Re: Gulags for Anthros?
- --- In email@example.com, Robert Mason
> Perhaps my choice of words was awkward. II have not heard of the anti-evolutionary supra-political power
> 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.
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* forI couldn't find "occultic" in the dictionary. Let's stick with
> 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.
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.
>Still problematic for me. The study of Christian esoterism may be
> Maybe I would have done better to have written:
> "the Christian occultism or semi-occultism of
something anthroposophists do-this does not define Anthroposophy.
> Robert writes now:I experienced, what for me, was a high level of cynicism on the
> 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???
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:Oh, I think it was the "greater complex" that threw me here. If
> 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:
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 theI see the critics themselves as a kind of thing of beauty. How often
> 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.
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:
>So are all the people and groups that are kept busy answering these
> "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
allegations part of a complex as well?
> I knew that there are the Camphill VillagesRonald Koetsch's parady of North Boulder. Your imagination is
> 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?
certainly in keeping with the title of this thread and not so far
from the truth in my estimation.
>But I have known people who are distressingly delusional.-Val
> Val wrote:
> >>I have not known anyone in real life to call
> themselves an Anthroposophist and be
> distressingly delusional.<<
> Robert signs off:
> Lucky you.
- --- 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