency that extends beyond the grave is won again from the dark side. Manipulation of your conscience (most, most distasteful to me) by priest or boss or sugar daddy, chains you to beings that can influence the will not only on earth but also after death. The after death world under occult domination causes all good impulses to become turned to their opposite. The rise of Nazism was a massive assault of beings that had been thrust out of the Spiritual World and entered the unconscious forces of the Germanic Soul life. They could have developed the new I AM culture, but were steered away and beast was set loose and now operates in our human will and impulses.

Now with all bad sides there is a good side to Scientology, fundamentalism and the like; They help you to try to be good and true and disciplined. But in the background of spiritual life, hooks, claws and various vampire forces are growing and feeding off the weakened conscience and weakened level of discernment that modern culture allows to grow. For here, dear reader, the term Legion is very clear. Legion was sent into a herd of pigs, but the very nature of pig blood and human blood have to do with transfusions and the so called orgin of flus and viruses. So many choices, so many poisons in food, drugs, water, super markets... So many ads, so much media... eye candy, eye candy, eye candy and the will becomes limp and disconnected from the Spirit.

The I Am no longer is able to take love, insight, free action and conscience of the indivdual into the daily life, will and intentions without Priest, Masochist, Auditor, Jesuit, miltary ranks... trained to keep your wayward soul in line because you cannot think, eat, choose a mate, job, or go to the church of your choice without dangers to the heart and mind. Lodges and certain brotherhoods know the condition of the West and it knows that it will want some Leader... Christ in the Flesh to bail them out, guide them out of themselves and that will be supplied in due time.

********** "reportedly when young Hubbard went as a teenager to the Library of Congress with his mother, and there discovered a work written by Crowley.

Thereafter, he was fascinated by Crowley's "Magick," and Crowley became a mentor for Hubbard, a relationship that would last until Crowley's death in 1947. In one of his later lectures, Hubbard would refer to Crowley as "mygood friend."

Crowley's most famous work was called The Book of the Law in which he expressed his philosophy of life: "Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law." It is a philosophy Hubbard was to live by throughout his life.

Crowley wrote, in The Book of the Law:

We have nothing with the outcast and the unfit: let them die in their misery. For they feel not. Compassion is the vice of Kings: stamp down the wretched and the weak: this is the law of the strong: this is our law and the joy of the world.

I am of the snake that giveth Knowledge and Delight, and stir the hearts of men with drunkenness. To worship me take wine and strange drugs.... They shall not harm ye at all. It is a lie, this folly against self.... Be strong, Oh man! Lust, enjoy all things of sense and rapture ... the kings of the earth shall be kings forever: the slaves shall serve.

Them that seek to entrap thee, to over throw thee, them attack without pity or quarter, and destroy them utterly.

I am unique and conqueror. I am not of the slaves that perish. Be they damned and dead! Amen.

Pity not the fallen! I never knew them. I am not for them. I console not: I hate the consoled and the consoler! (17)

Perhaps this explains why, in Scientology, sympathy is considered to be a "low-toned" emotion. Scientologists learn in their training not to feel sympathy.

According to Ron (Hubbard) Jr., his father considered himself to be the one "who came after"; that he was Crowley's successor; that he had taken on the mantle of the "Great Beast." He told him that Scientology actually began on December the 1st, 1947. This was the day Aleister Crowley died. (18)

Following in Crowley's footsteps, Hubbard adopted some of the practices of the black magician, including the use of drugs and the use of affirmations."

Bradford continues;

Hubbard believed in a choatic jumble of past life experiences. For Hubbard and Crowley and many, many others, Christ was a hypnotic implant. Hubbard and many, many Eastern influenced Avatar Initiates have contempt for Christianity. Scientology claims that Hubbard's work of over 2,500 recorded lectures, registered trademarks, books is the largest collection of works ever produced by one man.

But you see we know that other men have done amazing deeds that match or surpass this. But what an effort it would be to confuse and compare numbers and volumes and content between a man like Hubbard and man like Steiner. It is all 'cult' comparison by quantity and certain Beings realize that by saying a few Occult or psychological things to certain souls, with will and intent, they can put in the supermarket dozens of look alike Initiates and who is going to be able to tell the difference? Certainly not you.

The real problem is that the occult actually exists and that the Higher Self and out of the body experiences exist and Hubbard and every other Initiate will tell you that. Scientology has its words to describe the experience and other groups have their methods. All of them tell you that Beings, invisible to man exist.

With Hubbard 45 or 75 million years ago in galaxies far away... like Star Wars.. such ideas suit Hubbard well. "Dune" suits souls very well. "Lord of the Rings" is a closer paradigm to the mighty Imaginations behind the Consciousness Soul, and yet it was Wagner himself that rose like a mighty Whale, thar she blows! who brought his Celtic wealth to the altars of the I Am capacity of German Thinking. False paradigms suit every little trendy nerd very well.

Hubbard having been a race car driver in another planetary system 45 million years ago etc...(so he claims) and having multiple beings and facets inside his will is all part of the esoteric game. We all have mulitiple beings inside our wills and that is the nature of half-truth vs Initiate clarity. The only question Clint Eastwood and I would ask, "do you feel lucky today?" You think you can yet discern the activity of Luciferic and Ahrimanic forces in yourself?

In Hubbard's "History of Man" he tells fragments and pieces of truths, like Blavatsky did.. Hubbard says that we are all inhabitied by seven foreign spirits and the leader of which is called the "crew chief". This crew chief commands a whole host of Egregorial entities of which we prefer to live unconscious. Safeguarding the I AM from becong associated with such a concept as "Crew Chief" is why Steiner offered the POF. Now the Higher Self that made and moves freely might be a Thetan, a Cretan, or a Crew Chief. Since there is no traced orgin of the I AM, as in Steiner's profound work linking Christ to ancient Saturn evolution and "Occult Science an Outline", your "crew chief" is either Christ or another being, if it is not your I Am. But see how that begs the question? What for god sake is the history of the I Am? Therefore we arrive at the Christ or we avoid the Christ.

For Hubbard, 75 million years ago, Xenu, the overlord of 76 planets, rounded up most of the people of his empire, some 178 billion per planet and brought them to Earth. Here they were exploded in volcanoes using hydrogen bombs and the spirits of the Thetans collected on electronic ribbons. Disorientated from the massacre, the disembodied thetans were subjected to some 36 dyas of hypnotic implanting and clustered together....

Must we review the comparison with The Titans of Greek mythology and Sauron and his pet Volcanoe? Must we advise you to understand the nine layers of the inner earth and the nine gates in the Aztec mystery in conjuction with Dante? Obviously for otherwise thousands of people head off in twisted directions under the paradigms offered and fed into the I AM, via Hubbard's cosmology.

Hubbard wanted people to call him the Maitrya Buddha which he thought he was.

I found the Personality of Hubbard to be an exciting study in itself. Think, if you look for some answer to this mega labryinth of our science you will go insane; Stephen Gould who has just died of Cancer was an alarming materialistic Darwinist. Education towards----A BEAUTIFUL MIND like John Nash crown the insane; Politics Insane, Religion and each person's little private belief system the same; including our own, my own, yours... as nutty... or as clear as the tale Dr. Steiner unfolds about the Noble foundations of mineral, plant animal and humanity through the planetary developments? If you really can't tell the difference you are bait. Luciferic and Ahrimanic bait.

That dysfunction from either a Red Neck marriage, Baptist, Catholic, Islamic, Scientology, EST, corporate mediocrity, Political democrat or republican... How could you determine the compass for the Resurrected Christ? Could you find your way in this swamp with ten thousand sign posts towards addiction, stupidity, mediocrity, genius, success, financial temptations? Good luck and pity on our children. The beauty of it all, is that from a mere 200 years ago, those incarnating in the west have been overwhelmed by choice and confusion and watering down of everything. It is true that you can Wag the Dawg all the way up to god himself!

It is true that you cannot clear others egregore's until you clear your own. So easily said isn't it. It is also true that if you can't fight, and have lost the compass and the will to keep the egregore's off your back you will probably give into them and a portion of your incarnation will be claimed as not your own will. It is also true that Freedom is a knife edge of discernment and all of this is prepartory school for dealing with the 5th Post-Atlantean epoch.

You want to do Deeds, jump up and make things happen, tired of waiting, hearing true words, false words, lies... The Matrix had two different pills for that problem and I suggest you take one of them, because the long haul with the Christ Being and the Earth is not for you. But without you Earth fails and Christ refuses to take no for answer, 7 X 7 X 7. It is the Grail Path, the Gradual Path, not the quick fix, fast food solution that I would advise. Learn to use your own tools of discernment be Normal, healthy and hold snake and dove in your heart as navigational tools of discernment.

Bradford

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 1:09 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi again Daniel, you wrote:

Well, I would think that if anthroposophists felt that they had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing the primary documents and hope that no one notice.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That would be a very foolish strategy, in my view.

Daniel:

Indeed. Eventually someone would unearth them. But there is no indication that such a strategy was ever contemplated. Anthroposophists are as interested as anyone (and perhaps more so) about the history of their movement during the Nazi era. That is why it is Anthroposophists are the ones unearthing and publishing this information. I must point out that you, for all your interpretation, have not uncovered any new primary source material from any archives on the subject. All you have accomplished so far is to arrange a narrow selection of these documents that you have culled from sources that Anthroposophists have published into such a pattern that it paints the picture that you would like to present. You have made no attempt whatsoever to determine what the majority of Anthroposophists thought about Hitler or Nazism at the time. You have picked through for the few prominent examples that support your case, and made it your job to publicize these as representative of the movement as a whole. This is not indicative of the work of a real historian.

Peter Staudenmaier:

But I think this is beside the point. My argument is not that anthroposophists are trying to hide primary documents. My argument is that many anthroposophists systematically misunderstand their own movement's history.

Daniel:

Well, so we are arguing interpretation then. Good. My fundamental stance is not that the documents you have found don't support the case you make. Rather, my point is that the documents you have found represent a small aspect of Steiner's work and the history of the movement (well under 1%). The other 99.9% tell a vastly different story. The problem is how to integrate the two parts - your small collection of documents and the 88,600 pages of other material - into a consistent whole and examine that. This is what a serious historian would attempt. But you have given no indication of being in the least bit interested in such an undertaking. Instead you have said that it would be "an abdication of responsibility" (to what or whom, I must wonder) for you to attempt to be objective, even for one article. I appreciate your honesty in such a stance, but I don't see how anyone can take your writing seriously given such a stance.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 3:22 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

HI Daniel, you wrote:

This seems incredibly disrespectful of anthroposophists.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I think perhaps we disagree about what counts as respectful discourse. I know absolutely nothing about calculus, for example. You show me no disrespect whatever if you point out that fact.

Daniel responds:

Well, your counterexample nicely sidesteps my original accusation. Of course I would show you no disrespect if I were to accuse you of ignorance of calculus and knew this to be true (As a side note, I must say, mathematics in general and calculus specifically is a wonderful training in clear, logical thinking; among other things, in math the answer is right or wrong, and you can't argue over how to apply an exponent to a variable or whether a negative sign really applies to the entire expression). Your original accusation did not accuse a specific person of ignorance. You accused an entire group of thousands of individuals of ignorance, in a case where you are in a position to know that in at least a few cases the accusation is not true (and I grant you, it may have been inadvertent, and thus not technically a "lie"). This type of generalization is what I termed disrespectful. If I were to accuse all Waldorf Critics of being unable to think logically and consistently, that too would be disrespectful. Among other things, I have no way of knowing whether my accusation really applies to all such critics or just the ones I have come in contact with so far. In making such a gross generalization, I would just be shooting off my mouth.

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 3:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Daniel wrote:

However, since for the most part it doesn't support the version you would like to read, so you simply dismiss it out of hand.

Peter Staudenmaier

That's silly. It makes no sense to dismiss something out of hand simply because it doesn't support one's own reading of the material.

Daniel:

Indeed. Which is why I have to wonder why you seem to do so so frequently in the case of the significant anti-racist and anti-discrimination stances inherent in Anthroposophy.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 3:47 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

All you have accomplished so far is to arrange a narrow selection of these documents that you have culled from sources that Anthroposophists have published into such a pattern that it paints the picture that you would like to present.

I think you are mistaken about the range of sources I use, as well as their provenance. I rely on a broad array of anthroposophical publications, as well as a large number of non-anthroposophical publications.

You have made no attempt whatsoever to determine what the majority of Anthroposophists thought about Hitler or Nazism at the time.

Indeed. What I focus on is what anthroposophical periodicals published at the time, what anthroposophical officials said at the time, and so forth.

You have picked through for the few prominent examples that support your case, and made it your job to publicize these as representative of the movement as a whole.

Aside from the fact that I look at a lot more than just a few examples, whether these examples are representative of the movement as a whole remains an interesting question, in my view. Do you think that this question is not worth exploring?

This is not indicative of the work of a real historian.

If I may say so, I think you have an odd conception of what historians do. Picking through the available evidence and analyzing prominent examples is a big part of the job.

Well, so we are arguing interpretation then.

Yes, that's what we've been doing all along.

My fundamental stance is not that the documents you have found don't support the case you make. Rather, my point is that the documents you have found represent a small aspect of Steiner's work and the history of the movement (well under 1%). The other 99.9% tell a vastly different story.

Vastly different in what sense? If you mean vastly different in the sense that much of Steiner's work is irrelevant to the topics I examine, then I largely agree. If you mean that the preponderance of his work on race, for example, is anti-racist, then I disagree. If you're talking about his teachings on Jews and Jewishness, I think it's pretty much split down the middle, as I've explained before.

The problem is how to integrate the two parts - your small collection of documents and the 88,600 pages of other material - into a consistent whole and examine that.

I don't think that would be a sensible way to approach the matter. If you want to study Annie Besant's atheist writings, for example, you'd do well to set aside her Theosophical writings.

But you have given no indication of being in the least bit interested in such an undertaking.

It is certainly true that I am not interested in trying to force everything Steiner wrote into some "consistent whole". That would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of historical reconstruction.

Instead you have said that it would be "an abdication of responsibility" (to what or whom, I must wonder) for you to attempt to be objective, even for one article.

There is nothing objective about pretending that Steiner's entire work forms a consistent whole, if that's what you're getting at. But I think you and I simply disagree about what sort of objectivity is appropriate in any case. Suspending critical judgement is very much the wrong kind of objectivity.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 4:35 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

In a message dated 3/5/2004 6:58:36 PM Eastern Standard Time, pstauden writes:

(Daniel)

My fundamental stance is not that the documents you have found don't support the case you make. Rather, my point is that the documents you have found represent a small aspect of Steiner's work and the history of the movement (well under 1%). The other 99.9% tell a vastly different story.

(Christine)

Actually, the way Daniel phrases the first sentence above, it could be taken as if Peter Staudenmeir had found whole documents by Steiner advocating or supporting a racist viewpoint. What Staudenmeier has brought forth so far are four short passages within much longer treatises, all of which (the full treatises) conclude with definite anti-racist conclusions. They are four passages within a body of work that is estimated to be 350 VOLUMES in size. Therefore the four passages brought forward by Peter are actually far less than 1% of the body of Rudolf Steiner's work.

(Peter Staudenmeier)

Vastly different in what sense? If you mean vastly different in the sense that much of Steiner's work is irrelevant to the topics I examine, then I largely agree.

(Christine)

NO Peter, Daniel means quite clearly a "vast difference" between the 1% (or less) of Steiner's words that you choose to interpret as racist and the 99% of the rest of Rudolf Steiner's own words. NOT different to the "other" topics that "you examine."

(Peter Staudenmeier)

If you mean that the preponderance of his work on race, for example, is anti-racist, then I disagree.

(Christine)

You disagree that the "preponderance" of Dr. Steiner's "work on race" is anti racist. This would mean the body of work that does not include the four passages you have cited previously to support your thesis. Therefore, there would have to be more passages besides those four that you can directly quote to support your statement that "the preponderance of his work on race" IS racist. Produce those additional passages.

(Peter Staudenmeier)

If you're talking about his teachings on Jews and Jewishness, I think it's pretty much split down the middle, as I've explained before.

(Christine)

Since you have already established for us that Rudolf Steiner was a pro-semitic assimilationist, where are the passages that equally support the theory that he was an anti-semitic assimilationist. There will have to be an equal amount or an equality of serious meaning in the additional passages that you choose in order to establish that "(Steiner's) teaching on Jews and Jewishness (is) pretty much split down the middle..."

Answer directly and not tangentally, please.

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 6:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

All you have accomplished so far is to arrange a narrow selection of these documents that you have culled from sources that Anthroposophists have published into such a pattern that it paints the picture that you would like to present.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I think you are mistaken about the range of sources I use, as well as their provenance. I rely on a broad array of anthroposophical publications, as well as a large number of non-anthroposophical publications.

Daniel:

Your first statement is a classic "wiggle" move of argumentation. You are countering a different point than the one I made. I said nothing derogatory about the range of sources you use or their provenance. I questioned the usefulness of the entire collection.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 6:29 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Daniel wrote:

You have made no attempt whatsoever to determine what the majority of Anthroposophists thought about Hitler or Nazism at the time.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Indeed. What I focus on is what anthroposophical periodicals published at the time, what anthroposophical officials said at the time, and so forth.

Daniel:

And this is what sets you apart from serious historians. Further, the mere fact that you focus on what anthroposophical periodicals published at the time and what anthroposophical officials said at the time, etc. does not tell the whole story, for you only focus on those aspects of these sources that support your contention, and not what all these sourcs say on the balance. You are stuck in polemic if all you do is look for the parts you like and ignore the whole.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 6:38 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Daniel wrote:

You have picked through for the few prominent examples that support your case, and made it your job to publicize these as representative of the movement as a whole.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Aside from the fact that I look at a lot more than just a few examples, whether these examples are representative of the movement as a whole remains an interesting question, in my view. Do you think that this question is not worth exploring?

Daniel:

I think the question is worth exploring. I am exploring it myself. The mere fact that you look at a lot of examples belies the fact that you systematically ignore the ones that don't support your case (again evidence of polemical writing and not history).

Daniel wrote:

This is not indicative of the work of a real historian.

Peter Staudenmaier:

If I may say so, I think you have an odd conception of what historians do. Picking through the available evidence and analyzing prominent examples is a big part of the job.

Daniel:

While picking through the available evidence and analyzing prominent examples is a big part of the job of a historian, the job does not end there. A historian has the responsibility for attempting to the best of their ability to fairly present the entire case, and not just the part that fits their pet theory. Subsequent scholars generally have a dim view of so-called historians with obvious biases.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 6:53 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Daniel wrote:

My fundamental stance is not that the documents you have found don't support the case you make. Rather, my point is that the documents you have found represent a small aspect of Steiner's work and the history of the movement (well under 1%). The other 99.9% tell a vastly different story.

Peter Staudenmaier:

Vastly different in what sense? If you mean vastly different in the sense that much of Steiner's work is irrelevant to the topics I examine, then I largely agree. If you mean that the preponderance of his work on race, for example, is anti-racist, then I disagree. If you're talking about his teachings on Jews and Jewishness, I think it's pretty much split down the middle, as I've explained before.

Daniel:

It is precicely in the fact that you fail to see how the rest of Steiner's work relates to his views on race that I consider your greatest weakness.

Daniel wrote:

The problem is how to integrate the two parts - your small collection of documents and the 88,600 pages of other material - into a consistent whole and examine that.

Peter Staudenmaier:

I don't think that would be a sensible way to approach the matter. If you want to study Annie Besant's atheist writings, for example, you'd do well to set aside her Theosophical writings.

Daniel:

If you did that, you would have an incomplete view of Besant. You could not claim to understand Besant, only her athiest writings. The same applies to Steiner. If you want to be an expert on those quotes that make Steiner appear racist, so be it. If you want to be an expert on Steiner, you'll have to do a little more work than that. I can understand you hesitency to attempt an full understanding of Steiner - it is a lot of work, after all - but I don't feel that you can get around the basic problem that if you don't understand Steiner's main points, you simply don't possess the historical context in which to evaluate the rest of the quotes.

Daniel wrote:

But you have given no indication of being in the least bit interested in such an undertaking.

Peter Staudenmaier:

It is certainly true that I am not interested in trying to force everything Steiner wrote into some "consistent whole". That would be a fundamental misunderstanding of the nature of historical reconstruction.

Daniel:

On the contrary, it is a prerequisite for historical reconstruction. I have precious little hope of understanding Stalingrad if I don't know how the Germans got there or why they refused to leave. At best I can describe the who, what, where and when, but I have no chance of properly explaining the why unless I possess a fairly comprehensive understanding of the psychology a certain short Austrian 1500 miles away. You are fine with your Steiner quotes as long as you stay with the who, what, where and when, but as soon as you attempt the why you are lost unless you have at least some understanding of how Steiner thought.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Fri Mar 5, 2004 7:07 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Daniel wrote:

Instead you have said that it would be "an abdication of responsibility" (to what or whom, I must wonder) for you to attempt to be objective, even for one article.

Peter Staudenmaier:

There is nothing objective about pretending that Steiner's entire work forms a consistent whole, if that's what you're getting at. But I think you and I simply disagree about what sort of objectivity is appropriate in any case. Suspending critical judgement is very much the wrong kind of objectivity.

Daniel:

Granted:

Suspending critical judgement is not desireable.

We are back to philosophical subjectivism versus philosophical idealism. It is only out of a relativist subjectivism that you can claim that Steiner's work does not form a consistent whole. And only if it does not form a consistent whole can you claim that it is pointless to attempt to understand it. If, however, you stand on relativist subjectivism, the ground under your feet is shaky indeed.

Steiner's work either forms a consistent whole, or it does not. If it does form a consistent whole then it is possible to be objective about it. If it does not, then it is not possible to be objective about that, or anyting else, for that matter.

A whole may contain contradictory or appearently contradictory aspects. Identifying appearent contradictions is easy. Reconciling appearent contradictions requires considering both sides. No one has objectivity who has not considered both sides.

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 8:55 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Daniel wrote

All you have accomplished so far is to arrange a narrow selection of these documents that you have culled from sources that Anthroposophists have published into such a pattern that it paints the picture that you would like to present.

Peter S wrote:

I think you are mistaken about the range of sources I use, as well as their provenance. I rely on a broad array of anthroposophical publications, as well as a large number of non-anthroposophical publications.

If that is the case, how come you never quote any of Steiner's innumerable warnings against racism and nationalism vis-à-vis your selection of racist remarks?

Tarjei

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 11:17 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Christine, you wrote:

What Staudenmeier has brought forth so far are four short passages within much longer treatises, all of which (the full treatises) conclude with definite anti-racist conclusions.

Could you clarify which four passages you have in mind? What are the anti-racist conclusions that Steiner reaches in these treatises?

NO Peter, Daniel means quite clearly a "vast difference" between the 1% (or less) of Steiner's words that you choose to interpret as racist and the 99% of the rest of Rudolf Steiner's own words. NOT different to the "other" topics that "you examine."

But it isn't true that 99% of Steiner's published works are about race. What are you trying to say?

You disagree that the "preponderance" of Dr. Steiner's "work on race" is anti racist.

Yes.

Therefore, there would have to be more passages besides those four that you can directly quote to support your statement that "the preponderance of his work on race" IS racist.

Yes, of course. There are dozens of them.

Produce those additional passages.

I've 'produced' quite a few of them already, and pointed them out to you before. I once again recommend you visit the openwaldorf site, where I 'produced' many such passages. You'll find it here:

http://pub21.ezboard.com/fopenwaldorffrm7.showMessageRange?topicID=10.topic&start=1&stop=20


Since you have already established for us that Rudolf Steiner was a pro-semitic assimilationist, where are the passages that equally support the theory that he was an anti-semitic assimilationist. There will have to be an equal amount or an equality of serious meaning in the additional passages that you choose in order to establish that "(Steiner's) teaching on Jews and Jewishness (is) pretty much split down the middle..."

That's exactly what I did in my first post to this list. You can find that post here:

http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/2117

Are you trying to say that you missed all that, or that you forgot it, or simply that you disagree with my reading of Steiner?

Peter

Continued in another thread

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 11:31 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Tarjei, you asked:

If that is the case, how come you never quote any of Steiner's innumerable warnings against racism and nationalism vis-à-vis your selection of racist remarks?

I do quote these kinds of remarks, on this list, on the waldorf critics list, on the waldorf-diskurs list, and at openwaldorf. I disagree that such remarks are innumerable, and I disagree that they neutralize Steiner's racist and nationalist remarks.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 11:38 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Christine wrote:

You disagree that the "preponderance" of Dr. Steiner's "work on race" is anti racist.

Peter S wrote:

Yes.

From what I've seen, this notion is based upon the eccentric and fallacious argument that racial evolution itself is a racist idea, and that everything Steiner says about evolution and spirituality is thoroughly racist. With this in mind, these people add a lot of text to their collection of alleged racist remarks by Steiner that contains no racism whatsoever. In addition to this, I have seen WC people "prove" through endless tirades and tireless repetitions that anti-racist remarks are racist when coming from Steiner or one of his admirerers.

By the same token, we could prove that their alleged anti-racism is racist to the core. Intellectual game-playing is just another word for it.

Tarjei

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Mar 6, 2004 11:42 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

I wrote:

If that is the case, how come you never quote any of Steiner's innumerable warnings against racism and nationalism vis-à-vis your selection of racist remarks?

Peter S wrote:

I do quote these kinds of remarks, on this list, on the waldorf critics list, on the waldorf-diskurs list, and at openwaldorf. I disagree that such remarks are innumerable, and I disagree that they neutralize Steiner's racist and nationalist remarks.

So you think Steiner's racist remarks neutralize his anti-racist remarks but not the other way around?

Tarjei

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 9:02 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

From what I've seen, this notion is based upon the eccentric and fallacious argument that racial evolution itself is a racist idea, and that everything Steiner says about evolution and spirituality is thoroughly racist.

I don't think this is game-playing, I think it's good question. If you think of "racial evolution" as a process of spiritual advancement via successive incarnations in ever higher racial forms, then yes, that conception is indeed racist, in my view. There are no such things as higher and lower racial forms. The contrary position can accurately be described as a racist belief.

So you think Steiner's racist remarks neutralize his anti-racistremarks but not the other way around?

No, Steiner's racist remarks do not neutralize his anti-racist remarks. I do think that in an important sense his racist remarks overshadow his anti-racist remarks, however. That's something we could productively debate, though it sounds like we have very different notions about what makes a belief racist in the first place.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 9:35 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Peter, I wrote:

From what I've seen, this notion is based upon the eccentric and fallacious argument that racial evolution itself is a racist idea, and that everything Steiner says about evolution and spirituality is thoroughly racist.

and you, Peter, responded:

I don't think this is game-playing, I think it's good question. If you think of "racial evolution" as a process of spiritual advancement via successive incarnations in ever higher racial forms, then yes, that conception is indeed racist, in my view. There are no such things as higher and lower racial forms. The contrary position can accurately be described as a racist belief.

Tarjei:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by saying you have misunderstood the theosophical-anthroposophical concept of spiritual evolution. Humanity is evolving through successively higher stages of consciousness, not races. By saying I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt here, I mean that I suspect you may have distorted this deliberately.

Tarjei:

So you think Steiner's racist remarks neutralize his anti-racistremarks but not the other way around?

Peter S:

No, Steiner's racist remarks do not neutralize his anti-racist remarks. I do think that in an important sense his racist remarks overshadow his anti-racist remarks, however.

Tarjei:

Let me try to get this right, based upon messages of yours I have seen previously on the WC list and elsewhere: When anthroposophists think that Steiner's anti-racist remarks overshadow his racist remarks by a long shot, they are in denial of "their doctrine", suffer from deficient self-perception, and are so unaware of their own racism that some of them have deluded themselves into falsely believing that they are anti-racists?

Peter S:

That's something we could productively debate, though it sounds like we have very different notions about what makes a belief racist in the first place.

Tarjei:

Obviously. From what I can see, it's quite possible to argue that God is a racist because he created human races, and that the mere acknowledgement of the existence of human races is racist.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 10:07 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

I wrote:

Humanity is evolving through successively higher stages of consciousness, not races.

On second thought, I can see how races and stages of consciousness can be honestly confused by some people if a materialistic approach to the mystery of man is the point of departure. In that case, consciousness is the result of chemical process in the brain, which is a result of genes or heredity only, and one's outlook and thought process and life of feeling and understanding of the spiritual - excuse me, I mean one's illusions about the spiritual of course - all becomes entirely dependent upon the external physical form and its characteristics, which are related to race.

Rudolf Steiner, however, means many different things when using the word "race" because of the poverty of human language (whether it's German or English or something else) to express the spiritual, the thoughts of divine beings, the intentions of the gods. In the distant future, for instance, there will be two "races": One good race, following Christ and redeeming Lucifer, and one evil race, following Ahriman and Sorat and the Beast and the Asuras and so on. In this case, the external human form will adapt to what is living in the soul and spirit of each individual and will not be dependent upon heredity. The evolution of human consciousness began long before physical incarnations came into the picture and will continue long after these incarnations have ceased. When so-called "critics" use the word "race" in the strictly materialistic sense in order to establish Anthroposophy as a racist ideology, they use the word in the sense that in Steiner's view should have ceased to exist after Atlantis. Present-day so-called human races are only remnants of a distant past and should play no role in human evolution any more.

Any claim contradicting the above is based upon a blatant refusal to accept the truth about anthroposophical "doctrine". One honest reason for this may be that some people are incapable of grasping spiritual concepts, except as wild fantasies and illusions. And from this perspective, wild fantasies and illusions become dangerous, scary, spooky, threatening and whacky when they are believed to reflect something true and real. The real reason for these racist allegations, which the "critics" refuse to admit openly, is that they are afraid that the culture of the future will be dominated by an understanding of the spirit that is akin to Anthroposophy, if it is not Anthroposophy itself. They are so afraid of it that they feel the need to cheat in every way possible when endeavoring to debunk it.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 10:10 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Tarjei, thanks for your comments:

I'll give you the benefit of the doubt by saying you have misunderstood the theosophical-anthroposophical concept of spiritual evolution. Humanity is evolving through successively higher stages of consciousness, not races.

By my reading, Steiner says both: he sees these stages of consciousneess embodied in particular races.

Let me try to get this right, based upon messages of yours I have seen previously on the WC list and elsewhere: When anthroposophists think that Steiner's anti-racist remarks overshadow his racist remarks by a long shot, they are in denial of "their doctrine", suffer from deficient self-perception, and are so unaware of their own racism that some of them have deluded themselves into falsely believing that they are anti-racists?

No, I do not think that anthroposophists are unaware of their own racism, I think that many of them are unaware of much of what Steiner actually wrote and said about race. That isn't too surprising for English-speaking anthroposophists, since much of Steiner's worst stuff on race isn't available in English. But once we get all of his racial doctrines on the table, we still need to talk about whether some of them qualify as racist, and if so, why.

From what I can see, it's quite possible to argue that God is a racist because he created human races, and that the mere acknowledgement of the existence of human races is racist.

No, there is nothing necessarily racist about merely acknowkledging the existence of races. But god would indeed be a racist if he created human races and ranked them in order of higher and lower and attached particular spiritual traits to each of them and designated some of them as decadent and others as progressing and so forth.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 12:58 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hello Peter,

I wrote;

Humanity is evolving through successively higher stages of consciousness, not races.

You wrote:

By my reading, Steiner says both: he sees these stages of consciousneess embodied in particular races.

Tarjei:

Embodied is another word for incarnated. As long as we are incarnated in physical bodies, we are also more or less connected to races.

Tarjei:

When anthroposophists think that Steiner's anti-racist remarks overshadow his racist remarks by a long shot, they are in denial of "their doctrine", suffer from deficient self-perception, and are so unaware of their own racism that some of them have deluded themselves into falsely believing that they are anti-racists?

Peter S:

No, I do not think that anthroposophists are unaware of their own racism,

Tarjei:

So there is a racism in anthroposophists for them to be aware of? And they are not unaware of their own racism? In other words, the anthro-oriented subscribers to this list, including Yours Truly, are racists and know it, but they/we are trying to deceive others into believing that they/we are not?

Peter S:

I think that many of them are unaware of much of what Steiner actually wrote and said about race.

Tarjei:

And if we were aware of that, we would be even more racist than we already are?

Peter S:

That isn't too surprising for English-speaking anthroposophists, since much of Steiner's worst stuff on race isn't available in English. But once we get all of his racial doctrines on the table, we still need to talk about whether some of them qualify as racist, and if so, why.

Tarjei:

This statement seems to contradict the former. First, you imply that anthroposophists are racists (and aware of it) after having read Steiner's "racist doctrines" available in English. But these racists anthroposophists haven't read "Steiner's worst stuff on race", which you then imply is not necessarily racist at all. If it were, one shouldn't need to talk about whether or not some of it qualifies as racist, and if so, why.

Tarjei:

From what I can see, it's quite possible to argue that God is a racist because he created human races, and that the mere acknowledgement of the existence of human races is racist.

Peter S:

No, there is nothing necessarily racist about merely acknowkledging the existence of races. But god would indeed be a racist if he created human races and ranked them in order of higher and lower and attached particular spiritual traits to each of them and designated some of them as decadent and others as progressing and so forth.

Tarjei:

During the course of evolution, humanity has lived in various groups and civilizations and races, and at certain times, some group has begun to evolve a mode of consciousness that the rest of humanity has adopted later. It is obvious that you have your own notions about what can be called racism, but you should not expect others to share this eccentric stretch of definitions.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 1:04 pm
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism

Peter Staudenmaier

I don't think this is game-playing, I think it's good question. If you think of "racial evolution" as a process of spiritual advancement via successive incarnations in ever higher racial forms, then yes, that conception is indeed racist, in my view. There are no such things as higher and lower racial forms. The contrary position can accurately be described as a racist belief.

Bradford comments;

I was struck by what Tarjei, rather playfully answered to Diana as I recall. 'God made the different races then god must also be a racist'. These divisions existed long before our intellects began beguiling and confusing them and twisting them out of context. Peter I shall prove in this text what an uneducated and dull person you have become in this incarnation.

In America we have loved the etheric forces that were robbed, enslaved, tortured and brought in chains to America. In America there is gospel music, enhanced MoTown revelations that show the "Mercurial" and etheric forces that were tapped by the unforgettable pain that the African Americans endured. They have had a watershed of Etheric Faith ripped out of them.

Should I be a racist to look at sports or music? Or should I track the profound revitalizing, and stolen forces that, through the very nature of catastrophic racism, was brought into the U.S. in chains from the vital core of etheric forms in Africa, to be the foundation of FAITH and Etheric framework of a nation of thieves? Don't dare me to go into Etheric Core African Spiritual Geographic mysteries here.

We also robbed an entire race, in this case the Native Americans, of their vast, Natural Temple of worship. The entire world of brother Eagle, Bison, Sister Cloud, Wind Spirits, Rivers, Deer, beaver, bear, were all part of a highly misunderstood Nature Vision, and natural pulse of the Native American. Christian Pilgrims, those grim black and white, non sensual replicas of the dogma of the Bible, those dried up "Crackers", did a full ethnic cleansing and murder of the Native Americans. The same that was done to the African Americans in order to rob them of various qualites and disperse them.

Slowly, in the sinister U.S., we have accumulated a mighty Nation built on the ultimate sacrifice of the Red Man and the Black Man. But why was this needed for the foundation swamp, (read foundation stone) of America? Why did we need to rob the qualities and blur them and merge them into this complex melting pot? What ungodly or godly intention lay behind these horrific instincts?

Shall we journey to New York City and find pockets of Jewish, Italians, Greeks all with their neighborhood stores and food stuffs reflecting their etheric tastes, that which are the tastes of foods from various cultures? This is a journey of philosophy of the 21 century not for the cowardly thinking of the 19th century.

Is eating the food, enjoying bagels, Italian restaurants and laughing at Tony Soprano racist? Still, looking to New Orleans, the French cuisine and language still lives as a simmering pocket in American culture. In Minnosota, North Dakota and WIS.. Norway, Sweden and lovely Garrison Keeler speak out racist slurs every Sunday from lake Wobegon. This is hardly the Round Table, but for those brighter than Peter, 12 philosophical standpoints and 12 capacities and a 12 foldness integrates with a 7-foldness.

Philosophy and detached feelings of antisemitism and accusations on how the "Final Solution" arose, is riddled with failed understandings of what mighty forces were under the strata of consciousness, that HISTORIANS love to wander in like blind ghosts, and think, imagine and fool themselves that they can 'get it'. Their dried, nerd like grasp of casual relationships is loaded with brittle and baited motives, twisted in their own unexplored and uneducated unconsciousness. Because we can explore these motives down to the roots.

As I have said before, a garbage pail of historians are merely the inherited bad habits of 19th century failed thinking. This failed thinking is carried on and on and passed onto students as brittle and lost as they. Were living realities of the Races to impact you from the Streets of South Central to and the Latinos, the Cubans in Florida and the Jewish migration there...the wonderful Afro- Americans, Swedes, Norwegians, French, Italians, The Amish, the Ohio Germans, and their specialized spin into the culture; into etheric taste bud, and language and etheric gestures, music, would reveal, indeed, something greater than your dried out 19th century philosophy Horatio.

Such 21st Century Philosphy, which is not your particular slice of research, your 'specialized insect field of antisemitism' is also unable to truly call itself history. It is a "Fable convenu". Such a fable goes on creating more fables about the background of antisemitism and the Holocaust. For my taste I would look at Heidegger and his squirminess. He was caught and hung onto Holderlin for dear life.

The Native Americans were accused, the Red Man was accused of being a Saturn Race by STeiner. But understanding what such a term means and the enormous sacrifice it entailed allows Historical research to truly step into the arena of what god meant by being a Racist. Why was god a Racist? What did IT want us to understand about the Rainbow capacities of all the races? Here is where stupidity and darkness cannot see even the rainbow aura round a single burning candle in the dark.

Each one of the Races could be given a complete Etheric profile, an Astral profile and lastly and most sensitively, a physical profile. Back at the Time of Europe circa 1880, physical features were bluntly and roughly rammed down throats and brains and that is exactly where your last mental experience has given you the motives to see what you failed to understand.

Physical features, not the inner aspects were shoved into peoples faces in the press daily. The outer features and physical differences, like the horror of breaking open a shell, (read Slavery, murder and Final Solution) were all Ahriman had to work with and work he did as Tarjei and Andrea have indicated. It was Steiner who lifted the veil of the inner mysteries of the Races and He will not pay the price that you are gonna pay for your dereliction of thinking Peter.

Qualites, etheric virtues and Rainbow-7 planetary foundations, that reveal God's Promis after the flood to Noah, that the Rainbow, and all that entails, would be the new contract with humanity. That a Rainbow of Newton and a Rainbow of capacities, qualities and Tower of Babel Languages would all be part of the new contract of Noah, with God. God would release his plan of differentiation of Light and spectrum as it plays out in nature and capacity from insect, animal and man.

So unfolding the inner aspect of just one aspect of the Native Americans, is to understand the difference between Temples in India, Ziggurats in Iraq, Egyptian Temples and how the Native American lived in a Minimalist (read Saturn) consciousness. The Native Americans never desired to trample, cut into and make monuments to a living god they saw daily in every detail of nature wonders.

Understanding that the sky, stars and plains, that lived in the landscape as a holy Temple, was highly pristine and minimalist, and revealed a Saturn like law, of how only the Essential, no frills, only the Essential realities and to see the Truth in the bear, raw reality of Nature was to understand the Saturn frame of mind. Saturn courage. Saturn eating the Bison heart. Saturn IsNess. Gave the RedMan his distinct features, his particular warmth.

The other racial and rainbow planetary contributions may tell us of the various capacities, spices, tastes, and the mystery of the tongue and language, but Saturn wants a no frill solid foundations... and this comes through in everything that the Native American and Chief Seatlle and Black Elk Speaks reveals. If we were smart we could look at Lead and Gold or Lead and radioactivity, but I'm afraid, smart is not what you are aiming at Peter. Clever, cunning and shrinking your own heart, yes, but certainly not smart. Even if you made a million dollars and became the next President, I would only compare you to GWB and that is not complimentary.

Did we honor and understand the Saturn nature of the RedMan? No. Did America devour the RedMan and eat, in a horrible transubstantiation feast, not only the Red Man and his vast sheltered Temple of Forests and Rivers, but we also gutted the African American, The Chinese in the Railroad building of the West? We Ate them brutally.

America is resting on a nightmare of Racism. If we can only understand physical qualities as the measure, we must be stuck in the paradigms of Ahriman. But it was Steiner, Theosophy and Steiner alone who realized the intention of the Rainbow assortment that God put on the Table and with the intention of building a perfect Thinking and spiritual form, for that which would reveal God on Earth. That a Physical Human had to be trimmed, filtered and directed in order to bring the highest spiritual capacities to the table. Einstein is only the last dregs that allowed Oppenheimer to erect the math for the "Church of the Unrisen Light". Brains, numbers and refined thinking, ain't it wonderful what race can do?

By isolating and taking the Rainbow itself, Light itself and qualites in the soul and spirit itself and breaking them into outwardly Newtonian realities, Steiner revealed the incredible design that God really intended. The Days of the Week as a Babylonian gift, the Greek vision of the the Gods, all weaving in the qualities of humans. Skills and capacities were linked directly to various planets and gods...because they were closer to the truth than, as you are as close to the truth as you ever will be, now.

Now, this means, aside from Peter having no interest or belief in God and a total failure at any type of Jungian or extended study of Sociology, mythology or in depth psychology, that indeed Newton himself and the variety of Butterflies or animal species or human types scattered over the globe, are mere Darwinian accidents and any mention of their higher qualities, offerings, gifts and etheric, astral and physical capacities, means SPINELESS, INTELLECTUAL, CRUD; Defines Peter has one who has failed to understand anything around him and has failed to see into the hidden complexities of history.

Either you learn to see what a Rainbow, what blood types are, what various foods means in different countries, or 7 fold taste buds on the tongue that serve etheric forces, or what is Rhythm in the Soul, what is Paul Simon trying to do; What is the meaning of the Babylonian Days of the Week; What are the qualities of color in Goethe's color theory; how do various butterflies get the vivid colors on their wings, through biology and capacity of parts per billion nectar sensors; what Greek gods and goddesses were saying and why Venus and the Dove reveal both Aphrodite and the future ability of Man to nurture and give Milk, that male doves give Milk and that Beauty, and the choice of Troy was focused in a myth of Mars and Venus? Wasted, lost in translation and shrivelled out of your sight in a corner of your consciousness.

Why Mars is a speech capacity and what it has to do with the Day Tuesday or what Venus has to do with Friday...and above all, what the Fabled Noah, Utnapishtim attempted to teach Gilgamesh? You cannot understand Racism until you understand the intentions of God, for the laws of reality are highly charged and specific in relation to the Spectrum of Light and the Spectrum of Light has distributed gifts from Butterflies, Bees, Song, as Tone and Light and Etheric and Astral qualities all the way out to Magnetism, electricity and laser use.

Since, Peter, it will take you two lifetimes to grasp even the simplest concept of Saturn and the Native Americans..either we must laugh with Tarjei or weap over you. Opportunity knocks and Freedom allows you to open when you want to, it certainly is not up to us.

Bradford

...................................................................................................................................

From: Patrick
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 1:27 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Dear Dr. Staudenmaier,

My long absence does not mean that I have lost interest in the discussion. The reason for my absence is technical. I was doing some file cleaning on my computer and inadvertently deleted certain registry entries and DLLs that caused me to lose the function of several of my programs. I also lost the data in my inbox previous to March 4th. It is taken me this long to read and digest all of the discussions pertinent to my interest. This is actually not a problem for me because I would rather not choose this sentence or that sentence to respond to but the gist of the argument. Please allow me a personal remark. I have discovered that in social discourse, the habit of finding a thought that I disagree with in the argument of my discussion partner and then bringing my best argument against it to inhibit productive discourse. Such a discussion often rapidly ends in a shouting match at worst or at best an exchange of mild hostilities, snide remarks, or deprecation of the other. I believe this discovery alone has kept my marriage of 27 years from ending in divorce. I learned the art of listening and trying to hear the truth of the other. This arose out of the self-evaluation recommended by anthroposophy. To me this is one of the aspects that might lead to socially ecological communities. I do not believe that the dialectic approach will achieve that. We have only to witness the socialist congresses in Paris and other places at the earlier part of this century. I believe that the climate engendered by such discussions pushed certain anarchists towards violence. I believe that in this time it is not whether a thought or remark is right or wrong that matters, but whether it heals or injures.

From an earlier post of yours to me -- and I must paraphrase -- you asked that we separate certain remarks of Steiner from a comprehensive view of anthroposophy. In other words, that we judge them on their own merits. To do that I would have to see them out of context. In the field of plant ecology -- which was my study when I was at university -- isolating this or that organism and studying only that organism severely limited ones understanding of even the organism itself. Certainly one could gain useful information but it had to be related then to the other organisms and conditions in the ecosystem. This illustrates one of my real concerns about your arguments. I believe that you choose to look at the isolated element rather than the whole. You could at least, after having isolated the part, try to reintegrate it. I read from one of your remarks that you see a comprehensive approach to anthroposophy as some sort of false construct. Anyone who understands anthroposophy will find, given goodwill, that it presents an organic whole. Because you fail to comprehend the evolution of cultures and consciousness as presented in anthroposophy you can only see that a large number of Steiner's utterances as racist.

Allow me to speak about the epithet "racist". In the times we live in people generally have an abhorrence of racism in any form. A racist is someone who views another only on the basis of his or her race. In other words, he is prejudiced. He sees that the other is limited by his race; he focuses on what he believes to be the limitation of the body and culture of the other. He does not see the individual within, the I AM (hello Bradford) of the other. If you want to focus on an what you call Anthroposophical doctrine, focus on this!

In closing, allow me a few remarks about your conversation with Tarjei about race and consciousness. Do you agree that consciousness has evolved through time? Do you see that at any one time in the evolution of humanity this or that culture has had a different consciousness than other cultures existing at the same time? Steiner is not the only one to have spoken about an evolution of consciousness. Other thinkers have seen that humanity has gone through certain stages: namely, stages that can be characterized by words such as magical, mythological, philosophical, and scientific. When cultures interact, the consciousness of one or the other is often altered. It remains, however, that one of the cultures possessed the consciousness that eventually had the greatest influence. This is not racist; it is evolution! Do we agree?

Respectfully,

Patrick

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 1:28 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Awesome, Bradford. Heartfelt and apocalyptic.

Tarjei

At 22:04 07.03.2004, Bradford wrote:

In America we have loved the etheric forces that were robbed, enslaved, tortured and brought in chains to America.

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 2:48 pm
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism/Utnapishtim

holderlin66 wrote:

what the Fabled Noah, Utnapishtim attempted to teach Gilgamesh?

Bradford adds;

Spiritual Science, as been proven, is made of the whole fabric of outlining with the Germanic Thinking Capacity, the I AM. In the I AM, are the mighty woven threads of immortality. Coming from your direction Peter, Racism and antisemitism, is just the, pity me, opposite, just the mere simple little tiny answer to the riddles of the universe, that you crave to know. 180 degrees away from the answer. I am grateful that there are still people as deluded as you asking the right questions. I am even more thankful that real answers were given in the reseach of the I AM, that Steiner Shouldered as Germany collapsed. Otherwise such Fable Makers as yourself would spread the infection of deception all over the place, but you haven't either the imaginations, vision or consciousness to stand in the Light of the I AM.

You know that the School of the Word, was to be built in Munich. It was to be called the Johannes Bau. A full building model and plan was developed. It was to be the core mystery center of the cosmopolitan revelation of the research into the I AM. But it had to be moved to Swittzer deutsch because, What Steiner read from, 30 years before the 1920 lecture he gave, he saw the horrible writing on the wall of German culture, falling into despair. In time that places it, rising in the 1880's to 1890's and Steiner experienced the full weight of the Tragedy of Not I AM, but the Racist and antisemite in humanity growing like an insatiable beast.

This startling division of interpretation between the I AM of every single human being, and their deepest connections with the origins of the cosmos and their future abilities in many incarnations to come, transcended racism.. But, like Germany, Peter chooses Antisemitism and Racism over and over again. Not I but the Racisim and antisemitism in him and painting the rest of the greatness of Spiritual Science with this same red in tooth and fang brush... as if snails could write history. As if slugs could understand Angels. As if Germany understood the powerful potential thinking capacity it had and rebuked and rejected.

Not merely in Steiner, but in a whole host of souls ready to offer the greatest cultural and spiritual treaure to the deserving striving of German thinkers. What a gift! What a complete difference the entire world would have gained. What lofty educational foundations would have been built. History Peter, you are merely wormfood and I'll prove it to you.

Why Gilgamesh? Because the core of this issue on Racism has to do with the straggling Initiation consciousness that Peter is attaching to races, racism and Steiner's research on 7 divisions of the Newtonian spectrum as it flows down through the world all the way through races. Peter's question and his current real time initation amounts to this.

" Review Utnapishtim's story of the flood. What does Gilgamesh learn from this story about the nature of human beings and the gods. Do you think there is a sense of divine justice for human beings here? Why or why not?

Although Gilgamesh wants to live forever, he cannot even stay awake for 7 days, as Utnapishtim proves by having his wife bake 7 loaves of bread while Gilgamesh sleeps. What is the point of this episode? What does Utnapishtim teach Gilgamesh about immortality? Would anyone really want this kind of immortality?"

The above is your Initiation question Peter. Like Noah or Utnapishtim, you will not believe that you slept through six weeks of trying so hard to understand, showing patience and putting up with these wild idiot kids in the hall, but guess what, you slept through your opportunity and you have no idea what a joyful array of insights came to meet you while you slept.

Poor Peter, the 7 Loaves of Bread are these Seven Spiritual realities we have been ever so patient in baking for you. But you sleep and that is your Initiation statement and that places you at about the same distance from truth as Gilgamesh was. Staying awake for Gilgamesh was actually listening to full karmic history of Noah and how these Seven qualities out of Atlantis really functioned and were passed to the future of the West. Oh this was not Lord of the Rings into the West. This was the real, real, real west.

"The Flood. The story of the Flood is a familiar one, as we shall see in Genesis and Popol Vuh (Plato also gives an account of the Flood and the city of Atlantis in the dialogue, Critias ; the Nez Perce of the Palouse also have a flood story in which the only humans that survived did so by climbing the mountain, Yamustus, that is, Steptoe Butte). The earliest surviving reference to the Flood goes back to 1900 B.C. Why is it brought in here? Why do the gods bring on the Flood? Is any reason given? (Later compare the reasons for the floods in Genesis and Popol Vuh.) What does it tell us about the nature of history and the relation of the gods to humanity?"

http://www.wsu.edu/~dee/MESO/GILG.HTM

"The gods smell the odor of the sacrifice and begin to gather around Utnapishtim. Enlil, who had originally proposed to destroy all humans, then arrives, furious that one of the humans had survived, since they had agreed to wipe out all humans. He accuses Ea of treachery, but Ea convinces Enlil to be merciful. Enlil then seizes Utnapishtim and his wife and blesses them:

At one time Utnapishtim was mortal.
At this time let him be a god and immortal;
Let him live in the far away at the source of all the rivers.

At the end of his story, Utnapishtim offers Gilgamesh a chance at immortality. If Gilgamesh can stay awake for six days and seven nights, he, too, will become immortal. Gilgamesh accepts these conditions and sits down on the shore; the instant he sits down he falls asleep. Utnapishtim tells his wife that all men are liars, that Gilgamesh will deny having fallen asleep, so he asks his wife to bake a loaf of bread every day and lay the loaf at Gilgamesh's feet. Gilgamesh sleeps without ever waking up for six days and seven nights, at which point Utnapishtim wakes him up. Startled, Gilgamesh says, "I only just dozed off for half a second here." Utnapishtim points out the loaves of bread, showing their states of decay from the most recent, fresh bread, to the oldest, moldy, stale bread that had been laid at his feet on the very first day. Gilgamesh is distraught:

O woe! What do I do now, where do I go now?
Death has devoured my body,
Death dwells in my body,
Wherever I go, wherever I look, there stands Death!"

Bradford concludes;

Any questions Peter? By my watch your doing just fine, maybe three loaves down.

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Sun Mar 7, 2004 6:49 pm
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Peter,

I'm still curious why you think Arfst Wagner took a lot of grief for taking a "full disclosure" approach to the behavior of Anthroposophists during the Third Reich. I realize that your comment was off-the-cuff, but the implications are serious. You are suggesting that there is hostility on the part of Anthroposophists to examining their own history. I know of no such tendency, so I have to call you on this. (Yes, I know, you never, ever work by implication, but consider the implications of your accusation for a moment). What evidence do you have that Arfst Wagner took a lot of grief for taking a "full disclosure" approach to the behavior of Anthroposophists during the Third Reich?

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----
From: at@ael...
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, March 04, 2004 11:05 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Daniel wrote:

Well, I would think that if anthroposophists felt that they had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing the primary documents and hope that no one notices.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That would be a very foolish strategy, in my view. But I think this is beside the point. My argument is not that anthroposophists are trying to hide primary documents. My argument is that many anthroposophists systematically misunderstand their own movement's history.

Daniel:

Yet on the contrary, they seem to be taking a "full disclosure" approach and publishing everything they can find in various archives.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That is Arfst Wagner's approach. You are aware of how much grief he's taken from other anthroposophists for doing this, aren't you?

Daniel:

Actually, no. I haven't heard anything of the sort. I checked with a few other people, and no one was aware of any. This is not to say that there might exist some critical statements off the beaten path, but I am not aware of any such public criticism in mainstream Anthropsophical circles. I haven't talked to Wagner personally, so perhaps he recieved private correspondence on the matter, but there is no public record that I have been able to find. Wagner's work is in several larger Anthroposophical libraries, and quite a few big names in Anthroposophy find his work helpful. What makes you say he has "gotten grief" for his work?

Daniel Hindes

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 8:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

On second thought, I can see how races and stages of consciousness can be honestly confused by some people if a materialistic approach to the mystery of man is the point of departure. In that case, consciousness is the result of chemical process in the brain, which is a result of genes or heredity only, and one's outlook and thought process and life of feeling and understanding of the spiritual - excuse me, I mean one's illusions about the spiritual of course - all becomes entirely dependent upon the external physical form and its characteristics, which are related to race.

It's the "related to race" part that easily becomes racist. By my reading, Steiner did not say that levels of consciousness or spiritual development are dependent on race, he said they are correlated to race.

Rudolf Steiner, however, means many different things when using the word "race" because of the poverty of human language (whether it's German or English or something else) to express the spiritual, the thoughts of divine beings, the intentions of the gods. In the distant future, for instance, there will be two "races": One good race, following Christ and redeeming Lucifer, and one evil race, following Ahriman and Sorat and the Beast and the Asuras and so on.

The notion of a "good race" and a "bad race" can accurately be described as racist.

The evolution of human consciousness began long before physical incarnations came into the picture and will continue long after these incarnations have ceased."

Yes, that was part of Steiner's doctrine. The racist aspects of that doctrine, as I see them, apply to the period of physical incarnations.

When so-called "critics" use the word "race" in the strictly materialistic sense in order to establish Anthroposophy as a racist ideology"

I don't know why you say "strictly materialistic sense". Lots of racists held a mixture of materialist and idealist conceptions of race. Many of them tied race in the material sense to spiritual ideals.

Present-day so-called human races are only remnants of a distant past and should play no role in human evolution any more.

That is only partly in line with Steiner's teachings. He designated some racial groups as decadent and regressing, and others as progressing into the future.

The real reason for these racist allegations, which the "critics" refuse to admit openly, is that they are afraid that the culture of the future will be dominated by an understanding of the spirit that is akin to Anthroposophy, if it is not Anthroposophy itself.

I am definitely not afraid of that.

Embodied is another word for incarnated. As long as we are incarnated in physical bodies, we are also more or less connected to races.

Yes, that was part of Steiner's doctrine. Since we will continue to incarnate in bodies for thousands of years, we'll be "connected to races" for some time to come, no?

So there is a racism in anthroposophists for them to be aware of? And they are not unaware of their own racism? In other words, the anthro-oriented subscribers to this list, including Yours Truly, are racists and know it, but they/we are trying to deceive others into believing that they/we are not?

No, that is not my argument. I do not think that anthroposophists generally are racists (a few of them are, of course, but I think that isn't what you and I were talking about). I do think that many anthroposophists are either unaware of or have failed to grapple with the racist side of Steiner's teachings. This does not make them racists, in my view.

And if we were aware of that, we would be even more racist than we already are?

No, not unless you endorsed and promoted the racist side of Steiner's teachings, while recognizing its racist character.

This statement seems to contradict the former. First, you imply that anthroposophists are racists (and aware of it) after having read Steiner's "racist doctrines" available in English."

No, I did not imply that. Many of Steiner's racist doctrines are not available in English. Of the ones that are, lots of anthroposophists frequently ignore or simply misread, in my view.

But these racists anthroposophists haven't read "Steiner's worst stuff on race", which you then imply is not necessarily racist at all.

Huh? The worst stuff is the most obviously racist stuff, in my estimation. What are you talking about?

If it were, one shouldn't need to talk about whether or not some of it qualifies as racist, and if so, why.

But we always need to talk about that. That's part of what public discussion is for. This is why I don't understand your whole "stigmatizing" line. If a charge of racism is leveled against a specific body of ideas, and upon examination that charge turns out to be false, then it isn't stigmatizing. Hence we need to talk about it to see whether there is something to the charge in the first place.

During the course of evolution, humanity has lived in various groups and civilizations and races, and at certain times, some group has begun to evolve a mode of consciousness that the rest of humanity has adopted later."

If you conceive of this sort of "group" in racial terms, then you are stepping into the terrain of racist thought. Races do not evolve or embody modes of consciousness.

It is obvious that you have your own notions about what can be called racism, but you should not expect others to share this eccentric stretch of definitions.

The understanding of racism I use is not eccentric. I do not think of racism as a disease of the soul, as you do. I think of it as a belief system, as an ideology.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 8:46 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Patrick, thanks for your post. I think we're getting closer to the real substance of our dispute. You wrote:

I have discovered that in social discourse, the habit of finding a thought that I disagree with in the argument of my discussion partner and then bringing my best argument against it to inhibit productive discourse.


In that case, we have very different approaches to public discussion. I think sorting out what we disagree about is crucial to productive discourse, and I think that bringing our best arguments to bear on the ideas put forward is a big part of what makes such discussion productive.

I believe this discovery alone has kept my marriage of 27 years from ending in divorce.

I agree that a less confrontational approach to ideas is well suited to many intimate relationships. But you and I are not married. We've never even met, as far as I know. Neither of us should have any personal stake in the outcome of the arguments we examine here.

From an earlier post of yours to me -- and I must paraphrase -- you asked that we separate certain remarks of Steiner from a comprehensive view of anthroposophy. In other words, that we judge them on their own merits. To do that I would have to see them out of context.

I fundamentally disagree with that notion. The proper context for understanding Steiner's racial doctrines requires both more than this and less than this, in my view. I think it requires exploring the concurrent racial ideologies propounded by other prophets of spiritual renewal at the time, for example; and I do not think it requires a detailed account of various far-flung aspects of anthroposophy, such as eurythmy. I also get the sense that you and other listmates have a very specific version of anthroposophy in mind when you invoke this "comprehensive view of anthroposophy". As far as I can tell, this version excludes the views of anthroposophy put forward by several of Steiner's students, such as Karutz, Uehli, Wachsmuth, Thieben, and so forth, who accentuated Steiner's racial and ethnic doctrines in their own work. In that sense, then, it seems to me that what I am urging is actually a *more* comprehensive view of anthroposophy than you seem willing to grant.

This illustrates one of my real concerns about your arguments. I believe that you choose to look at the isolated element rather than the whole.

I wouldn't necessarily say "rather than"; I see a relatively circumscribed initial focus as an integral part of eventually gaining a more well-rounded perspective on the whole.

I read from one of your remarks that you see a comprehensive approach to anthroposophy as some sort of false construct.

Sometimes it is a false construct, in my view. But not just because it takes itself to be comprehensive, even when it isn't, but because it seems to involve a crucial assumption of 'correct' understanding that I think is misplaced. For example, here in your post:

Because you fail to comprehend the evolution of cultures and consciousness as presented in anthroposophy you can only see that a large number of Steiner's utterances as racist.

Whether I fail to comprehend this is something we can determine by examining Steiner's published teachings on racial evolution. We can't determine it simply by comparing my understanding of it to yours. All that would tell us is that you and I read Steiner differently. To my mind it makes more sense to go straight to the source and discuss whether some of Steiner's statements about racial evolution are indeed racist, and if so, why.

Allow me to speak about the epithet "racist". In the times we live in people generally have an abhorrence of racism in any form. A racist is someone who views another only on the basis of his or her race. In other words, he is prejudiced. He sees that the other is limited by his race; he focuses on what he believes to be the limitation of the body and culture of the other. He does not see the individual within, the I AM (hello Bradford) of the other. If you want to focus on an what you call Anthroposophical doctrine, focus on this!

The limitations of certain bodies and certain "cultures", as you're calling them here, is exactly what some of Steiner's doctrines focus on. He tied spiritual advancement to race.

In closing, allow me a few remarks about your conversation with Tarjei about race and consciousness. Do you agree that consciousness has evolved through time?

Sure. Very unevenly, but yes, I definitely see development.

Do you see that at any one time in the evolution of humanity this or that culture has had a different consciousness than other cultures existing at the same time?

No, of course not. "Cultures" don't have specific levels of consciousness in that sense. Individuals do.

Steiner is not the only one to have spoken about an evolution of consciousness.

That's certainly true.

Other thinkers have seen that humanity has gone through certain stages: namely, stages that can be characterized by words such as magical, mythological, philosophical, and scientific. When cultures interact, that consciousness of one of the other is often altered. It remains, however, that one of the cultures possessed the consciousness that eventually had the greatest influence. This is not racist; it is evolution! Do we agree?

No, we don't. In my view, natural evolution is not progressive, and cultures do not possess consciousness in the way I think you mean. To say that specific racial and ethnic groups embody determinate stages of consciousness, which are in turn arranged in a pattern of ascending development, is plainly racist, in my estimation.

Thanks laying the issues out and moving our exchange forward.

Sincerely,

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 9:06 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

I'm still curious why you think Arfst Wagner took a lot of grief for taking a "full disclosure" approach to the behavior of Anthroposophists during the Third Reich. I realize that your comment was off-the-cuff, but the implications are serious. You are suggesting that there is hostility on the part of Anthroposophists to examining their own history. I know of no such tendency, so I have to call you on this. (Yes, I know, you never, ever work by implication, but consider the implications of your accusation for a moment). What evidence do you have that Arfst Wagner took a lot of grief for taking a "full disclosure" approach to the behavior of Anthroposophists during the Third Reich?

I think you'll find this hard to believe, but I didn't reply initially because I didn't want to make fun of you for this. The controversy over Wagner's efforts is crucial to understanding Uwe Werner's book, for example. While some anthroposophists greeted Wagner's publications as a sign of historical maturation, others were furious with him. Wagner himself described the latter sort of reactions as "Eine braune Flutwelle aus bestimmten Kreisen der Anthroposophenschaft." (Interview with Wagner in the special anthroposophy issue of the taz, 11 March 1995, p. 12.) The differences between Wagner and Werner are more nuanced, of course, but nevertheless significant. I urge you to read the several critical reviews of Werner's book that Wagner published in the anthroposophical press. I'm afraid I don't have citations at hand, but I think one of them appeared in the Swiss journal Die Gegenwart. Wagner is usually happy to reply to correspondence, in my experience, so you could just contact him directly if you prefer.

Peter

Daniel wrote:

Well, I would think that if anthroposophists felt that they had anything to hide, they would avoid publishing the primary documents and hope that no one notices.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That would be a very foolish strategy, in my view. But I think this is beside the point. My argument is not that anthroposophists are trying to hide primary documents. My argument is that many anthroposophists systematically misunderstand their own movement's history.

Daniel:

Yet on the contrary, they seem to be taking a "full disclosure" approach and publishing everything they can find in various archives.

Peter Staudenmaier:

That is Arfst Wagner's approach. You are aware of how much grief he's taken from other anthroposophists for doing this, aren't you?

Daniel:

Actually, no. I haven't heard anything of the sort. I checked with a few other people, and no one was aware of any. This is not to say that there might exist some critical statements off the beaten path, but I am not aware of any such public criticism in mainstream Anthropsophical circles. I haven't talked to Wagner personally, so perhaps he recieved private correspondence on the matter, but there is no public record that I have been able to find. Wagner's work is in several larger Anthroposophical libraries, and quite a few big names in Anthroposophy find his work helpful. What makes you say he has "gotten grief" for his work?

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 10:24 am
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

I think you'll find this hard to believe, but I didn't reply initially because I didn't want to make fun of you for this. The controversy over Wagner's efforts is crucial to understanding Uwe Werner's book, for example.

Bradford adds:

"Perhaps the most persuasive adherent of National Socialism to formulate the incompatibility of anthroposophy and National Socialism was Alfred Bauemler, a distinguished philosopher and professor of education in Berlin. As part of his work within the Rosenburg Office "for the control of the intellectual life of the National Socalist Party", he was commissioned to conduct an in-depth investigation of the work of Rudolf Steiner.

Unlike hasty and unstudied police reports, 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 anthroposophy as the essential determining factor of individual capacity,..."

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/articles/Werner1.htm

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 11:16 am
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism

holderlin66

"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 anthroposophy as the essential determining factor of individual capacity,..."

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/articles/Werner1.htm

"...the Ultra Orthodox Jewish group called Neturei Karta (which means "Guardians of the City" in the ancient Aramaic language), which was formed in the 1930's before Israel was created in 1948, to protest the new movement called Zionism. Rabbi Weiss, who is based just north of New York City, explains why his worldwide organization believes that Zionism is the exact opposite of Judaism and why they pray for the peaceful dismantling of the Zionist state of Israel.

Mainstream media has always ignored the activism of the Neturei Karta and other anti-Zionism groups, so this film may be somewhat shocking, but very enlightening, for many people who have always thought that all Jews are pro-Israel and Zionists.

Rabbi Weiss provides a fascinating and concise history of Judaism and how Zionism has been aggressively seeking to transform it, revealing their intimidation tactics and falsehoods. He explains how the only way that true peace can be achieved is through achieving justice for the Palestinian people, by apologizing for having oppressed them and for stealing their land. He advocates making amends with them by providing reparations and allowing them equal rights.

According to Rabbi Weiss, Zionism is blatant racism and against true Jewish values. He asserts that Judaism is a religion, but Zionism has attempted to replace religion with nationalism..."

http://www.rense.com/general50/pro.htm

"Of course, we both know that Florida has a large population of American Jews, but we were surprised with the "Zionization" of Florida, as well as the mention by people on two separate occasions in Key West, who didn't even know about our politics, of Israeli money-laundering that is going on there. Israel is the largest producer of the rave party drug Ecstasy, and apparently the Israeli druglords also collude with South American drug dealers. The Israeli drug dealers are said to launder money through their cheesy tourist trap tee-shirt shops that line the lower end of Duval Street in Key West, the last island of the Florida Keys. Since this activity seems to be common knowledge, maybe there is some collusion with local authorities as well.

The Definition of Zionism

At any rate, please allow me to explain my definition of "Zionism". Zionism is a racist ideology that allows for Jews from anywhere in the world to go to Israel-Palestine to claim superior rights to the land and government there at the expense of the indigenous non-Jewish Palestinians. It can be argued that Zionist Jews expect certain privileges above and beyond the average citizen in any country they live. By the way, not all Jews are Zionists, and not all American Jews think of Israel as their homeland. Many American Jews, I'm sure, if not most, think of themselves as Americans first and foremost. Many American Jews, I'm sure, accept their fellow Americans as equals regardless of their religion, race, ethnicity or gender. However, only Jews enjoy completely equal rights in Israel, where it is not a true secular democracy even for Jews, in that only marriages between Jews are acknowledged as legal in Israel, for just one example. Furthermore, all non-Jews are marginalized in Israel."

...................................................................................................................................

From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 11:41 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Bradford, here is my dime about it.

This historical facts is itself very significative. If there were in Nazi gang a true "green-anthro wing" (Darrè) and a real "anthropop" (Hess) why those powerful bosses did nothing at all to avoid the ban against GAS? A further evidence that the above claims are only the dreams of Ctuhulu-like brains and that those highrank Nazi- guys judged Anthroposophy to have a "minus quam merdam" value.

Andrea

Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

I think you'll find this hard to believe, but I didn't reply initially because I didn't want to make fun of you for this. The controversy over Wagner's efforts is crucial to understanding Uwe Werner's book, for example.

Bradford adds:

"Perhaps the most persuasive adherent of National Socialism to formulate the incompatibility of anthroposophy and National Socialism was Alfred Bauemler, a distinguished philosopher and professor of education in Berlin. As part of his work within the Rosenburg Office "for the control of the intellectual life of the National Socalist Party", he was commissioned to conduct an in-depth investigation of the work of Rudolf Steiner.

Unlike hasty and unstudied police reports, 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 anthroposophy as the essential determining factor of individual capacity,..."

http://hem.passagen.se/thebee/comments/articles/Werner1.htm

...................................................................................................................................

From: at
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 2:36 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

I see. So there were a few apparently critical reviews to Wagner's work, and later to Werner's book. I'll have to read them myself, as I don't really trust your characterization (you'll pardon me on this, but your track record to date isn't very good on these type of things).

The statement of Wagner's you cite states that his work "Elicited a brown tidal wave from certain circles of anthroposophists". You've snipped it quite short, so I have no context, but my first inclination is to read it to mean that his work encouraged an outpouring from those anthroposophists who were fascists (hence a "brown" i.e. fascist tidal wave), which he probably found regrettable. I also note the careful "certain circles"; Wagner is clearly not implicating the movement in general. In it's full context I might come to a different interpretation.

I initially speculated that there was probably some sort of criticism, but also stated that an overwhelming majority of Anthroposophists within the movement supported Wagner and Werner. So far, I have heard nothing to convince me otherwise.

Oh, and don't worry about my feelings. If I ask an honest question, I can handle an honest answer. Your concern is touching, though.

Daniel Hindes

----- Original Message -----

From: Peter Staudenmaier
To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, March 08, 2004 12:06 PM
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Daniel, you wrote:

I'm still curious why you think Arfst Wagner took a lot of grief for taking a "full disclosure" approach to the behavior of Anthroposophists during the Third Reich. I realize that your comment was off-the-cuff, but the implications are serious. You are suggesting that there is hostility on the part of Anthroposophists to examining their own history. I know of no such tendency, so I have to call you on this. (Yes, I know, you never, ever work by implication, but consider the implications of your accusation for a moment). What evidence do you have that Arfst Wagner took a lot of grief for taking a "full disclosure" approach to the behavior of Anthroposophists during the Third Reich?

I think you'll find this hard to believe, but I didn't reply initially because I didn't want to make fun of you for this. The controversy over Wagner's efforts is crucial to understanding Uwe Werner's book, for example. While some anthroposophists greeted Wagner's publications as a sign of historical maturation, others were furious with him. Wagner himself described the latter sort of reactions as "Eine braune Flutwelle aus bestimmten Kreisen der Anthroposophenschaft." (Interview with Wagner in the special anthroposophy issue of the taz, 11 March 1995, p. 12.) The differences between Wagner and Werner are more nuanced, of course, but nevertheless significant. I urge you to read the several critical reviews of Werner's book that Wagner published in the anthroposophical press. I'm afraid I don't have citations at hand, but I think one of them appeared in the Swiss journal Die Gegenwart. Wagner is usually happy to reply to correspondence, in my experience, so you could just contact him directly if you prefer.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: eyecueco
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 2:55 pm
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

Rudolf Steiner, however, means many different things when using the word "race" because of the poverty of human language (whether it's German or English or something else) to express the spiritual, the thoughts of divine beings, the intentions of the gods. In the distant future, for instance, there will be two "races": One good race, following Christ and redeeming Lucifer, and one evil race, following Ahriman and Sorat and the Beast and the Asuras and so on.

The notion of a "good race" and a "bad race" can accurately be described as racist.

Well, dang, I'm laughing so hard I'm falling out of my chair, in fact, I'm LOLROFLMAO! ! !

This "good race", "bad race' reference, is tied to a distant future, both in Steiner's worldview and the Bible, when therewill no longer be any seperate races.

This really demonstrates Peter's inability to grasp the subject of race esoterically.

Besides being stuck in such a materialistic mindset that he is unable to grasp evolution without going 'Darwin', Peter , by his above declaration is calling Victor E. Frankl a racist. Frankl, a Jewish psychoanalysist who survived Auschwitz returned to Vienna and established Logotherapy, the first depth psychology. He often said (and wrote) that there were only two races of men, good and bad.

Frankl was a scientist way ahead of the game, wasn't he? :-)

Btw, I was thinking about the post where Peter said he detested Marx. Now, as Carl Marx was a Jew, does such a remark make Peter a racist? Just wondering?

Paulina

...................................................................................................................................

From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 3:06 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Allow me to butt in for a moment on part of this Tarjei-Peter discussion, like a guy sitting at the other end of the bar who puts in his 2 cents uninvited:

Tarjei

On second thought, I can see how races and stages of consciousness can be honestly confused by some people if a materialistic approach to the mystery of man is the point of departure. In that case, consciousness is the result of chemical process in the brain, which is a result of genes or heredity only, and one's outlook and thought process and life of feeling and understanding of the spiritual - excuse me, I mean one's illusions about the spiritual of course - all becomes entirely dependent upon the external physical form and its characteristics, which are related to race.

Peter:

It's the "related to race" part that easily becomes racist. By my reading, Steiner did not say that levels of consciousness or spiritual development are dependent on race, he said they are correlated to race.

Frank:

I disagree. The theosophical "root race" description, later amended to "cultural epoch" by Steiner, indicates that there is a changing centure of culture in the various epochs of the human evolution of consciousness: Ancient Indian - Persian - Egyptian/Chaldean - Greco/Roman - European (America btw being essentially a European cultural enclave) - Slavic - American, the latter 2 in the future. Is it possible to deny that each of these cultures was dominant during its heyday, before decadence set in? And is it possible to deny that European culture is still dominant today? Dominant, not superior, and for better or for worse - mostly worse I'd say because of its extreme materialism. The Japanese have succeeded mightely using western scientific and technical techniques; the Chinese are on the road to the same. And when Asians who live in repressive societies are given the chance to develop their abilities in cultural freedom (Canada, USA) they shine beyond their teachers. Neither the individual nor the race nor the nation is superior or inferior - the spiritual/cultural center encourages development. Whether this is correct ot not, and whether you agree with it or not, it is certainly not racism

Tarjei:

Rudolf Steiner, however, means many different things when using the word "race" because of the poverty of human language (whether it's German or English or something else) to express the spiritual, the thoughts of divine beings, the intentions of the gods. In the distant future, for instance, there will be two "races": One good race, following Christ and redeeming Lucifer, and one evil race, following Ahriman and Sorat and the Beast and the Asuras and so on.

Peter:

The notion of a "good race" and a "bad race" can accurately be described as racist.

Frank: What about the human race?

(snip,snip)
Frank

...................................................................................................................................

From: winters_diana
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 5:31 am
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism

Tarjei to Peter:

The real reason for these racist allegations, which the "critics" refuse to admit openly, is that they are afraid that the culture of the future will be dominated by an understanding of the spirit that is akin to Anthroposophy, if it is not Anthroposophy itself.

Peter:

I am definitely not afraid of that.

I'm willing to admit to fear here. (Not that it is connected to the discussion of racism, but just in response to this old trope that critics of anthroposophy must be "afraid of spirituality." I'm not afraid of "spirits" but I do feel fear at the prospect that "the culture of the future [would] be dominated by an understanding of the spirit that is akin to Anthroposophy." I fear the things humans have so often shown they can justify in the name of God or spirits or various spiritual programs.

Diana

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 9:48 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Tarjei, you wrote:

A person's ethnicity can often be guessed by observing physiological characteristics. If you think that's racist, you have stretched the definition considerably.

No, observing physical characteristics is not racist. Attributing spiritual significance to them often is.

The apocalyptic idea that there will be good and evil beings in the future is racist because the word "race" is used?

If the good and the bad people are sorted into two distinct races, then yes, that is racist.

You're contradicting your preceding statement again. In this case, you say that even the idea of non-corpereal races like the "good" and the "bad" is racist, and then you say it only applies to physical corporeality.

Steiner says that the good and the bad races will be corporeal. According to Steiner, after the Great War of All Against All you'll be able to tell if people are good or evil just by looking at their physical appearance:

"Upon the forehead and in the whole physiognomy it will be written whether the person is good or evil. He will show in his face what is contained in his inmost soul. What a man has developed within himself, whether he has exercised good or evil impulses, will be written on his forehead. After the great War of All against All there will be two kinds of human beings. Those who had previously tried to follow the call to the spiritual life, who cultivated the spiritualizing and ennobling of their inner spiritual life, will show this inward life on their faces and express it in their gestures and the movements of their hands. And those who have turned away from the spiritual life, represented by the community of Laodicea, who were lukewarm, neither warm nor cold, will pass into the following epoch as those who retard human evolution, who preserve the backward forces of evolution which have been left behind. They will show the evil passions, impulses and instincts hostile to the spiritual in an ugly, unintelligent, evil-looking countenance. In their gestures and hand-movements, in everything they do, they will present an outer image of the ugliness in their soul. Just as humanity has separated into races and communities, in the future it will divide into two great streams, the good and the evil. And what is in their souls will be outwardly manifest, they will no longer be able to hide it."

(Steiner, The Apocalypse of St. John p. 82)

It's rather the other way around, that racists make spiritual abilities dependent upon physiology and heritage, imprisoning spirit in matter so to speak.

Only some racists do that. Others make the physical characteristics dependent upon spiritual abilities.

You seem to be saying that many anthroposophists have failed to recognize the racist allegations against Steiner and his works from your quarters.

No, they've failed to recognize what is in the books on their shelves (or, in the case of English readers, what is not in the books on their shelves, and why it is not there).

You wrote in your former sentence (now snipped by you) that whether or not this stuff was racist, is a debatable issue.

That's always a debatable issue. If you think that a person needs to commit genocide in order for some of his ideas to count as racist, then Steiner's teachings weren't racist. If you think that the notion of higher races and lower races is racist, then some of Steiner's teachings were racist.

If human beings evolve and human races exist, human races evolve too.

But they don't evolve according to spiritual criteria. Races don't have missions. They don't have cosmic functions. They aren't sorted into higher and lower categories. Race is spiritually meaningless.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 9:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Peter,

I wrote:

On second thought, I can see how races and stages of consciousness can be honestly confused by some people if a materialistic approach to the mystery of man is the point of departure. In that case, consciousness is the result of chemical process in the brain, which is a result of genes or heredity only, and one's outlook and thought process and life of feeling and understanding of the spiritual - excuse me, I mean one's illusions about the spiritual of course - all becomes entirely dependent upon the external physical form and its characteristics, which are related to race.

You wrote:

It's the "related to race" part that easily becomes racist.

Tarjei:

A person's ethnicity can often be guessed by observing physiological characteristics. If you think that's racist, you have stretched the definition considerably.

Peter S:

By my reading, Steiner did not say that levels of consciousness or spiritual development are dependent on race, he said they are correlated to race.

Tarjei:

It could be said that racial characteristics have been a contributing factor in evolution, but this is misleading, because all the contributing factors have originated in the spiritual world, and what constituted a human race in the past was a group of human beings being influenced by the spiritual in a unique way. But this is all in the past, just like RS pointed out in the excerpt I quoted in my answer to Diana.

Tarjei:

Rudolf Steiner, however, means many different things when using the word "race" because of the poverty of human language (whether it's German or English or something else) to express the spiritual, the thoughts of divine beings, the intentions of the gods. In the distant future, for instance, there will be two "races": One good race, following Christ and redeeming Lucifer, and one evil race, following Ahriman and Sorat and the Beast and the Asuras and so on.

Peter S:

The notion of a "good race" and a "bad race" can accurately be described as racist.

Tarjei:

The apocalyptic idea that there will be good and evil beings in the future is racist because the word "race" is used? I don't think too many people can be expected to go along with it outside your own circle.

Tarjei:

The evolution of human consciousness began long before physical incarnations came into the picture and will continue long after these incarnations have ceased.

Peter S:

Yes, that was part of Steiner's doctrine. The racist aspects of that doctrine, as I see them, apply to the period of physical incarnations.

Tarjei:

You're contradicting your preceding statement again. In this case, you say that even the idea of non-corpereal races like the "good" and the "bad" is racist, and then you say it only applies to physical corporeality.

Tarjei:

When so-called "critics" use the word "race" in the strictly materialistic sense in order to establish Anthroposophy as a racist ideology

Peter S:

I don't know why you say "strictly materialistic sense".

Tarjei:

Human races distinguishable through physiological characteristics derived from heritage or genealogy.

Peter S:

Lots of racists held a mixture of materialist and idealist conceptions of race. Many of them tied race in the material sense to spiritual ideals.

Tarjei:

It's rather the other way around, that racists make spiritual abilities dependent upon physiology and heritage, imprisoning spirit in matter so to speak.

Tarjei:

Present-day so-called human races are only remnants of a distant past and should play no role in human evolution any more.

Peter S:

That is only partly in line with Steiner's teachings. He designated some racial groups as decadent and regressing, and others as progressing into the future.

Tarjei:

If you read Steiner carefully and studiously, you will discover that his idea of progressive races evolving into the future are based not upon heredity, but upon common spiritual impulses, ideas, thought forms, and interests, goals and pursuits. This is happening already; new races are in the making that where ethnicities and "races" in the old sense are mixed.

<snip>

Tarjei:

Embodied is another word for incarnated. As long as we are incarnated in physical bodies, we are also more or less connected to races.

Peter S:

Yes, that was part of Steiner's doctrine. Since we will continue to incarnate in bodies for thousands of years, we'll be "connected to races" for some time to come, no?

Tarjei:

No.

Tarjei:

So there is a racism in anthroposophists for them to be aware of? And they are not unaware of their own racism? In other words, the anthro-oriented subscribers to this list, including Yours Truly, are racists and know it, but they/we are trying to deceive others into believing that they/we are not?


Peter S:

No, that is not my argument. I do not think that anthroposophists generally are racists (a few of them are, of course, but I think that isn't what you and I were talking about). I do think that many anthroposophists are either unaware of or have failed to grapple with the racist side of Steiner's teachings. This does not make them racists, in my view.

Tarjei:

You seem to be saying that many anthroposophists have failed to recognize the racist allegations against Steiner and his works from your quarters.

Tarjei:

And if we were aware of that, we would be even more racist than we already are?

Peter S:

No, not unless you endorsed and promoted the racist side of Steiner's teachings, while recognizing its racist character.

Tarjei:

There is no racist side of Steiner's teachings to be promoted in the first place.

Tarjei:

This statement seems to contradict the former. First, you imply that anthroposophists are racists (and aware of it) after having read Steiner's "racist doctrines" available in English.

Peter S:

No, I did not imply that. Many of Steiner's racist doctrines are not available in English. Of the ones that are, lots of anthroposophists frequently ignore or simply misread, in my view.

Tarjei:

In other words, they refuse to interpret these texts the way you do?

Tarjei:

But these racists anthroposophists haven't read "Steiner's worst stuff on race", which you then imply is not necessarily racist at all.

Peter S:

Huh? The worst stuff is the most obviously racist stuff, in my estimation. What are you talking about?

Tarjei:

You wrote in your former sentence (now snipped by you) that whether or not this stuff was racist, is a debatable issue.

Tarjei:

If it were, one shouldn't need to talk about whether or not some of it qualifies as racist, and if so, why.

Peter S:

But we always need to talk about that.

Tarjei:

That's what you say. You wish to isolate this topic and link it to anthroposophy without understanding anthroposophy, and this seems to confuse you, because all you see is racism and racial ideas and so on.

Peter S:

That's part of what public discussion is for. This is why I don't understand your whole "stigmatizing" line. If a charge of racism is leveled against a specific body of ideas, and upon examination that charge turns out to be false, then it isn't stigmatizing.

Tarjei:

Your whole presentation of anthroposophy is stigmatizing. You're linking it to Hitler.

Peter S:

Hence we need to talk about it to see whether there is something to the charge in the first place.

Tarjei:

You seem to have made up your mind about that a long time ago. What are you trying to do, convince others?

Tarjei:

During the course of evolution, humanity has lived in various groups and civilizations and races, and at certain times, some group has begun to evolve a mode of consciousness that the rest of humanity has adopted later.

Peter S:

If you conceive of this sort of "group" in racial terms, then you are stepping into the terrain of racist thought.

Tarjei:

That's not very difficult with your definitions.

Peter S:

Races do not evolve or embody modes of consciousness.

Tarjei:

If human beings evolve and human races exist, human races evolve too.

Peter S:

The understanding of racism I use is not eccentric. I do not think of racism as a disease of the soul, as you do. I think of it as a belief system, as an ideology.

Tarjei:

Nazism was a belief system and an ideology. It was also a disease.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 10:50 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Peter:

But they don't evolve according to spiritual criteria. Races don't have missions. They don't have cosmic functions. They aren't sorted into higher and lower categories. Race is spiritually meaningless.

Peter, it's so funny to hear you, Diana, and Dan Dugan give such absolutes. It is really ironic. You claim what you know is true and indeed it looks like you are saying it is a fact just in the same manner Diana does. It's like we got the talking heads here on the AT list spouting a new religion of sorts that they know is the right way. How hipocritical of you all. You are unwilling to take into consideration of what others say but you expect them to think that you know what you are speaking of.

So, let me ask you how you know your above statement to be true if you don't mind sharing with the list? How was it you came to the conclusion above. Same I would like to ask for Diana. Dan I understand as he just spouts off at the mouth to anything that doesn't look like he thinks its supposed to. How did you come to such absolute truths as shared above?

I'd like to know who died and left you three boss?

Thanks,
Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 8:19 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

How was it you came to the conclusion above.

By paying attention to the world around me. In my experience, it is not the case that black people are substantially determined by childhood characteristics, for example. There are no spiritual traits that apply to races. Spiritual traits apply to individuals regardless of race.

It sounds like you disagree. Could you explain what spiritual meaning race has for you? Do you believe that specific races carry specific spiritual traits? Do you believe that there are higher racial forms and lower racial forms? Do you believe that races have missions?

Thanks,

Peter

Peter:

But they don't evolve according to spiritual criteria. Races don't have missions. They don't have cosmic functions. They aren't sorted into higher and lower categories. Race is spiritually meaningless.

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:35 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Peter:

By paying attention to the world around me.

So, your paying attention to the world around you is better than how others pay attention? And the same goes for Diana and Dan I suppose? Your absolutes are correct is that right? Seriously Peter.

Peter:

There are no spiritual traits that apply to races. Spiritual traits apply to individuals regardless of race.

Peter:

Could you explain what spiritual meaning race has for you? Do you believe that specific races carry specific spiritual traits? Do you believe that there are higher racial forms and lower racial forms? Do you believe that races have missions?

Nice try Peter. Go fish. Who can have a conversation with an atheist on a twisted mission to show how spiritual realities are racist in their core teachings. Again I ask if you have the same understandings of the Christians and their doctrine? But I do not think I will get a reply to this due to the fact of the Christian Fundies that support Dan Dugans PLANS.

Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Myaso
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:49 am
Subject: Re[2]: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hello Peter,

Wednesday, March 10, 2004, 6:19:25 PM, you wrote:

PS

It sounds like you disagree. Could you explain what spiritual meaning race has for you? Do you believe that specific races carry specific spiritual traits? Do you believe that there are higher racial forms and lower racial forms? Do you believe that races have missions?

How these independent issues can interconnect each other? Do you really cannot believe that there are different missions of the races - just different, not better or worse than each other? Do you believe that if we use word "races", we should use word "higher" or "lower"? Do you believe that we, when use "races" term, need to develop some kind of comparison table for all races?

If YES - you ARE nazi. Because you allow this, nazi's, way of thinking inside your mind. And you are projecting this (sick) way to whole usage of "race" term.

Best regards,
Myaso

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:53 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

So, your paying attention to the world around you is better than how others pay attention?

That depends. If you believe that black people are substantially determined by childhood characteristics, then yes, I suspect that my paying attention to the world is "better" than yours.

Your absolutes are correct is that right?

Nobody knows whether their beliefs are correct until these beliefs have been tested. Talking about them in public is one good way to test them. If you disagree with my claim that race is spiritually meaningless, just tell me why you disagree.

Again I ask if you have the same understandings of the Christians and their doctrine?

No, I do not believe that christianity as such is racist. Some versions of christianity are, of course, but by no means all of them.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:59 am
Subject: Re: Re[2]: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hello Myaso, you wrote:

Do you really cannot believe that there are different missions of the races -just different, not better or worse than each other?

No, I really do not believe that different races have different missions.

Do you believe that if we use word "races", we should use word "higher" or "lower"?

No, I do not believe that. Rudolf Steiner did believe that there are higher racial forms and lower racial forms. I think he was wrong about that.

Do you believe that we, when use "races" term, need to develop some kind of comparison table for all races?

No, I do not believe that. Rudolf Steiner did believe in comparing races, and he believed that some racial and groups were degenerate while others were progressing. I think he was wrong about that.

And you are projecting this (sick) way to whole usage of "race" term.

No, there are lots of ways to use the term "race". Only some of these ways are racist.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: eyecueco
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:02 am
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

How was it you came to the conclusion above.

By paying attention to the world around me. In my experience, it is not the case that black people are substantially determined by childhood characteristics, for example. There are no spiritual traits that apply to races. Spiritual traits apply to individuals regardless of race.

WHOO, Nelly!
Stop, right here.

What is the _definition_ standing behind the expression "spiritual traits".

This expression is too loaded, to undefined, to discuss further until a consensus can be reached for what is being expressed here cognitively.

1.SPIRITUAL

Main Entry: spiráiátuáal
Pronunciation: 'spir-i-ch&-w&l, -i-ch&l, -ich-w&l
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French & Late Latin; Middle French spirituel, from Late Latin spiritualis, from Latin, of breathing, of wind, from spiritus
1:of, relating to, consisting of, or affecting the spirit :INCORPOREAL <man's spiritual needs
2 a :of or relating to sacred matters < spiritual songs> b:ecclesiastical rather than lay or temporal < spiritual authority> <lords spiritual >
3:concerned with religious values
4:related or joined in spirit <our spiritual home> <his spiritual heir>
5 a :of or relating to supernatural beings or phenomena b:of, relating to, or involving spiritualis: SPIRITUALISTIC
-spiráiátuáalály adverb
-spiráiátuáaláness noun

2. TRAIT

Main Entry: trait
Pronunciation: 'trAt, British usually 'trA
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, literally, act of drawing, from Latin tractus -- more at TRACT
1 a :a stroke of or as if of a pencil b:TOUCH,TRACE
2 a :a distinguishing quality (as of personal character) :PECULIARITY b: an inherited characteristic

If the Merriam-Webster definitions can be agreed upon by all concerned, then of course spiritual traits can, and do apply to races; of course!

LOL, again!
Peter, where DID you take your freshman foundation courses?

Paulina

...................................................................................................................................

From: eyecueco
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:24 am
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism

--- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Peter Staudenmaier wrote:

But they don't evolve according to spiritual criteria. Races don't have missions. They don't have cosmic functions. They aren't sorted into higher and lower categories. Race is spiritually meaningless.

This, too, is a _very_ problematic statement.

Of course, for someone who is unable to understand that a spiritual reality stands behind the tree Peter is able to admire only intellectually, I suppose the problem is quickly clarified, nevertheless, races most certainly are or have been tied to specific missions throughout world history, and there are folk souls who stand or have stood behind these missions.

The very people Peter is obsessed with saying Steiner made negaive, hostile, anti, and rascists remarks about were most exactly a people who evolved out of a specific cosmic task assigned to them by way of very specific spiritual criteria established for every single aspect of their lives.

RACE
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle French, generation, from Old Italian razza
-2 a :a family, tribe, people, or nation belonging to the same stock b:a class or kind of people unified by community of interests, habits, or characteristics <the English race >
-3 a :an actually or potentially interbreeding group within a species; also :a taxonomic category (as a subspecies) representing such a group b:BREED
c:a division of mankind possessing traits that are transmissible by descent and sufficient to characterize it as a distinct human type

Paulina

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 12:33 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Peter:

No, I do not believe that christianity as such is racist.

Dottie

Well you just got caught in an untruth or maybe it is that your views have changed since the last time I was on the critics list.

I recall you, myself and Newpaul as having a conversation as to your understanding of the bible as being anti-semetic. I recall Dan Dugan having to come in because Newpaul was about to go balistic on you as he was at the time a fundementalist Christian.

So, Peter, how is it that your views have changed on that particular subject? I wonder if it had to do with the fact that Mr. Dugan gives you free reign over on his site to the point of kicking others off who dare to call you on your untruthful characterization of Dr. Steiner and Anthroposophy.

What's up with the change was it sudden or a slow realization that Christianity is not a racist religion?

Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:10 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

Well you just got caught in an untruth or maybe it is that your views have changed since the last time I was on the critics list.

I recall you, myself and Newpaul as having a conversation as to your understanding of the bible as being anti-semetic.

You recall incorrectly. That was Peter Zegers, not me. The exchange took place in mid-November 2001. I think you completely misunderstood Peter Zeger's argument, by the way. Also, you seem to have racism and antisemitism mixed up, even now. They're not the same thing.

So, Peter, how is it that your views have changed on that particular subject?

They haven't. I don't believe that christianity as such is racist or antisemitic.

What's up with the change was it sudden or a slow realization that Christianity is not a racist religion?

Even Peter Zegers said nothing along those lines. What you and he and Newpaul argued about was antisemitism, not racism.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: dottie zold
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:59 pm
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism

Peter:

You recall incorrectly. That was Peter Zegers, not me. The exchange took place in mid-November 2001. I think you completely misunderstood Peter Zeger's argument, by the way. Also, you seem to have racism and antisemitism mixed up, even now. They're not the same thing.

Dottie:

Intellectual bullshit Peter. Get real will you?

Dottie

...................................................................................................................................

From: Peter Staudenmaier
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 9:08 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Morality and Racism

Hi Dottie, you wrote:

Intellectual bullshit Peter. Get real will you?

Antisemitism and racism are not the same thing, any more than Peter Zegers and Peter Staudenmaier are the same person. Racist antisemitism is only one variant of antisemitism. During most of Steiner's lifetime racist antisemitism was a minority trend within the anitsemitic camp as a whole. It's important to tell the difference if you want to make sense of the history of antisemitism and the history of racist thought.

Peter

...................................................................................................................................

From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:13 pm
Subject: Fear of God (was: Morality and Racism)

At 14:31 09.03.2004, Diana wrote:

Tarjei to Peter:

The real reason for these racist allegations, which the "critics" refuse to admit openly, is that they are afraid that the culture of the future will be dominated by an understanding of the spirit that is akin to Anthroposophy, if it is not Anthroposophy itself.

Peter:

I am definitely not afraid of that.

I'm willing to admit to fear here. (Not that it is connected to the discussion of racism, but just in response to this old trope that critics of anthroposophy must be "afraid of spirituality." I'm not afraid of "spirits" but I do feel fear at the prospect that "the culture of the future [would] be dominated by an understanding of the spirit that is akin to Anthroposophy." I fear the things humans have so often shown they can justify in the name of God or spirits or various spiritual programs.

What you're saying is reminiscent of what Martin Luther called fear of God. You seem to be afraid of what God can make people do if he exists, so you're hoping he'll go away and dreaming about his funeral. I believe "Thus Spake Zarazustra" by Friedrich Nietzsche should be a tremendous comfort to you:

http://www.eserver.org/philosophy/nietzsche-zarathustra.txt

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

[Continued in "Fear of God?"]

...................................................................................................................................

From: holderlin66
Date: Thu Mar 11, 2004 12:56 pm
Subject: Re: Morality and Racism/Utnapishtim

holderlin66 wrote:

Just Say "No" to No Doze, but "Yes" to Endless Combat

The U.S. military has long plied its fighting men with uppers. In Vietnam, medics sated soldiers' need for speed by doling out government-issue amphetamines. In 2002, U.S. pilots under the influence of Air Force "go-pills" (which Air Force spokeswoman Lt. Jennifer Ferrau calls a "fatigue management tool") killed four Canadian soldiers and injured eight others when they dropped a laser-guided bomb on a Canadian military training exercise in Afghanistan. Today, DARPA's Continuous Assisted Performance (CAP) program is aimed at creating a 24-7 trooper by "investigating ways to prevent fatigue and enable soldiers to stay awake, alert, and effective for up to seven days straight without suffering any deleterious mental or physical effects and without using any of the current generation of stimulants."

The Gilgamesh Initiation:

Although Gilgamesh wants to live forever, he cannot even stay awake for 7 days, as Utnapishtim proves by having his wife bake 7 loaves of bread while Gilgamesh sleeps. What is the point of this episode? What does Utnapishtim teach Gilgamesh about immortality? Would anyone really want this kind of immortality?"

The above is your Initiation question Peter. Like Noah or Utnapishtim, you will not believe that you slept through six weeks of trying so hard to understand, showing patience and putting up with these wild idiot kids in the hall, but guess what, you slept through your opportunity and you have no idea what a joyful array of insights came to meet you while you slept.

Poor Peter, the 7 Loaves of Bread are these Seven Spiritual realities we have been ever so patient in baking for you. But you sleep and that is your Initiation statement and that places you at about the same distance from truth as Gilgamesh was.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS as non serious history forger and mind gambler - a reminder

Fear of God?


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