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

Re: The remains of human giants.

Expand Messages
  • carol
    Bradford: « ...Weimar and Leo Strauss, the supposed Neocon Platonist has us now, globally headed for a Weimar economic meltdown where once more Goethe s and
    Message 1 of 57 , Nov 28 8:17 AM
    • 0 Attachment

       Bradford: « ...Weimar and Leo Strauss, the supposed Neocon Platonist has us now, globally headed for a Weimar economic meltdown where once more Goethe's and Steiner's Weimar, and Strauss's Weimar became the voice of the Ahrimanic mockery of the Platonist stream while giving birth to the Sorathian Willed Neocons who have been very receptive to the power of making a new world out of the shattered remains of the Logos. »

      It does look like it all boils down to Ahrimanic mockery, in my view. Steiner's spiritual science would the anthidote against inevitable 'Ahrimanic mockery'; if it were only recognized  how omni important it is to safeguard the esoteric from the exoteric, and vice versa. This ability is currently so loosely recognized, and as a result, so over and over again, humanity gets 'dupped' by Ahriman's natural ability  to pick up a whole lot of political idealism, along with the collectve 'mass' of human thought, instinct and will forces, and plop them it all straight in his pocket.

      While current day Straussian conservatives and others secure/ ensure justice over their common 'philosophical' choice of theory with   'it's' free application to  political vision and action -  possibly remaining the intelligible doctrine which draws all differing  personal experiences under one common 'political' umbrella - we, as discerning Anthros and/or Michael students have only to take a look back over what occured in Europe, in  early to mid 20 th century,  to study what results when philosophical and religious perceptions become too outwardly and vigorously  applied to political and military ideals- Ahrimanic forces easily slip into the mix, resulting in a mockery of any Logos intelligence and/or intent that might have manage to thread itself through it all. 

      The end results IS one great, 'clear' course for more Ahrimanic debauchery of millions of human destinies to come..

      Take a look.

      Evola as he is



      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "holderlin66" <holderlin66@...> wrote:
      > No these are fabricated man made, anti-cosmos, planned catastrophes,
      > where not the stars or destiny but human lies, Ahrimanic anger at being
      > tossed out of the Starry Laws into into human wills, now human wills and
      > the Intellectual Soul fabricate forces and evoke apparent acts that
      > would have appeared in the past as natural disasters...
      > "But were any of these people in the wrong place at the wrong time,
      > because of a "Natural Disaster"? No these are fabricated man made,
      > anti-cosmos, planned catastrophes, where not the stars or destiny but
      > human lies, Ahrimanic anger at being tossed out of the Starry Laws into
      > into human wills, now human wills and the Intellectual Soul fabricate
      > forces and evoke apparent acts that would have appeared in the past as
      > natural disasters... Yet human beings, real live human beings with
      > destinies are caught in the grinding gears of mega deception, larger
      > than life deception, magnified by the boob tube and the boobs who have
      > no idea if they are humans dreaming in a test tube and being fed a
      > Matrix feed of daily news of a world that doesn't exist or are they in a
      > world where their feeble i am's cannot gain the cognitive forces to
      > ascend to the laws of the stars and build the solid foundations of
      > cognition and discern."
      > Bradford comments;
      > So Tiamut and Ahriman, Michael and Marduk, even as the un Logos, rebels
      > known by observation as Comets, Astroids, outlaws of the stars, unlinked
      > to rhythmic and patterned Logos systems of the Planets and the Stars
      > they are certainly now amongst us. Yes the invaders have invaded from
      > outer space as it were into human wills and cunning materialistic
      > intellects.
      > We are designed physically, soul and spirit with our twelve cranial
      > nerves and 30 odd spinal notches, Sun and Moon in brain and spine and
      > our inner planetary centers, our physical organs like the 12 hour change
      > over of our Liver as a Jupiter mirror. Our Lungs as Mercury, our Mars
      > spleen and gall and Saturn...all fit within a skeletal cosmic bone
      > system IMAGINATION, a literal, bone system IMPRINTED IMAGINATION of the
      > great constellations starting with say, the Ram in the head and the
      > fishes in the feet....
      > But Ahriman's has been exiled to human wills on earth. Ahriman's outlaw
      > memory and outlaw instincts are now operating under the cunning
      > protection of the Materialistic Intellectual Soul, greed, avarice and
      > Orwellian Spin and LIes, and these now rise up out of human Will, out of
      > the Current and finishing Administration at the White House and Israel
      > as acts of Terror. Ten Years of a highly active world wide Sorathian
      > Surge spear headed by vile beings like Cheney. Indeed acts of terror
      > ferment out of the cunning forces of the exiled Cosmic Ahrimanic Beings
      > who now are wandering in the unguarded halls of human INTEL.... INTEL is
      > that which we brainwash with as well as that which we fabricate and
      > create deception with as acts of full blown, body destroying terror...
      > that is running amock as a powerful Logos rebel, a disordered and
      > anti-human, anti-Logos and anti-cosmic IMAGINATION OF MAN. Ahriman
      > could care less about the holy skeletal and interior organs of the
      > Cosmic Image of Man. Comets and renegades of such a magnitude are now
      > operative within the slimy mass of human ghastly political agendas, of
      > which Cheney and Hitler and whole hosts of Bush and Neocon simpletons
      > have contributed. These are far, far less innocent and rich than
      > Nietzche was.
      > Weimar and Leo Strauss, the supposed Neocon Platonist has us now,
      > globally headed for a Weimar economic meltdown where once more Goethe's
      > and Steiner's Weimar, and Strauss's Weimar became the voice of the
      > Ahrimanic mockery of the Platonist stream while giving birth to the
      > Sorathian Willed Neocons who have been very receptive to the power of
      > making a new world out of the shattered remains of the Logos. Are the
      > Straussians what Raphael meant when he painted the School of Athens?
      > Well Ahriman has painted his own school of Athens of of Neocond paint.
      > Not only that, but the utter icy arrogance calls to mind a certain
      > phrase as to how the Neocons were no longer bound by laws of history or
      > good sense but could do and shape the future in whatever arbitrary
      > manner they saw fit. Mercenaries, Mossad and black OPS and all
      > fabricated and all with immense loss of human life. Yes splinters of
      > details and shards of cutting reality, of the Neocon Sorathian Surge
      > that continues to operate today, from receptive wills....requires, yes
      > requires the Anthro to re think just what it means to have such a cosmic
      > force cast out of the spiritual world and down into human wills.
      > Can we and do we have such a grasp, such a vision, As the Fall of the
      > Spirits of Darkness, the Titan Like measure of all the fabricated
      > Terror, Propaganda, Lies and deception and educational tools that create
      > these new monsters here amongst us on Earth? Well the lack of
      > interconnected insight, to understand that in Germany and Weimar, a
      > whole cart full of money would only buy a loaf of bread, is connected to
      > something, connected to the current economic crisis of printing, and
      > printing and printing and printing more money to inflate the
      > overinflated situation. The Fall of the Spirits of Darkness and the
      > Sorathian Surge and the working together of the Neocons in and out of
      > the American West, who inherited the nuclear edge..and the dark, dark
      > underworkings of Israel behind the scenes are grotesque inhuman horrors,
      > which are schooled, trained and pre-empted in think tanks.
      > That direct palpable darkness that grew from the implosion of the Christ
      > Light out of Golgotha and consolidated through Israel today and the
      > Mossad, and the U.S. and the Central INTEL agency... an entire launched
      > global Academy of Gondi Shapur, gaining speed from 1998 to 2008/9 are
      > intense and living Fallen Spirits of Darkness in human wills and human
      > intellects that read and print media propaganda and substance which
      > tells those who devour those rabid lies, that they have a vast network
      > and community of brainwashed and failed humans to draw from.
      > And all the details are Michael fire and Michael ire and Michael
      > cognitive alertness and Michael wakefulness, from the dull slumber of
      > Anthro dreaming that we are in, we must place ourselves, those alive and
      > thinking, we are placed in the mix, we are in the thick of it and it and
      > the Fall of the Ahrimanic Spirits have infected and entered everywhere
      > with their own outlaw, rebel and disordered intentions, all planned to
      > shatter what the order of goodness and the Logos has meant to humanity.
      > What the Christ Event and Rudolf Steiner means to humanity and what the
      > Michael impulse in our souls means to the health and well being of souls
      > everywhere. We cannot expect a new president to preside over our
      > instincts and our delusions and our vanity, to serve the change from
      > Bush to Obama we have to serve by not accepting lies or fabricated
      > terror fairy tales hatched in the think tanks of the Pentagon. See
      > through them and jeer them and laugh at their clumsy and failed human
      > antics before they slip in below the radar and destroy another friend or
      > another family member or another child.
      > The Philosopher:
      > The late Leo Strauss has emerged as the thinker of the moment in
      > Washington, but his ideas remain mysterious. Was he an ardent opponent
      > of tyranny, or an apologist for the abuse of power?
      > By Jeet Heer,
      > Boston Globe Ideas (May 11, 2003).
      > ODD AS THIS MAY SOUND, we live in a world increasingly shaped by Leo
      > Strauss, a controversial philosopher who died in 1973. Although
      > generally unknown to the wider population, Strauss has been one of the
      > two or three most important intellectual influences on the conservative
      > worldview now ascendant in George W. Bush's Washington. Eager to get the
      > lowdown on White House thinking, editors at the New York Times and Le
      > Monde have had journalists pore over Strauss's work and trace his
      > disciples' affiliations. The New Yorker has even found a contingent of
      > Straussians doing intelligence work for the Pentagon.
      > Yet while the extent of Strauss's influence is wide, his writings are
      > frequently obscure, and his legacy is hotly disputed by admirers and
      > critics alike. Certainly, Strauss was no ordinary Republican idea-maker:
      > Steeped in ancient philosophy, he had dark forebodings about democracy,
      > religion, technology, and nearly everything else that can claim the
      > allegiance of the contemporary conservative (or liberal, for that
      > matter).
      > At first glance, a University of Chicago professor who spent most of his
      > life pondering old books would seem an unlikely master-thinker for the
      > policy wonks, career bureaucrats, and pundits who make up Washington's
      > unelected elite. Strauss held that politics was a central human
      > activity, but he also believed that "all practical or political life is
      > inferior to contemplative life." He participated in the battle of ideas
      > not by issuing political manifestoes or angling for bureaucratic power,
      > but by writing recondite and difficult books.
      > A typical Strauss volume is a densely packed commentary on a classic
      > text like Plato's "The Laws" or Machiavelli's "The Prince," festooned
      > with footnotes drawing on an array of hard-won languages from ancient
      > Greek and Latin to medieval Arabic. It's often difficult to discern
      > where Strauss's paraphrases of dead writers leave off and his own views
      > begin-and this has only deepened the mystery that attaches to his work.
      > Despite his life of quiet scholarly obscurity, Strauss has exerted a
      > strong posthumous sway among those who bustle through the corridors of
      > power. Washington Straussians have included Robert A. Goldwin, who had
      > the bizarre and unenviable task of organizing weekly seminars in
      > political theory and practice attended by President Gerald Ford in the
      > mid-1970s; Carnes Lord, National Security Council advisor in the Reagan
      > administration; and William Galston, deputy domestic policy adviser in
      > the first two years of the Clinton administration. Irving Kristol, an
      > intellectual whose name is virtually synonymous with neoconservatism,
      > has named Strauss as a major influence, and Straussian writers and ideas
      > regularly grace the pages of magazines like National Review, Commentary,
      > and The Weekly Standard, which is edited by Irving's son William
      > Kristol. The Bush administration's Straussians include the Pentagon
      > officials Paul Wolfowitz and Abram Shulsky, who studied with Strauss at
      > the University of Chicago, and the bioethics adviser Leon Kass, a
      > colleague at Chicago.
      > Strauss also claims a large, if rather clubbish, following in the
      > academy, especially among scholars of political theory and American
      > constitutional history. And yet even those academics who know Strauss's
      > work best often sharply disagree about its fundamental meaning. There
      > are East Coast Straussians, West Coast Straussians, and even some
      > Straussian Democrats. Clifford Orwin, a professor at the University of
      > Toronto strongly influenced by Strauss, describes him as a wise teacher
      > who counseled prudence and moderation. But Shadia Drury, a professor of
      > political science at the University of Calgary and the author of "Leo
      > Strauss and the American Right," completely disagrees. For her, Strauss
      > was nothing less than "a Jewish Nazi" whose pretense of American
      > patriotism and piety hid a cynical and extremist antidemocratic
      > ideology.
      > Was Leo Strauss a friend of liberal democracy, or an elitist who wanted
      > society to be ruled by a secretive cabal? An ardent opponent of tyranny,
      > or an apologist for the abuse of power? An atheist or a pious Jew?
      > To understand Strauss, we need to look beyond the famous students and
      > self-styled acolytes and examine the man himself.
      > Born in 1899 to an Orthodox Jewish family in Germany, Leo Strauss
      > learned at an early age that religion and philosophy are always
      > vulnerable to the threat of political persecution. As a young man,
      > Strauss was a liberal rationalist who nursed the hope, widespread in
      > German Jewish circles, that assimilation into a liberal democracy would
      > end anti-Semitism. As an undergraduate at the University of Marburg, his
      > mentor was Hermann Cohen, a philosopher whose reconciliation of Kant's
      > philosophical ethics and biblical morality seemed to suggest that there
      > was no contradiction in being a German Jewish liberal.
      > In the 1920s Strauss became increasingly disillusioned with modern
      > liberalism. Philosophically, he was shaken by his encounters at the
      > University of Freiburg with Martin Heidegger, the philosopher whose
      > powerful critique of rationality's delusions seemed to undercut the
      > guileless liberalism of Kant and Cohen. Politically, the instability of
      > the Weimar Republic and the rise of Nazism proved to Strauss that
      > liberals were also weaklings in practical matters, unable to protect
      > society from explosions of popular fanaticism. Furthermore, the rise of
      > a new and more virulent strain of anti-Semitism demonstrated that
      > assimilation had failed to solve the problems of German Jewry.
      > These political and philosophical problems fused together in the 1930s,
      > when the Nazis came to power-and won the applause of Heidegger. By this
      > point Strauss had left Germany for France, where he was studying
      > medieval Jewish and Islamic philosophy on a Rockefeller scholarship, but
      > he continued to view events in his native country with dismay.
      > Strauss believed that Martin Heidegger possessed the greatest mind of
      > the 20th century. But unlike those Heidegger admirers who excused the
      > philosopher's flirtation with Nazism as a mere personal failing, Straus
      > believed it showed that modern philosophy had gone deeply astray. Orwin
      > explains: "Strauss's question always was, What was it about modern
      > thought that could have led Heidegger to make these disastrous practical
      > misjudgments?"
      > In Strauss's mature work, he would argue that Plato and Aristotle were
      > wiser than modern thinkers like Machiavelli and Heidegger. This
      > exultation of ancient thought wasn't merely a nostalgic celebration of
      > the good old Greek days. As the political theorist Stephen Holmes
      > observes, Strauss believed that classical thinkers had grasped a
      > still-vital truth: Inequality is an ineradicable aspect of the human
      > condition.
      > For Strauss, the modern liberal project of using the fruits of science
      > and the institutions of the state to spread happiness to all is
      > intrinsically futile, self-defeating, and likely to end in terror and
      > tyranny. The best regime is one in which the leaders govern moderately
      > and prudently, curbing the passions of the mob while allowing a small
      > philosophical elite to pursue the contemplative life of the mind.
      > Such a philosophical elite may discover truths that are not fit for
      > public consumption. For example, it may find that its city's prosperity
      > derives ultimately from "force and fraud," or that the gods do not
      > exist. Aware that Socrates was executed for blasphemy, ancient thinkers
      > realized that philosophy was dangerous: It had to be kept for the
      > intelligent few rather than the ignorant many. Therefore ancient
      > philosophers (and their medieval followers) wrote in code. Using
      > metaphors and cryptic language, they communicated one message, an
      > "esoteric" one, for an elite of wise readers and another, "exoteric"
      > one, for the unsophisticated general population. For Strauss, the art of
      > concealment and secrecy was among the greatest legacies of antiquity.
      > Although Strauss's ideas had been developing for years, they really
      > coalesced when he moved to London in 1934, and then to the United States
      > later in the decade. Like many European emigres, he found refuge at New
      > York's New School of Social Research, where he taught from 1938 to 1948,
      > and then at the University of Chicago, where he remained until his
      > retirement in the late `60s. While his teachings and books bewildered
      > mainstream American social scientists and drew many hostile comments,
      > students flocked to this odd and beguiling refugee scholar.
      > Many would go on to become important academics in their own right,
      > including the philosopher Stanley Rosen (a leading light at Boston
      > University), the historian Harry Jaffa (who later wrote speeches for
      > Barry Goldwater), and Allan Bloom, whose 1987 bestseller "The Closing of
      > the American Mind" would-paradoxically-bring Strauss's thought to a mass
      > audience.
      > Mindful of the collapse of Weimar Germany's fragile democracy, Strauss
      > was distrustful of American liberals; he believed they were too
      > weak-minded and trusting to fight communism. In fact, Strauss believed
      > that the United States shared certain ills with Soviet communism: Both
      > societies put the material well-being of the masses ahead of the
      > cultivation of virtues among an elite. But Strauss also saw America's
      > constitutional government as the last, best hope for excellence in a
      > modern world besotted with egalitarianism. Many of his students would go
      > on to champion the US Constitution-with its separation of powers and its
      > provision for a strong executive branch-as a political masterpiece that
      > put limits on popular rule.
      > Stanley Rosen observes that Strauss's earliest students were often
      > indifferent to politics and interested mainly in philosophy. Robert
      > Goldwin became one of the first Straussians to work in practical
      > politics when he joined the campaign of Charles Percy, a Republican
      > candidate for the governorship of Illinois, in 1964. As it turned out,
      > this migration of Straussians into the world of politics helped fill a
      > vacuum in the Republican party, which, aside from free-market economists
      > like Milton Friedman, had few well-educated intellectuals to fill
      > policy-making positions. Once in Washington, Straussian conservatives
      > could carry on their war against modern liberalism's moral relativism at
      > home and naive pursuit of detente with the Soviet Union abroad.
      > The Straussian milieu was a closely knit one, where professors and
      > pundits cultivated their favorite disciples with devotion. As Holmes
      > points out, Strauss once wrote of "the love of the mature philosopher
      > for the puppies of his race, by whom he wants to be loved in return."
      > With his teachings about philosophers who write in code and secret
      > doctrines for the elect, Leo Strauss can seem like a conspiracy buff. In
      > fact, some of Strauss's followers like Allan Bloom and Willmoore Kendall
      > do use the word "conspiracy" to describe the history of Western thought.
      > Not surprisingly, conspiracies have flourished around Strauss himself.
      > The followers of Lyndon H.
      > LaRouche, the fringe presidential candidate who believes that the world
      > is being governed by Jewish bankers inspired by a Babylonian cult and
      > that the Queen of England is a drug dealer, argue that Strauss is the
      > evil genius behind the Republican Party. More sensible folk, like the
      > New York Times writer Brent Staples, who earned a doctorate in
      > psychology at Chicago in the 1980s, have also decried the "sinister
      > vogue" of Strauss.
      > Certainly, Strauss's embrace of obscurity is part of his appeal. When it
      > comes to religion, the obscurity can get especially thick. Strauss, who
      > wrote on Jewish issues all his life, held that atheism was not a viable
      > public philosophy. And yet he often interpreted religious figures in an
      > impious way. He suggested once that the great medieval Jewish scholar
      > Maimonides secretly believed that reason and revelation were
      > incompatible while pretending to reconcile the Bible with philosophy. In
      > his book "The Anatomy of Antiliberalism," Stephen Holmes maintains that,
      > in Strauss's view, only philosophers can handle the truth: that nature
      > is indifferent to human values and needs.
      > So where did Strauss really stand? "He was an atheist," says Stanley
      > Rosen flatly. "They [Straussians] all are. They are epicureans and
      > atheists."
      > While some Straussians dispute the idea that the master was a godless
      > cynic, it does seem that Strauss wanted a regime where the elite lived
      > by a code of stoic fortitude while governing over a population that
      > subscribes to superstitious religious beliefs. "He agreed with Marx that
      > religion was the opium of the masses," says Shadia Drury. "But he
      > believed that the masses need their opium." Sociologically, Strauss's
      > approach would seem to work well for the Republican Party, which has a
      > grass-roots base of born-again Christians and a much more secular elite
      > leadership-at least in its foreign-policy wing.
      > Some traditional and religious conservatives have become deeply wary of
      > Straussians. "They certainly believe that religion may be a useful thing
      > to take in the suckers with," notes Thomas Fleming, editor of the
      > right-wing journal Chronicles. "Exoteric Straussians are taught to
      > repeat mantras about democracy, liberty, and republican government which
      > the inner-circle Straussians don't appear to hold to. One of Allan
      > Bloom's students told me that Professor Bloom had taught them that Plato
      > was just an American-style democrat. This is just absurd. Plato taught
      > the rule of a tiny elite, which is what the Straussians actually
      > believe."
      > Clifford Orwin sees nothing objectionable in the alliance between
      > Strauss-inspired neoconservatives and fundamentalist Christians. "The
      > Republican Party, like the Democratic Party, is a big tent in which a
      > great many people have to coexist who disagree on a great many things,"
      > notes Orwin. "There is nothing sinister about that."
      > But just how "sinister" was Leo Strauss himself? The answer depends on
      > how a reader approaches his books. If you read Strauss with a
      > well-disposed spirit, he can be interpreted as a genuine friend of
      > American liberal democracy. He worked to create an elite that was
      > strong, sober, and sufficiently free of illusions about the goodness of
      > man to fight the totalitarian enemies of liberal democracy-be they
      > fascists, communists, or Islamicist fundamentalists.
      > But if you read Strauss with a skeptical mind, the way he himself read
      > the great philosophers, a more disturbing picture takes shape. Strauss,
      > by this view, emerges as a disguised Machiavelli, a cynical teacher who
      > encouraged his followers to believe that their intellectual superiority
      > entitles them to rule over the bulk of humanity by means of duplicity.
      > The worst thing you can do to Leo Strauss, perhaps, is to read his books
      > with Straussian eyes.

    • holderlin66
      Colony Collapse ---- We are being subjected to a 100 year law, or 99 year law of three 33 s including the Great Depression of 1933 and as well that horrific
      Message 57 of 57 , Dec 9, 2008
      • 0 Attachment

        Colony Collapse  ----  We are being subjected to a 100 year law, or 99 year law of three 33's including the Great Depression of 1933 and as well that horrific event of Feb 27, 1933.  We are in the midst of an Occult Law upheaval that was indicated as well in Colony collapse studies we did on this list.  The entire global economy is in Colony collapse and becoming Ahrimanically reformed due to a vast occult law of three X's 3.  This law was noted as penetrating right down to the Sun Community of the way we handled Bees, all the way to the law of Education and results of educating humanity in a false, Ahrimanic and distorted manner would result in the corrupt monsters and whores of wall street becoming the children of Alan Greenspan, the children of Atlas Shrugged, the greedy, avarice ridden failure of humanity to check their impulses for the greater good as was thought should happen with freedom, however the infected and false educational system have created not only a Colony Collapse of the Bees, a Sun Beeings, but the Collapse of global Economy all on a 100 year occult law or 99 year law that Steiner talked of.

        The Fed created a falsifed Occult model, without Initiation Science or the Christ Event, but based on an Ahrimanic school of training and holding captive various etheric Lodge models of souls, capturing their etheric models and training Ahrimanized cosmic Initiation to insert themselves into Archangelic activities, and enter everywhere globally, with IMF, International Monetary Fund and Federal Reserve and Wall Street, all gaining and maintaining Ahrimanic Initiation centers into the Economic System.  And now the 99 year law has caught up to us, but we didn't instantly recognize the signs of Colony collapse and the indicators that Steiner drew.

        Try Again Anthros;   Try Again;

         "Despite its name, the Federal Reserve System is not owned by the
         federal government. It is actually a private company of bankers with 12
         branches or central banks that expand and contract our money supply as
         they have doing for nearly 100 years.
        And, even though the Fed is not part of the US government, the Fed's
         Board of seven governors is appointed by the president and confirmed by
         the Senate for 14-year terms."

        "Steiner...explained that the modern method of breeding queens (using
        larvae of worker bees, a practice that had already been in use for about
        fifteen years) would have long-term detrimental effects, so grave that:

        "A century later all breeding of bees will cease if only artificially
        produced bees are used...."

        Steiner in another lecture made this grave prophecy:

        "Let the kind of teaching that prevails in our universities continue for
        another three decades, let social questions be treated as they are now
        for thirty years more, and you will have a devastated Europe
        ." He said
        this in December, 1919; of course the prophecy was fulfilled in less
        than thirty years."

        Bradford comments;

        Colony Collapse or was Steiner just one gloomy guy? Well to the
        trivial, newbie and basic inattentive shrunken intellectual soul,
        Steiner just must appear gloomy and making those statements to get some
        sort of negative attention. NOT! O seriously not.

      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.