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

Re: Gulags for Anthros?

Expand Messages
  • isenhart7
    ... I have not heard of the anti-evolutionary supra-political power occultists either-are they a facist group? Because if they are the critics should be happy
    Message 1 of 68 , Aug 2, 2007
      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason
      <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:

      > 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 have not heard of the anti-evolutionary supra-political power
      occultists either-are they a facist group? Because if they are the
      critics should be happy that Anthroposophy stands diametrically
      opposed to them.

      > 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.

      I couldn't find "occultic" in the dictionary. Let's stick with
      Anthroposophy is not an "occultism". One of the accusations made by
      the critics is that Waldorf schools are occult, but how so remains
      unclear to me. It's possible that the critics, not being occultists
      themselves, or perhaps even familiar with the occult, have difficulty
      in expressing themselves in this regard. Anyway, I think the question
      of what constitutes an occultist is an essentail one where the
      critics are concerned and so I do not take the terms lightly.
      > Maybe I would have done better to have written:
      > "the Christian occultism or semi-occultism of
      > Anthroposophy"?

      Still problematic for me. The study of Christian esoterism may be
      something anthroposophists do-this does not define Anthroposophy.

      > 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???

      I experienced, what for me, was a high level of cynicism on the
      critics list. I lost count of how many times conflicting views were
      labeled and dismissed as disingenuous and I was only there for a few
      months. Of course it's quite possible that some of the critics were
      always prone to cynicism but my understanding is that this attitude
      is a result of the critics experience with Waldorf Schools,
      anthroposophists, and their own (rather remarkable) study of

      > 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:

      Oh, I think it was the "greater complex" that threw me here. If
      you're speaking of the work and pettiness of the minions then yes, I
      certainly have had my share of experience with this.

      > "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.

      I see the critics themselves as a kind of thing of beauty. How often
      do you get a human advesary with a self-imposed blindness where their
      enemy is concerned?
      > 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.
      > E.g.:
      > http://www.skepticreport.com/newage/steiner.htm
      > *SkepticReport* "The Racial Teachings of Rudolf Steiner"
      > http://skepdic.com/steiner.html
      > http://www.defendingsteiner.com/sitemap.php
      > http://uncletaz.com/steinerrace.html
      > http://www.thebee.se/comments/plans1.html#PLANS
      > http://www.openwaldorf.com/criticism.html
      > http://www.waldorfanswers.org/OnSalonArticle.html
      > "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
      > busy.

      So are all the people and groups that are kept busy answering these
      allegations part of a complex as well?

      > 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?

      Ronald Koetsch's parady of North Boulder. Your imagination is
      certainly in keeping with the title of this thread and not so far
      from the truth in my estimation.
      > Val wrote:
      > >>I have not known anyone in real life to call
      > themselves an Anthroposophist and be
      > distressingly delusional.<<
      > Robert signs off:
      > Lucky you.

      But I have known people who are distressingly delusional.-Val
    • isenhart7
      ... I m sorry you feel that way.-Val
      Message 68 of 68 , Aug 23, 2007
        --- 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.