Yes. What puzzles me is that your apparent extensive study of
Steiner's works through a number of years has kept you spellbound on
one topic only that you abuse in order to misrepresent Anthroposophy
and its founder. I am not less puzzled when you subscribe to an
anthroposophical email list where all kinds of anthroposophically
related topics are discussed, only to insist upon this obsession of
yours that is not even a part of Anthroposophy.
Smear, character assassination, and the wonderful song by Neil Young
where he Young talks about the 'Needle and the damage done and every
junkie like a setting sun' had to do with esoteric understanding of
moral complicity. Addiction to denial and addiction to lies and half-
truths for buying momentary INDULGENCES against the soul's defense
are the unformed pockets of excuses and unresolved denials in the
soul. Now stabalizing the point of view where your ethical compass
can see through your own lies, has brought Michael Moore and
Fahrenheit 9/11 into the cross hairs. Is Michael Moore merely using
the same character assassination on Bush as P.S. has been using on
Steiner and Anthroposophy? Are both values the same?
Many Anthros, unlike Tarjei who has an opinion, love to sit on some
fence and say this is like this and everything is equal. I for one
have to admire Tarjei when he accused P.S. of the kind of character
assassination and guilt by association that the entire Dan Dugan
mission stems from. Steiner defended our rights to be Anthros and to
think into the future of Spiritual Science and measure, beyond
denials, the height of a being like Christ that humanity is on the
road to become. Steiner defended our rights to think past dogmatism,
fundamentalism and mass denial.
In sloppy esoteric development, amongst many Anthros, such fierce
defense and strong opinion unsettles the stomach of Anthros. They
like the idea that we can't really understand things and opinion and
hatreds or passions upset esoteric clarity. How can anyone have
esoteric clarity if they have passion about something?
We had for years in the exoteric world attacks by Right Wingers. It
crept up into Liberal of all stripes and general mockery and
permitted mockery of anyone who takes homeopathy or bio-dymanics or
Waldorf Education seriously. Certain opinions began to pollute the
waters where real research into history and humanity meet the sewage
line of talk show hosts. The left always has this wide live and let
live attitude. Until recently. But I wish to offer you the level of
insight as to first, coming to terms with discernment over bullshit
and secondly the results of lies. The results of lies, if Steiner
was a liar obviously that makes me a delusional idiot. That goes
without saying, of course.
So that leaves just basic floating opinions and bickering and free
speech, free to believe or speak about a person anyway that makes
sense in your opinion. Discerning, high nose bleed, Logos navigation
on the trail of Truth and sincerity is really a lost art. Now is the
time of moral relativism and blinders.
Yet, let us compare, just for Goethean observation, the Goethean
observation of what happens when you later change your opinion...
Not just after death when you see the facts of the afterlife...but
when moral complicity and lies fail to inspire your own sincere
quest for truth after hating the very ideas where truth might be
located. We can actually study this in a Goethean Manner. Here is
one example and I'm sure others can supply other examples. What do
we defend? Why would we defend it? How do we evaluate character and
moral strength and how do we evaluate moral weakness supported by
And in it all is the 'Theory of Angels' and the task of inner
"If we aren't attentive, Bill Buckley's antiwar pronouncement,
issued in an interview with the New York Times, could be relegated
to a minor footnote in this week's news pages, whereas it really
speaks volumes about the history of the last 50 years and the fall
of American freedom in the push for perpetual war.
What he said, in his famously circuitous way, was this: "With the
benefit of minute hindsight, Saddam Hussein wasn't the kind of extra-
territorial menace that was assumed by the administration one year
ago. If I knew then what I know now about what kind of situation we
would be in, I would have opposed the war."
Thus does he implicitly concede that the antiwar forces were right,
and the warmongers were wrong, and thus does he implicitly repudiate
everything his magazine and website have ever written about this
subject, and thus does he add his name to the roster of people who
reject the main project of the Bush administration and the main
cause of the world's woe.
Perhaps if the interviewer had hung around a bit longer, Buckley
would have repudiated the sanctions of the 1990s that helped inspire
the events of 9/11, and perhaps even the original Gulf War that
started this whole mess and hurled US-Islamic relations onto this
destructive path. Why not? It's as easy as waving a hand.
The games played by a public intellectual are a marvel of moral
irresponsibility. He casually suggests that a war would be a grand
idea. The result is that 10,000 die and life is ruined for the
living. Civilization is replaced by shifting stenches of death,
disease, and filth. Millions swear retribution.
Ah, but then the intellectual changes his mind! War wasn't all it
was cracked up to be, or so he tells a reporter for a newspaper,
before clicking off his cell and ordering up a nice lunch.
But he can't bring back the dead. Neither American mothers and
fathers, nor Iraqi children and widows, are comforted by his change
of mind. He can't drain the streets of the sewage that flows freely
where children play amidst the wreckage. He can't bring electricity
back to schools and hospitals and homes and businesses, or will away
the blazing sun that bakes homes at night when people are trying to
sleep to escape the nightmare of the day, but they cannot because of
the explosions and screams. He can't take away the hate that has
swelled up the souls of young boys who see what the empire did to
their families, communities, faith, and freedoms.
He can't pay hundreds of billions in debt accumulated to fund the
war, or personally compensate Iraqi merchants for their lost profits
and livelihoods. He can't persuade the suicide bombers not to give
up their lives to kill their enemies who gave them this war. He
can't bring back the rule of law to Iraq or solve incredibly
intractable economic problems. He can't expunge the culture of war
that has shaped a generation of the enlisted or perversely inspired
teens around the country to turn to violence as a means of settling
He can't heal the wounds, physical and spiritual, of the innocents
who were arrested, held in prison, and tortured before being
released only under international pressure. He can't take away the
humiliation of a people who have lived for more than a year under
martial law before they regained "sovereignty" under a puppet regime
that rules from a frightened fortress.
He can't disarm the states that are working on acquiring nuclear
weapons as a way of protecting themselves from the US, since
everyone knows that US attacked Iraq not because it had nukes but
because it did not. There are no means at his disposal to prevent a
future nuclear holocaust triggered because the old standards of
diplomacy just seemed so out of fashion in an age of terrorism.
No, he can't do any of this. But he can walk away from it all, with
just a few words. Had he known, he would have opposed it. That he
presided over a media empire that made all of this possible, that
even turned the opinion of conservatives who should have opposed
every bit of this into a chorus of cheers for a regime that has been
a calamity for human liberty, for this he cannot be held
responsible. He is just a commentator after all. He doesn't own the
wars he advocates, so he bears no liability when they go wrong.
He knows full well that this will be the only article that will draw
attention to his personal culpability for the tragedy. He is part of
a class of thinkers who treat world affairs like a parlor game: roll
the dice, pick the card, take a chance, win some, lose some. War is
even better, so far as these people are concerned, because there are
no rules. You play when you feel like it and crush opponents through
War, these people know, isn't like a real game of chess. You don't
checkmate; instead you sweep your hand across the board, declare
yourself the winner, and dare your opponent to disagree. The crucial
thing is to pretend that the people are chess pieces made of wood
and stone rather than flesh and blood.
All the warmongers have something to answer for, but Buckley in
particular. His goal at the start of his career was to change the
American right from peace-loving to warmongering. He did that. He
succeeded. Now, at 78, he should look carefully at the ideological
world he created, one where his own movement parties as the victims
of imperial violence weep.
It didn't have to be this way. Back when the madness first began,
with Harry Truman's initial call for a post-war US empire, Buckley
could have stood athwart history and yelled not "kill!" but "stop!"
But those are the topics most of us here are interested in.
Anthroposophy is a worldview and cosmology, and it rests upon the
epistemology outlined in the PoF. For this reason, we are interested
in Christian theology, Judaism, Islam, Buddhism, folklore,
mythology, atheism, agnosticism, Marxism, Platonism, the New Age
Movement, etc. We are interested in how various worldviews compare
to Anthroposophy, what they have in common and how they differ. We
are curious about how different members stand in relation to the
many spiritual and philosophical paths and views that are
available to us all. But you're not interested in any of this
because you don't think it has anything to do with "Steiner's racial
or ethnic doctrines", which might have been interesting if they
could be discussed in a normal manner. You discuss this *only* topic
in a manner that is not normal because your approach is not
intellectually honest, and for this reason, the result is blind
alleys and endless boredom.