Loading ...
Sorry, an error occurred while loading the content.

Re: [anthroposophy] Re: Gulags for Anthros?

Expand Messages
  • organicethics@sympatico.ca
    Robert writes: I try to keep an eye on them to see what they re up to; they re always up to something whether or not you or I ignore them. The Waldorf schools
    Message 1 of 68 , Jul 27, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      "Robert writes:

      I try to keep an eye on them to see what they're up to; they're always up to something whether or not you or I ignore them. The Waldorf schools can't ignore them, if only because of the legal attacks. And I think that Anthros in general should be aware of the
      hostility that's out there. Steiner repeatedly took note of the attacks on Anthroposophy and exhorted Anthros to be aware. And he, and they, could have ignored the hostility only at their peril. Consider the Fire as a blatant example. I was asking the question whether we might have worse "fires" yet in store for us."

      I'm aware of the hostility that's out there.

      The problem with Anthroposophy, apparently, is that it is a science (albeit spiritual) which is capable of permitting it's 'hosts' to actually 'get in' on the real mischief that's happening behind the scenes. But of course, this is permitted through a portal defined by Anthroposophy, and does not play into any set rules erected by any group which for example may use advance radiotronics or materialistic occultism.

      A situation is unraveling itself everyday people (refined Anthros for example) find themselves stumbling into the realms held by secret societies (because these ones impose their rule over them and the rest of the masses)- and are able to influence even their set course because Anthroposophic moral forces carry creative forces and true the spiritual stamp of the Times.

      I imagine that along side people like Alex Jones, Jeff Rense and the like, some so called active Anthros can find themselves on several 'priority' lists- but not exactly the ones that they would normally agree to be on if it were they were deciding.


      C.




      > From: Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...>
      > Date: 2007/07/27 Fri PM 01:42:18 EDT
      > To: anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com
      > Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: Gulags for Anthros?
      >
      > To Val, who wrote:
      >
      > >>What differentiates an occultist and a non-
      > occultist in your mind? This is a serious
      > question which I've had for awhile-what are
      > people talking about when they say someone is
      > an occultist? If you're an observer of the
      > obvious, as you say, can you also be an
      > occultist? Stephen just recently said he wasn't
      > one so obviously one can be a serious student
      > odf Steiner's then without being an
      > occultist.<<
      >
      > Robert writes:
      >
      > I'll let Stephen explain Stephen's terminology.
      > -- What I was getting at by saying that Alex
      > Jones isn't an occultist is that he has
      > discerned the dark occultic forces at work in
      > power politics while he has not, as far as I
      > can tell, penetrated those occult circles with
      > the cognition of an occultic seer (as Steiner
      > apparently did, especially during and after the
      > First World War), nor does he have much, if
      > any, knowledge of light occultisms or semi-
      > occultisms such as Anthroposophy. I might be
      > wrong; Jones is a Christian, but from my
      > listening and reading of him I don't see any
      > awareness in him of esoteric Christianity.
      >
      > Of course, *occult* literally means *hidden* or
      > *secret*, and the dictionary also defines it as
      > *of or relating to supernatural agencies, their
      > effects, and knowledge of them*. I would
      > understand *occult* as referring to some secret
      > knowledge of the "supernatural" and that this
      > secrecy might be a physical concealment (as in
      > "secret societies") and/or the concealment of
      > the "Veil" between the physical and non-
      > physical worlds. Anthroposophy as we have it
      > in the literature is obviously not "occult" in
      > the physical sense; it is now available to the
      > public (even the First Class Lessons), though
      > the basic information was formerly physically
      > concealed before Steiner made it public. But
      > the essence of Anthroposophy is "occult" in the
      > sense that it comes from the other side of the
      > Veil. I would think that one who follows the
      > Anthro Path of Cognition might fairly be called
      > an *occultist* since he is using information
      > and methods that come from beyond the Veil and
      > lead him there. In another sense, I suppose
      > that one might say that the Anthro student is
      > not an "occultist" since he is not involved in
      > any practices or information that are
      > physically concealed from the public.
      >
      > I don't see any point in trying to split
      > semantic hairs; like most words, the term
      > *occultist* is generally not defined with
      > mathematical precision. I think that the
      > important thing for a student of Anthroposophy
      > is how seriously and consistently he follows
      > the Path of Cognition. -- You might want to re-
      > read the first chapter of *Occult Science*,
      > where Steiner explains what he means by the
      > term (*Geheimwissenschaft*); also the Preface
      > to the last edition.
      >
      > Val wrote:
      >
      > >>What does that mean, do you think-"I haven't
      > heard from anybody who has actually checked
      > this out".<<
      >
      > Robert writes:
      >
      > You can go over to Anthroposophy Tomorrow and
      > read the thread for yourself. If that doesn't
      > answer your question, you could ask Christine.
      >
      > Val wrote:
      >
      > >>Speaking of my own experience I was
      > repeatedly warned by teachers, both Rene
      > Querido AND Werner Glas, parents and friends.
      > Personally, I would not be, and am not
      > concerned at all about the Waldorf Critics in
      > relation to what you write below, at least in
      > the U.S. Neither in my albeit brief stint on
      > that list did I ever witness or in any way
      > experience a hatred for Anthroposophy at work,
      > relentless or otherwise.<<
      >
      > Robert writes:
      >
      > I really have to wonder how much you
      > "witnessed"; your "stint" must have been brief
      > indeed. You could take a look at the PLANS/WC
      > archives; they go back for years. You can see
      > the enormous amount of work they are doing to
      > denigrate and discredit Anthroposophy and
      > Anthroposophists, even to the tiniest detail
      > and most tenuous connection. (By *they* I mean
      > the loudest and most persistent voices over
      > there, not the Anthro or quasi-Anthro
      > visitors.) *Energy* is defined as *the
      > capacity to do work*. Just where do you
      > suppose all that "energy" that does all that
      > "work" comes from, if not from hatred of
      > Anthroposophy?
      >
      > Val wrote:
      >
      > >>I can, once again only offer what I
      > personally do in order not to feed the
      > "destructive, perverse energy that is readily
      > apparent there"-I don't feed it by keeping an
      > eye out for it.<<
      >
      > Robert writes:
      >
      > You seem to allow that the energy is
      > destructive and perverse, but you didn't
      > experience any "hatred" in it? Well, again:
      > what do you suppose makes it destructive and
      > perverse?
      >
      > Val wrote:
      >
      > >>That's not to say that if someone, like
      > yourself points something out that I won't go
      > investigate. A quick check in on their list
      > today shows that they have moved to Yahoo and
      > are way down in their membership (and
      > presumably readership as well). So why spread
      > the word, their word? . . . <<
      >
      > Robert writes:
      >
      > I try to keep an eye on them to see what
      > they're up to; they're always up to something
      > whether or not you or I ignore them. The
      > Waldorf schools can't ignore them, if only
      > because of the legal attacks. And I think that
      > Anthros in general should be aware of the
      > hostility that's out there. Steiner repeatedly
      > took note of the attacks on Anthroposophy and
      > exhorted Anthros to be aware. And he, and
      > they, could have ignored the hostility only at
      > their peril. Consider the Fire as a blatant
      > example. I was asking the question whether we
      > might have worse "fires" yet in store for us.
      >
      > Val wrote:
      >
      > >>. . . . It's my experience as well as my
      > observation that the racism bludgeon is, as you
      > say, quite effective at silencing people,
      > however it seems to be self-limiting. For
      > example, the self-professed Waldorf critics,
      > have only themselves to talk to. If you saw
      > Michael Moore's "Bowling for Columbine" you may
      > have noticed a similar effect of playing "the
      > race card" in the US, anyway.
      >
      > >>Again, why advertise their list here?<<
      >
      > Robert writes:
      >
      > No, I didn't see the movie. And I’m not sure
      > that I see your point: If the WC people are
      > talking only to themselves, then who is being
      > silenced? And the WC in itself is only a part
      > of that greater complex of "enemies of
      > Anthroposophy" I was referring to.
      >
      > Anyway, I really doubt that the WC people are
      > talking only to themselves. Apparently the WC
      > archives have a high Google rating; if you
      > Google Anthro keywords, those archive pop up a
      > lot. I have been told that it isn't a good
      > practice to write on the WC list even to
      > support Anthroposophy, since that will enhance
      > the WC Google ranking. I did post there
      > briefly, but left mostly because I don't like
      > to beat my head against brick walls. But as
      > for "advertising" them, I have already answered
      > that question.
      >
      > Val wrote:
      >
      > >>. . . . But my experience for the most part
      > with those that call themselves
      > anthroposophists is that they are, for the most
      > part, self-possesed, that is to say composed or
      > tranquill in mind, manner, and undisturbed by
      > the irrelevant, and immaterial. In other words,
      > able to seperate the essential from the non-
      > essential. . . .<<
      >
      > Robert writes:
      >
      > I have had almost no experience of Anthros in
      > the flesh, but my experience in cyberspace is
      > that *all* kinds of people might call
      > themselves "Anthropsophists", from the
      > eminently sane to the distressingly delusional.
      >
      > Somewhere in between,
      >
      > Robert Mason
      >
      >
      >
      >
      >
      > ____________________________________________________________________________________
      > Got a little couch potato?
      > Check out fun summer activities for kids.
      > http://search.yahoo.com/search?fr=oni_on_mail&p=summer+activities+for+kids&cs=bz
      >
      >
    • isenhart7
      ... I m sorry you feel that way.-Val
      Message 68 of 68 , Aug 23, 2007
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason
        <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:

        > I don't object to the mere fact that my view is
        > being challenged; I was inviting a discussion.
        > But so far you haven't shown me anything that
        > convinces me that your "challenge" is well-
        > founded in this case. And now it seems to me
        > that our discussion has reached an impasse, a
        > dead end; you're not saying anything really
        > new. So I don't see any point in my
        > continuing.

        I'm sorry you feel that way.-Val
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.