Re: [anthroposophy] Re: Politics
- Dear Dr. Starmann,
I have placed some remarks below in [brackets].
> *******I am not surprised, because almost every religion I know has been[I assume you mean free-market in an ideal sense, and don't mean any existing
> 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.
markets, which are all corrupted by various controls that make them anything but
free. The last really near "free" economy was in Hong Kong, prior to its return
to the Chinese. The emerging global economy is anything but free, and shows
little tendency or interest in becoming free. It uses the catch-word "free"
trade, but these are not really free markets.]
> (A Catholic priest, Bob Sirico, is an exception: he[Whoa! What a heavy judgmental statement. Do you really mean to say that
> 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
everyone should be just like you, and that anything less is some kind of failure
on their part?]
> to walk the anthroposophic path of direct knowledge, but must[Are you sure there is any real correspondence between libertarianism and
> 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.)
threefold? I thought libertarians were near anarchists, wanting almost no
government (i.e. no rights sphere, no standard of equality). Libertarianism seems
like a kind of elaborate social darwinism, with a kind of survival of the fittest
ideal latent in it. Can you elaborate and give some details, rather than just
make pronouncements as if the facts were self evident?]
> . However,[Please give us the quote and the context]
> 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
> We Libertarians do. I have no problem with "urban sprawl" and[A lovely sentiment, but given real politik, how do you see any of your ideal
> 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
libertarian ideas coming into actual practice?]
> 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
> Dr. Starman
> Get a NextCard Visa, in 30 seconds!
> 1. Fill in the brief application
> 2. Receive approval decision within 30 seconds
> 3. Get rates as low as 2.9% Intro or 9.9% Fixed APR
> Apply NOW!
> List owner: email@example.com
- Dear starmann,
In reply to JoAnn's post, you write:
"more political propaganda on the anthroposophy list" and you ask what this
has to do with anthroposophy. Did you really read JoAnn's post and her
reason for posting the article?
By the way: what did you have for breakfast? What is your shoe size? Do you
have a tatoo? Do you drink Coca Cola? Where were you on May 5, 1898? And, oh
yes, does libertarinism have anything to do with anthroposophy? (smile)
Thank you for teaching me to laugh!
>Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: Politics
>Date: Tue, 2 May 2000 11:12:58 EDT
>*******More political propaganda on the anthroposophy list, this time a
>screed from Joanne in favor of Al Gore, saying every media story about him
>a conspiracy which is why he's going to lose in November. Personally, I
>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 Systems
> >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
> > root-ers....
> > Gore has taken credit for popularizing the term "information
> >superhighway" ...
> >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
> > Clinton and Gore do have a few defenders in the media...
> > Their ultimate object of abuse is not Al Gore, or liberals, but rather
> > healthy and sane parts of the abuser's own mind, which unless rescued
> > into corruption and terror so profound that only God can really
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com