Re: Gulags for Anthros?
I hope it's OK to comment.
"Robert continues: In the present, as it seems to me, these enemies work in two ways: through infiltration and subversion from within, and by attacks from without through slander, distortion, lawsuits -- which, as the little blurb in my original post shows, seem to be building toward legal repression. The WC seems, as far as I see, to be part, but not the whole, of the "outer" complex of (earthly, human) enemies.
Again, I don't get around much, but I get the impression that the rest of this "outer complex" is more active in Europe than in the
US. And again, that blurb in my original post was one example of such activity. I also have the impression that "outer" attacks against Anthroposophy in the Netherlands brought forth a few years ago that infamous Anthro report on Steiner's allegedly "discriminatory" statements."
I recently had the opportunity to spend a few hours in the company of young German anthroposophists and was quite impressed at the anthroposophic understanding inherent within their souls. Some of them were as giants compared to me, a predominantly English speaking North American with some Slavic origins.
In spite of this, I understood their predicament. They are the embodiment of the surviving spiritual (Germanic) seed that both World Wars attempted to illiminate and these young people seemed to know to keep a low profile. The strength for understanding within their souls seemed to be held in the background by an occult rule: that it should only be recongnised and interpreted by adequately prepared Anthro for safety's sake- such is the trickiness of the situation today.
From out of this experience and from what I see through Robert's suspicions from his outward observations, I'm guessing that in spite of the great forces used to Americanize Europe, Anthroposophic soul forces are still managing to gain some solid ground. And because of this, fellow citizens in places of power are eagerly applying themselves to act firmly against it. For the sake of Ahrimanic America and her ambitions...
Also, there exists the problem of superficialy interpreting Steiner's works, and many Anthros would also be guilty of this if not on some occasion, in spite of their whole hearted intentions not to. But this should not be considered Steiner's or Anthroposophy's problem. In my opinion, Steiner was in a certain sense compelled to verbalize a multitude of occult truths concerning humankind, the times we are living in etc, while on occasion dipping down quite deep when choosing his vantage points (aspects). He managed to hand them over to his fellow men before leaving and that's about all that counts.
I feel that the material should be well guarded because it contains 'such elaborate keys' which many souls, here and awaiting to arrive, will need to fulfill their destiny's work.
If the opposing soul forces wish to obstruct this, then Anthros should toughen up and use their imaginations to divert them from. After all, we have entered a time of soul consciousness and looking directly at the forces of evil is an obvious part of it. I guess the next step is 'calling' the evil by name, through steadfast use of the soul's intellectual forces- The document detailing Steiner's apolitical affiliation to Jews was a good example. It's so strange how back then, Steiner was under attack for his sympathy towards Jews, and now his legacy is under attack for anti-simetisism. (I smell a skunk)
Anyway, the early Christians lived dangerously in the name of heavens' will, philosophers of the past did, various initiates throughout history did, ordinary courageous moral individuals also did.
This comfort that we enjoy in today's world is 'a problem' in an Anthroposophic sense...
We should think about that.
--- In email@example.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
> To Val, who wrote:
> >>I'm afraid I am further confused by the terms
> light and semi-occultism which are entirely new
> to me,<<
> [Robert had written: ". . . . light occultisms
> or semi-occultisms such as Anthroposophy . .
> Robert writes now:
> Perhaps my choice of words was awkward. I
> meant "light occultism" as opposed to "dark
> occultisms" such as that of the anti-
> evolutionary supra-political power occultists.
> I may have been nodding a little, forgetting
> the basic Anthro understanding of the Golden
> Mean: the Christic balance between the "dark"
> Ahrimanic and the "light" Luciferic.
> I was suggesting the qualifier *semi* for
> reasons such as I stated in the little semantic
> discussion that followed: One might say that,
> strictly, Anthroposophy is not an "occultism"
> since the given "doctrine" is not physically
> hidden; still one might say that it is
> "occultic" since it reveals much that was
> formerly hidden physically and since it flows
> from and leads to the worlds beyond the Veil.
> Maybe I would have done better to have written:
> "the Christian occultism or semi-occultism of
> Robert had written:
> >>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
> Val wrote:
> >>Time maybe-it seems to kind of really be
> wearing on these people.<<
> Robert writes now:
> I don't understand why you would say that. Are
> you suggesting that the WC wasn't "destructive
> and perverse" in the beginning but became such
> only because they've been at it for so long???
> Robert had written:
> >>And the WC in itself is only a part of that
> greater complex of "enemies of Anthroposophy" I
> was referring to.<<
> Val wrote:
> >>. . . . I am unaware of the greater complex
> so please clue me in.<<
> Robert writes now:
> I'm a little surprised that you seem to be
> plugged into the Waldorf movement and still
> don't have a "clue" about this. -- The
> "enemies of Anthroposophy" are first of all the
> spiritual Adversaries. On earth their minions
> have been working against Anthroposophy almost
> since Steiner first opened his mouth. As Marie
> Steiner said of RS:
> "How could he escape being hated with all the
> demonic power of which Hell is capable? . . .
> ". . . .
> They hissed with hate and blocked his forward way.
> His work they shattered even as he wrought it.
> They raged with venom and with flame . . . .
> "He did what once Prometheus expiated
> What gave to Socrates the poisoned cup-
> The pardoning of Barabbas was less vile-
> A deed whose expiation is the cross.
> We demons cannot suffer such a thing.
> We harry, hunt, pursue who dares such deeds
> With all those souls who give themselves to us,
> With all those forces which obey our will.
> For ours are the turning-points of time
> And ours this humanity which lies,
> Without their God, in weakness, vice, and error.
> We never yield the booty we have won
> But tear to pieces him who dares to touch it. .
> . ."
> Robert continues:
> In the present, as it seems to me, these
> enemies work in two ways: through infiltration
> and subversion from within, and by attacks from
> without through slander, distortion, lawsuits --
> which, as the little blurb in my original
> post shows, seem to be building toward legal
> repression. The WC seems, as far as I see, to
> be part, but not the whole, of the "outer"
> complex of (earthly, human) enemies.
> Again, I don't get around much, but I get the
> impression that the rest of this "outer
> complex" is more active in Europe than in the
> US. And again, that blurb in my original post
> was one example of such activity. I also have
> the impression that "outer" attacks against
> Anthroposophy in the Netherlands brought forth
> a few years ago that infamous Anthro report on
> Steiner's allegedly "discriminatory" statements.
> For another example, you can see here:
> "A study shows that Rudolf Steiner (1861-1925),
> the founder of anthroposophy, was an active
> opponent of anti-Semitism (1). The study
> contradicts allegations, made especially since
> a broadcast in Germany (Report Mainz) in
> February (2000), about Waldorf schools and
> their founder. The allegations about Steiner
> are based on a lack of overview and an
> understanding of his views."
> I did a little more Googling around, and it
> wasn't hard to find examples of attacks against
> Anthroposophy and some responses to them.
> *SkepticReport* "The Racial Teachings of Rudolf Steiner"
> "On a libelous article in Salon on Waldorf education"
> -- And I don't think all of the attacks were
> coming from Europe. I don't know about
> *SkepticReport*, but I think *Salon* is
> American. -- The enemies of Anthroposophy are
> Val wrote:
> >>I live in what has been called a "Waldorf
> Ghetto"-there are a few such places in the U.S.
> I am told. My next door neighbor, for example
> is a second generation Anthroposophist.<<
> Robert writes:
> I knew that there are the Camphill Villages
> and that "fellowship community" that runs
> Mercury Press, but "Waldorf ghettoes"? That's
> a new one on me. I'm trying to imagine what
> one would look like: a clutch of BD farms
> surrounded by barbed wire and watchtowers out
> in the boonies?
> Val wrote:
> >>I have not known anyone in real life to call
> themselves an Anthroposophist and be
> distressingly delusional.<<
> Robert signs off:
> Lucky you.
> Choose the right car based on your needs. Check out Yahoo! Autos new Car Finder tool.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Robert Mason
> I don't object to the mere fact that my view isI'm sorry you feel that way.-Val
> 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