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

R: [anthroposophy] On the dishonest Mr. Chomsky

Expand Messages
  • VALENTINA BRUNETTI
    Dear Bradford, in my opinion the problem with Chomsky- and more or less with the most part of the so called mainstream thinkers - is that they are usually
    Message 1 of 2 , May 12, 2003
      Dear Bradford,
      in my opinion the problem with Chomsky- and more or less with the most part
      of the so called mainstream "thinkers" - is that they are usually unaware
      of the powers at work behind the outer world events in the same way that
      they are unaware of the powers working behind the INNER side of them aka
      Man's soul.
      But Chomsky, as Vidal or Ahmed or Meyssan, is an honest man so he can
      succeed in grasping some effects of the horrible infection of the rightwing
      connection of corporate interest,policy and cultural deception embodied in
      neo-con Bush "elite".
      What to say about those, self-believers to be "Spiritual Students", unable
      to grasp such a background ?

      Andrea

      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Bradford Riley <holderlin66@...>
      To: <anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com>
      Sent: Sunday, May 11, 2003 7:10 AM
      Subject: [anthroposophy] On the dishonest Mr. Chomsky


      > From: "lightsearcher1" <lightsearcher1@...>
      > >: [anthroposophy] On the dishonest Mr. Chomsky
      > >Date: Sat, 10 May 2003 14:28:35 -0000
      > >
      > >>
      > >http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/Printable.asp?ID=7630
      >
      > Bradford respnds;
      >
      > Well this was very well researched and very well written. I think Bro. Ron
      > you found a piece that certainly reveals the flaws of thinking and the
      > progressive time line of Chomsky's checkered development. Flawed thinking
      > and flawed policies blow both ways and it certainly is up to the
      individual
      > to grasp if the research is flawed on either the side of the U.S.
      government
      > or the maverick Intellectual Soul. True, because Chomsky is popular with
      > Intellectual students and comes out with some real zingers doesn't make
      him
      > right. He is not running for candidate for the Free World he is just an
      > individual human being that is how he has earned his credit.
      >
      > You can see by this very astute example you presented that Hamlet, if one
      > understands Hamlet, is a general condition of flawed Information or
      tainted
      > information that gnaws at the Intellectual Soul. Why do I prefer the
      > maverick interpretation of certain facts regarding the U.S. is because in
      > looking at Donald Rumsfeld or Colin Powell, I see very different pictures
      > and soul substance in the tone, word and thought forces. Powell has just a
      > tad more substance. Chomsky is a certain breed of Intellect and as an
      > example of the Intellectual Soul, he frequently brings to light, because
      he
      > may have learned from his own mistakes, he frequently brings to light
      > certain choice motives and hidden relationships and connections that are
      > left out of the News and out of the Political spin.
      >
      > The article still demands that I, my I, think carefully about the tone,
      > warmth, what is said and what is left out of the information given to the
      > Intellect. Chomsky may be an ideal to the young and radical thinkers but
      he
      > has not ventured, as far as I know, into claiming any religious or
      political
      > affiliations. His research or his team of tainted and biased research
      may
      > very well be closer to understanding the shadows and the flaws of living
      in
      > the ringing pros and cons of the Intellectual Soul. I dare say I have
      never
      > heard him unfold any research on the Christ Event. So, like Politics, we
      > taste the complexity of living thoughts as opposed to the simplistic
      > Poltical Democratic or Republican slant. People hunger for something of a
      > more realistic and maverick complexity because they sense that behind the
      > scenes of things there is far more complexity in the briefing of the
      Senate
      > Intelligence and the briefing of what advantages and disadvantages are to
      > actions of War based on various Political models that a President listens
      > to. Citizen rule from the Conscience, Citizen governance is something I
      > think Joel could answer to in relation to Chomsky hopes.
      >
      > What is important is a stage of Intelligence in which the Intellect faces
      > the complexity of questions, and doesn't fall back on the mere
      conservative
      > or liberal divisions. To penetrate behind the surface of events is
      > uncomfortable and remains the uncomfortable part of I AM development. Yet
      if
      > we look at your life or my life or Joel's biography, let alone Hamlet's,
      we
      > come to see the individual human being as far more complicated than we are
      > led to believe. This brings us into deeper, universal psychology and
      extends
      > our political and spiritual vision into vaster relationships. There is not
      > only a hunger for these vaster relationships, it is a requirement of each
      > individual. To be unsatisfied with either Chomsky or the Bush
      Administration
      > is exactly the kind of irritation that leads to an uncomfortableness, that
      > Steiner found very important in order to overcome the danger of
      complacency.
      >
      > We have not even got to the type of uncomfortableness that seeing the
      whole
      > unique gamut of another persons thinking and reasons for Karmic realities
      > give rise to their strange standpoints. Are their standpoints strange when
      > we understand their roots? In Hamlet's uncomfortable case, we had to see
      > what exactly Hamlet was wrestling with in his conscience. Now it is in
      this
      > realm of the Conscience that all of this uncomfortablness needs to be
      faced.
      > Therefore if it makes Donald Rumsfeld uncomfortable and uneasy and he
      can't
      > bear it and must remove a maverick thinker from his Press Interviews or if
      > the media can't stand how uncomfortable America feels when it must weigh
      up
      > deeper issues it is the immaturity of us not understanding that it is far
      > more complicated than we ever imagined. Watering down the information
      allows
      > for watered down information all through the system. It allows for the
      > consciousness of all of us to become stunted below the level of our
      current
      > Age of development.
      >
      > Once you pass through the uncomfortableness of things, you begin to
      discern
      > motives, shadows and substance. You begin to see where substance radiates
      > and where excuses and betrayals arise because, once more, our fine
      parents,
      > while attending church every sunday, never really asked the hard questions
      > about Christ and the Human Soul. Therefore Faith alone in either the
      > rightness of the governments actions or the divine truth radiating out of
      > Noam Chomsky's butt, still must be tested by the I AM. If the I AM is
      lucky
      > enough to be introduced to a wide picture of the Christ Event and
      > Reincarnation and understand the dilemma Hamlet was really in or Faust was
      > in, we see that we face something that Goethe understood as to why
      Mephisto
      > likes the public to remain stupid. It is in fact, the horrible flaw of
      > Goethe who described Mephistopheles as making us comfortable as long as
      > wealth, sex and money flowed... but He also had the guts to look behind
      the
      > picture of events long before Chomsky.
      >
      > Chomsky tries and fails and sometimes gives a very flawed view of the
      > picture behind events, but he never talks about Mephistopheles, he only
      > talks about various revealed facts. Like any other everyman, he doesn't
      have
      > a degree or a certified qualification to talk about the wide ranging
      facts,
      > nor did Goethe have the right to range from Science to Art all over the
      > place. But that is what we must do, and Steiner gabbed about medicine that
      > doctors think is stupid. That the heart is not a pump, that the Sun is a
      > hollow space.. and a Spiritual Woirld of Beings that nobody can see, and
      yet
      > he walked inside the physiology and sciences of his time and ahead of his
      > time and he really had no qualifications to do that. Yet if we desire for
      > mankind to mature, we must learn to question, understand and build a body
      of
      > information that is as accurate as science-art-religion and the human
      > being... we have to extend a realm of information well beyond that which
      > anyone feels comfortable with.
      >
      > But to live in denial... and Mr. Chomsky, unlike Donald Rumsfeld, would at
      > least not dismiss a person who asked the very questions asked in the
      article
      > you indicated. I do not see that denial of outright contradictions would
      be
      > denied or he would run and hide from them. But Chomsky is an individual
      and
      > not the Administration of the higher values of the American people. A BJ
      in
      > the oval office was certainly not the higher value of the office
      > representing the future childhood of America. Adults may behave this way
      in
      > the privacy of their own home..so to say.. But using the entire machine of
      > the government is different type of denial and calls forth a different
      ideal
      > relationship when an Individual is not afraid to speak about the complex
      > facts and can be called on as in error and any question pertaining to the
      > reality of military motives, complex relationships that may have caused
      the
      > Israel Palastine events to continue in an ugly manner.... or having a plan
      > for world domination that may even make the world a safer place or may
      make
      > individuals in this age of INdividual Consciousness Soul thinking become
      > reactionary to the dumbing down of the complexity of facts because somehow
      > Mephistopheles needs to keep us comfortable, is an error of thinking.
      >
      > As Thoreau has said, we should encourage our radicals to think
      differently.
      > Thoreau thought so about John Brown and Civil Disobedence and he may have
      > been wrong about John Brown but was flamed up about the issues of slavery
      > and wrong motives for War. He says, and it is in my essay on Thoreau, that
      > America should not always be the ones in denial but should be promoting
      the
      > cutting edge to ask questions...because it is our world and our world and
      > all the individuals in it have no simple answers and if you, Bro Ron, want
      > to believe so badly in right and wrong.. you are in the wrong age and
      reveal
      > rather a difficult karmic twist from a previous age where the Church
      > determined what was right and wrong by some authority and in this age, it
      is
      > human beings who must each of us determine and create a navigational
      > foundation of truth in our soul life.
      >
      > Therefore the individual who wrote the article made perfect sense to
      > question Chomsky and tarnish his over bloated popularity, in the same
      manner
      > as those who try to place Steiner on their level of sexual needs, and
      > abilities. There are unique Karmic factors to everyone and we must arrive
      at
      > the point where the very unique ability to trust or see through deceptions
      > is as natural and as calm, as those who can fall asleep in the middle of a
      > barrage of lies and feel very comfortable in so doing. While Chomsky has
      > never run for any political office... he is just an individual with an
      > individual opinion and his policies, merely stir up the uncomfortableness
      in
      > those souls in the western world who need to be stirred out of their
      > slumber. Wait till they really wake up and start to feel real strange by
      > reading Steiner or others from the School of Spiritual Science.
      >
      > There was a poem about Mary Magdalene wanting to be the wildest flower
      that
      > grows in the Kings Garden of Gethsemane...It is a wonderful poem by Maria
      > Correllii..Such a person, a typical example of the Intellectual Soul, Noam
      > Chomsky whose flaw, is that he is the uncrowned hero of liberals or
      > mavericks and he has not sought to run for any office but merely to
      blunder
      > and play in the world of Intellectual Political facts or lies like the big
      > kids who do it for power and manipulation. So all Chomsky has to ask
      himself
      > at the end of the day, is he a liar or a learning striving individual who
      > merely attempts to call it as he sees it...even if it changes.. 9/11 by
      the
      > way, is certainly not the only crime to judge the world by there are
      bigger
      > and more horrible crimes and all that we understand is that hypocrisy is
      > some of the bitter fruit of the Intellectual Soul... It gets calmer and
      > clearer in the Coinsciousness Soul because we know a little more about how
      > our shadow operates and we see that shadow, as Goethe did, not only in
      > himself but in others.
      >
      > _________________________________________________________________
      > The new MSN 8: advanced junk mail protection and 2 months FREE*
      > http://join.msn.com/?page=features/junkmail
      >
      >
      >
      > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
      > Unsubscribe:
      > anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
      > List owner: anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com
      >
      >
      > Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
      >
      >
    • holderlin66
      ... most part ... unaware ... that ... them aka ... can ... rightwing ... embodied in ... unable ... Right on as usual Andrea, It is time to remain alert and
      Message 2 of 2 , May 12, 2003
        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "VALENTINA BRUNETTI"
        <okcgbr@t...> wrote:
        > in my opinion the problem with Chomsky- and more or less with the
        most part
        > of the so called mainstream "thinkers" - is that they are usually
        unaware
        > of the powers at work behind the outer world events in the same way
        that
        > they are unaware of the powers working behind the INNER side of
        them aka
        > Man's soul.
        > But Chomsky, as Vidal or Ahmed or Meyssan, is an honest man so he
        can
        > succeed in grasping some effects of the horrible infection of the
        rightwing
        > connection of corporate interest,policy and cultural deception
        embodied in
        > neo-con Bush "elite".
        > What to say about those, self-believers to be "Spiritual Students",
        unable
        > to grasp such a background ?
        >
        > Andrea

        Right on as usual Andrea, It is time to remain alert and awake to
        things and I have always found that your were there. I want you to
        know that I count on you, that I hear you and hold you dear.

        Bradford cites two examples:

        ""…it is the fault of the government itself that the remedy is worse
        than the evil. It makes it worse. Why is it not more apt to
        anticipate and provide reform? Why does it nor cherish its wise
        minority? Why does it cry and resist before it is hurt? Why does it
        not encourage its citizens to be on the alert to point out its
        faults, and do better than it would have them? Why does it always
        crucify Christ, and excommunicate Copernicus and Luther, and
        pronounce Washington and Franklin rebels?" Thoreau's "Civil
        Disobedience"

        http://www.sunspot.net/news/opinion/oped/bal-
        op.conservative11may11.story

        In defense of liberty
        ----------
        By Douglas M. Sheeley
        Originally published May 11, 2003

        AS A conservative, I find myself embarrassed and angered by the
        appalling behavior of so many who fail to understand the nation they
        claim to love.
        Recent pressure, predominantly from the right, to support our troops
        abroad by silencing political dissent at home is a contradiction of
        American values and an affront to the stalwart Americans who wear the
        uniform.

        Moreover, it is a dangerous indication of just how poorly American
        liberal democracy is understood by many in our nation. Among other
        values, America is built on a commitment to civil liberties.

        The simple facts that put the lie to all the whining on the right are
        these: No single political position is a litmus test for patriotism,
        and support for our troops is not coupled to a particular political
        doctrine.

        Our soldiers, sailors and Marines fight because they believe
        democracy is worth defending, regardless of the politics of those who
        send them into harm's way. The U.S. military does not decide what
        wars to fight. I have never been a Marine, but I believe I can say
        with confidence that they do not sit up all night on the eve of a
        deployment holding a referendum on their participation.

        Our nation is blessed with dedicated sons and daughters who volunteer
        to do the unpleasant, messy job of violently defending our peaceful
        principles.

        Every American should be grateful for the gift they lay on the altar
        of democracy.

        It is our president and Congress, all civilian elected officials, who
        direct the actions of our military. These civilian leaders must be
        held accountable by the citizens who elect them, both to assure that
        their actions are in the best interest of our nation and to protect
        the lives of our brothers and sisters who serve in uniform.

        Dissent is not merely a privilege bestowed upon us by the sacrifices
        of soldiers, as some have been saying. That view is an unfortunate
        perversion of a larger idea.

        Dissent is a foundational principle of our nation, born of the
        sacrifices of soldiers and citizens alike. It is a right and, in
        fact, a responsibility of all those who live in a democracy.

        If we disagree with a policy, we are obliged to do all we can, within
        the law, to change it. If we believe our elected leaders are taking a
        reckless course, we are obliged to hold them responsible. If we fail
        to do so, we do not fully realize what our nation stands for and we
        do not deserve the liberty we take for granted.

        The struggle to protect freedom is constant, but by no means only on
        the battlefield. It continues in our newspapers, our schools, our
        courtrooms and our political institutions.

        Soldiers died on the beaches of Normandy to protect our liberty, but
        so did Medgar Evers, who served honorably only to be gunned down 19
        years later while trying to build a better nation for all of us.

        Red-baiting scoundrels in the 1950s tried to silence dissent with
        innuendo and prevarication. Those who stood up to them are heroes.

        It has been said recently that campus organizers don't defend
        liberty, soldiers do. Well, tell that to an African-American who
        registered to vote in the Freedom Summer of 1964 with the help of
        college students bused in by campus organizers.

        There have always been those among us who have panicked in times of
        crisis and, in their cowardice, tried to short-circuit constitutional
        protections or bully dissenters into silence. They wrap themselves in
        the flag they claim to love while violating the principles for which
        it stands.

        I have no patience for those who fail so completely to understand
        democracy, who think so little of our troops that they vow their
        support and in the next breath trample the liberties being defended
        with American blood.

        People who fear ideas, who fear free and open debate, have been
        around for a long time. They ran Germany for a while, they used to
        run Russia and they used to run Iraq. We have no use for them here.

        Douglas M. Sheeley is a biochemist who lives in Elkridge.
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.