- <<does less money make better teachers?>>
*******Yes. Check the statistics. Utah, close to last in spending, has some
of the best education in the country.
Enact a voucher program to take money away from the comfortable monopoly
of the government in education---a thing opposed by Steiner---and it'll get
>1st in executions(avg.1 every 2 weeks for Bush's 5 years)Starmann replies:
>>Do you prefer giving violent thugs 3 meals a day for life? Is there anythe
>way, then, that you can voluntarily pay for it through charities, and leave
>rest of us out?Starmann, are you really calling people, human beings, "violent thugs"? And
do you call yourself an anthroposophist, a Christian?
*******Yes, I'll call violent thugs violent thugs when they are, and say
that, whatever help one wishes to give them, society first needs to be
protected from them. I would say the same for one who raped & murdered you.
Again you act as if monolithic Christendom (not to mention all
anthroposophists) has decided against all capital punishment. Poll the
Christian churches ahd see otherwise. Liberals always think they have the
only Golden Truth and everyone else is stupid for not agreeing. Well,
everyone doesn't. If all Christians agreed, why weren't the big churches in
Texas campaigning against the governor allowing executions?
You can bring politics in if you wish, but not expecting everyone to agree
with your opinions. If you think all anthroposophists are liberal Democrats,
you're in for a surprise.
- <Starman, (Libertarian Anthroposophist)
I am surprised that you call yourself a Libertarian. I realize that
Libertarians are not necessarily agnostic or atheistic, but many of the most
prominent Libertarians act as though atheism is fundamental to
Libertarianism. For example, look at the position of that Libertarian guru,
Ayn Rand. Or the opinion of many Libertarians that there is nothing higher
than the preservation of commerce. I would think they would call the Soul
Calendar primitive superstition. Do you share your anthroposophical ideas
with Libertarians? How do they go over?
This is a genuine question. In the urban design field where I work, there is
a large and vocal Libertarian opposition that adamantly supports sprawl.
This sometimes seems like a matter of blind materialism, so I am curious
what you think.
I was also surprised by the following press release, which has nothing to do
with Libertarianims, but everything to do with the Maharishi Mahesh Yogi's
views on Natural Law and politics. The Maharishi posits that Natural Law
supports the ideas of Fidel Castro.>>
*******I am not surprised, because almost every religion I know has been
taken over by the Ahrimanic forces and blindly leads its sheep in the
direction of more socialism, more power for government (for everyone's good,
of course!) and dictatorship. None believe in freedom, or else they would be
free-market, for no one can advocate freedom without being free-market,
though few realize it. (A Catholic priest, Bob Sirico, is an exception: he
founded the Acton Institute for the Study of Religion and Liberty in Detroit.)
Speaking as an anthroposophist, I have absolutely no interest in what are
called 'religions' today. Anthroposophy is not a religion. I wouldn't be
interested in it if it was. Those who want a church have the Christian
Community. I think it's a quite proper attitude to be agnostic or skeptical
about all religions, or even, as Jesse Ventura said, to regard them as
crutches for people too weak to face life as it is. People who need religions
are too weak to walk the anthroposophic path of direct knowledge, but must
fall back on blind faith.
Libertarians go go only so far on such matters, but their field is
economics and politics (and there they are supreme: compare the communist
Greens Party started by anthroposophists). I share my spirit-perceptions with
them whenever an individual seems open to it, just as with Catholics or
whatever. Most people are not open to much of spiritual science, but the
ideas of the Threefold Social Order are distinctly Libertarian (separate
economics from government, free education from State control, etc.). However,
even many anthroposophists voice anti-Threefold socialism, and Libertarians
react quite rightly to any use of religion to advance left-leaning ideas.
Karl Marx and his theocracy was enough.
To take "religious" ideas and try to create a political philosophy from
them almost always results in something that will not allow our modern
economic system to work. This is because it has advanced beyond those old
Pisces-Age ideas. Recall Steiner saying even Jesus did not understand
economics. We Libertarians do. I have no problem with "urban sprawl" and
oppose urban planning. Every city I've seen where "urban renewal" was done by
the heavy hand of government has been decimated. Let free people evolve it
BTW Ayn Rand was not a Libertarian. A lot of Libertarians like a lot of
her ideas, along with Isabel Paterson, Rose Wilder Lane, and many others; but
it's not a monolithic movement where all are Objectivists or agree on
- *******More political propaganda on the anthroposophy list, this time a
screed from Joanne in favor of Al Gore, saying every media story about him is
a conspiracy which is why he's going to lose in November. Personally, I think
Gore may be the cause; but regardless, it has nothing to do with
anthroposophy unless you want to start demonizing the opposing party and
saying it's "Ahriman", not a fun game.
>At one recent White House event, Gore introduced Cisco Systemssink
>CEO John Chambers, who he had met with privately earlier that day.
> Gore told the audience how much he valued Chambers and one of
> the products Cisco produced. But he mispronounced "routers" as
> Gore has taken credit for popularizing the term "information
>This business about Gore supposedly claiming to have invented the
>Internet would be trivial, comparable to the question of whether Dan
>Quayle really misspelled the word "potato", if it were not part of
>such a pattern. The media by now has gone through numerous episodes
>of echo-chamber hysteria, accusing time Gore of lying, exaggerating,
>shading the truth, and even being mentally ill, based on stories
>that were simply false. And not just arguably false or somewhat
>false, but just plain factually-not-true false. You've heard them:
>Al Gore falsely claimed to have inspired the novel "Love Story",
>the author vehemently denied that what Gore said was true, and Gore
>admitted that he had been making it up. Gore falsely claimed to
>have worked on a farm as a child. Gore claimed to have discovered
>Love Canal. And Gore claimed to have invented the Internet ...
>When the media said something bad about Newt Gingrich -- instigated
>in many cases, no doubt about it, by liberals using these same methods
> -- Gingrich could count on massive air cover from the conservative media.
> Clinton and Gore do have a few defenders in the media...
> Their ultimate object of abuse is not Al Gore, or liberals, but rather the
> healthy and sane parts of the abuser's own mind, which unless rescued will
> into corruption and terror so profound that only God can really understandit.