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

Re: Hole Grunts

Expand Messages
  • Mike helsher
    ... No Problem here. That was a fine example of a fully funtioning and and certified basement, with most of it s plumming rightly connected to the upper levels
    Message 1 of 35 , Aug 1, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
      <hisholiness@...> wrote:
      >
      >
      > You know how it is with sex: One thing lead to
      > another, they always say afterwards. And so it
      > was with the nasty sex-bomb under the label
      > "Warning: Porn Mode" that I posted with such
      > thundering force that I instantly knew it would
      > reverberate throughout the Hole and shake it all
      > the way down to the Abyss at the bottom, causing
      > even the most revolting of demons to tremble. I
      > should have checked it with our Basement
      > Supervisor Mr. Helsher for polish and approval
      > first, and a few minor test-blasts perhaps, but
      > it went off completely before I got that far. Sorry, Mike.
      >
      > Anyway, the sex-ball or porn-ball began rolling
      > in Mike's yard, when he was inspired by one of
      > Steve's responses to Deborah, claiming to stick
      > his neck out.... And from there it developed
      > through the topic of circumcision and Bob Dylan
      > pulling down his pants in the bank in his 115th
      > Dream, and as we're in the middle of all this,
      > Diana begins to pull her disgusting, dishonest,
      > and infuriating stunts in the Hole, and bang, off
      > it went - about the worst I've ever written, ever
      > - well, on an anthro-list anyway.

      No Problem here. That was a fine example of a fully funtioning and
      and certified basement, with most of it's plumming rightly connected
      to the upper levels and very few leaks. We do the best we can here
      with what we got, and the only way out of the basement is through
      it. And!, unlike some other facilities, we highly recommend the
      flushing of any backed up plumming, which has in the past caused
      Dianna to complian about us "titling the toilets" down here. But
      anyone who is slightly schooled in basementology will realize right
      away that she was just plain jealous.

      <snip>>
      >
      > Peter Staudenmaier, on the other hand, has other
      > things in mind, like anti-Semitism. Surprise
      > anyone? And here's something strange: When
      > Bradford posted a quote from a nasty anti-Semitic
      > article that was published on a left-wing
      > anarchist website, it got me thinking about how
      > the anti-Israeli agenda of the left leads to
      > elements of anti-Semitism in that neck of the
      > woods, in anarchist circles. Interestingly, Peter
      > Staudenmaier mentions this in his latest post in the Hole.
      >
      > Staudenmaier mentions only in passing that
      > anthropsophy is completely saturated with
      > anti-Semitism - something that those of us who
      > oppose it, are completely blind to, because we
      > haven't read Steiner properly. But here is his
      > interesting remark about anti-Semitism and the left:
      >
      >
      *********************************************************************
      ********
      > On the Americans for Waldorf Education website,
      > co-created and co-sponsored by Linda, there is a
      > prominently displayed quote from me that begins
      > with the words "I am very critical of the
      > academic realm"; Linda and her colleagues appear
      > to think that this quote reflects poorly on me,
      > though I may have misunderstood the point of
      > their presentation. In either case, it is hard to
      > square this part of their complaint about me and
      > my work with Linda's new complaint. The core of
      > that new complaint seem to be that I, and by
      > extension other critics of anthroposophy, have
      > failed to address antisemitism in my own ranks
      > and have instead focused solely on antisemitism among
      anthroposophists.
      >
      > As it happens, just a week ago I gave a very
      > public presentation in New York City on
      > antisemitism in radical movements (that is, the
      > movements that I am a part of, from left
      > ecologist circles to critics of capitalism and
      > globalization to the anti-war movement and
      > opponents of Israeli policy in the Palestinian
      > territories as well as the war in Lebanon). The
      > last course that I offered at the Institute for
      > Social Ecology was a critical examination of
      > antisemitism historically and today, including
      > particularly extensive attention to my own
      > political and intellectual environments. I didn't
      > mention anthroposophists in either instance
      > (though I did remark at the NYC workshop that one
      > of the longest standing antisemitic claims is
      > that Jews are responsible for wars, only to find
      > this confirmed a week later by a drunken Mel
      > Gibson in Malibu). The critical articles that I
      > have published about the anarchist movement, in
      > addition, have consistently pointed out the
      > antisemitic background of several prominent
      > anarchists and urged my fellow anarchists to take
      > this legacy seriously. I am by no means the only
      > anarchist or the only leftist or the only
      > anti-war activist (or certainly the only
      > academic!) to make such stances public and call
      > on others to reflect on their significance.
      >
      > This is indeed a relatively common aspect of
      > movements that place significant value on
      > critique. As anthroposophy takes the contrary
      > view of critique, it seems sadly unlikey that the
      > current trend of anthroposophist ignorance of the
      > antisemitic elements in their own tradition will
      > change soon. But we can always hope. Greetings to all,
      >
      > Peter Staudenmaier

      I started a post on this comment today and then trashed it cause it
      turned my stomach to think of opening up the Stauudenmaier can of
      worms again. But thank you Tarjei for posting it. This last
      paragraph speaks volumes about Staudenmaier's "signifigant value"
      when it comes to anything anthro - "critique". And then he claims
      that "anthroposophy takes the contray view of critique". So he is
      critical, and anthroposophy is not - white/black. And next he says
      that he is sad about "anthroposophist ignorance". I can't help
      always noticing this trend of his to lump people into the
      word "anthroposophist" and then shoot from the hip with his "textual
      analysis" which he says includes empathy on his part when he makes
      his diognosis of the words on paper, and what he thinks they mean,
      based, I can only assume, on what he says has "significant value"
      for him when it comes to anthroposophy: "ctitique". "that's what he
      does, that's all he does!" while throwing what has signifigant value
      to those who admire Steiners work, out with the bath water. Namely
      ideas like Truth, Love, Freedom, universal brother and sisterhood, a
      releasing from dogma, and an enlivening of allot of ancient
      religious ideas, a strong encouragement toward self scrutiny, and
      the list goes on.... but obviously this all has little or no
      significance to him.

      Joel has to often repeat himself, and so he has inspired me to
      continue to do so:

      "We all find what ever it is that we are looking for".

      So the next logical question is; what are we looking for? and more
      importantly....WHY?

      So *WHY* is Staudenmaier *only* looking to "critique" Steiner and
      anthroposophy?
      >
      *********************************************************************
      ********
      > It's so strange to see that PS and I may have
      > almost identical perspectives and political
      > standpoints with regard to anti-Semitism on the
      > left, anti-war, anarchism etc. This is why the
      > world needs more anarchosophists, or
      > anarcho-anthroposophists or whatever you choose
      > to call them. The most prominent anarchosophist
      > ever, who didn't call himself such, but simply an
      > anarchist and anthroposophist, was Jens Bjørneboe
      > (1920-1976). He was an extremely talented and
      > effective author, and a true friend and spokesman
      > of the underdog, but he's long gone.
      >
      > Bradford looked so, so promising to me for a long
      > time, and then he blew it all with that
      > unbelievable garbage about Jews and 9-11, his
      > praise of Bondarev and so on. Threw it all out the window.
      >
      > As a matter of fact, I had a reality check with
      > regard to Bradford when he of all people
      > contended that the 9-11 skyjackers were Jews
      > disguised as Arabs, with stolen identities. It
      > was a deep shock, and my admiration for him took
      > a plunge. I could have expected it from Hale, the
      > anthro-nutcase, but supremely intelligent and
      > knowledgeable Bradford? It forced me to
      > reevaluate him completely. Dazed, I'm still
      > working on it. And now he comes along with "Springtime for hitler
      Lyrics" - ?
      >
      > This is mind-boggling. Bradford also comes across
      > as someone identifying more or less with the
      > anarchist left; I'm associated with it one way or
      > the other regardless of what I say, and Peter
      > Staudenmaier is a self-proclaimed anarchist,
      > leftist, and anti-war activist. So there are
      > basically three of us standing there, sort of. PS
      > opposes anti-Semitism, and in Rudolf Steiner's
      > works and among anthroposophists in general, he
      > purports that it's literally reeking with
      > anti-Semitism, and those of us who disagree
      > haven't read enough Steiner. There are right-wing
      > anti-Semites and left-wing anti-Semites and
      > Anthroposophy's got both. Next comes Bradford, an
      > anti-war leftist and probably anarchist who says
      > that anti-Semitism is not what it appears to be;
      > it's spiritual-scientific truth, perhaps
      > forbidden truth that should not be subjected to
      > treachery, because it's a holy reality, and this
      > reality may include historical revisionism with
      > regard to the holocaust, because Bondarev was a
      > very wise anthroposophist, and Irving was
      > probably a smart man too because he questioned
      > "the official story" that may be a Jewish lie. So
      > so far, we have PS and Bradford standing on the
      > anarchist platform arguing pro and con Jews and
      > anti-Semitism and historical revisionism. (To
      > this must be added the obvious hypocrisy of PS,
      > who has been practicing shameful historical
      > revisionism with regard to the origins of
      > anthroposophy, very reminiscent of those who
      > argue holocaust denial.) And then finally there's
      > me, the third party in this anarchist camp,
      > fighting against PS' anti-anthroposophy and
      > historical revisionism as well as Bradford's
      > apologetics for historical revisionism with
      > regard to the holocaust and his endorsement of
      > theories reminiscent of the Protocols of Zion.
      >
      > Does anyone see the problem? PS needs to be
      > opposed on his own turf: Among anarchists.
      > Otherwise, he is going to turn every anarchist
      > who is *not* anti-Semitic (because of Israel)
      > against anthroposophy by convincing them it's
      > racist. With a little help from our friends.

      Well, that's a good answer to the "WHY" question I asked above, in
      that PS wants to turn people against anthroposophy. Oh he'll claim
      that he's only being critical, as usual, but it's quite obvious to
      me that his own beliefs and ideals are the driving force behind his
      hypre-intellectual, egotistical, histrionic, high-volume, derisive,
      rhetorical, mis-anthropic notions about Rudolf Steiner and
      anthroposophy.

      Bradford complains allot about stupid lazy anthros, but then warms
      up to a few that can type good anthro. My experience has taught me
      that it is indeed possible to become educated beyond ones
      intelligence. All things considered in this time, and in this cyber
      place/space, it seems to me that high flying self important esoteric
      connect-the-dots doesn't always equal head and heart intelligence.

      But what do I know, I'm low down on the Michaelic spin totem pole.

      Mike



      >
      > Tarjei
      >
    • anarchosophia
      ... point ... 2004. ... the ... This post is meddling with list managment. You have been warned about the only off topic. You are hereby banned form
      Message 35 of 35 , Aug 5, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "Steve Hale"
        <sardisian01@...> wrote:
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, Tarjei Straume
        > <straume@> wrote:
        > >
        > > Steve Hale wrote:
        > >
        > > >Sounds more like you smooching Tarjei's big white butt.
        > >
        > > "White" butt - ? You're weird, man. I just took a new look at how
        > you
        > > introduced yourself to this group in late January, 2004. The
        point
        > > is, you didn't sign up and introduce yourself. Instead, you wrote
        > all
        > > kinds of strange emails to members, including me. In your message
        > to
        > > me, a total stranger, you complained about a post Christine had
        > > written, which was about why some chicken crossed the road - a
        > very
        > > benign, harmless, and hilarious post btw. This complaint to me
        > from a
        > > total stranger about Christine's "chicken"-post (because I had
        > > thanked her for it) with the message, "Taz, it is getting to be
        > alot
        > > of bullshit, isn't it? " followed by a Steiner-quote was so
        > intrusive
        > > and creepy that I did a Dan Dugan on you by quoting it on the AT
        > with
        > > the title, "Do it on-list, mr. SH":

        Steve H. you wrote:

        > >
        > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1564
        >
        >
        > Well, I also took the opportunity to look back in the archive and
        > found a message of yours from the same time period: January 19,
        2004.
        >
        > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1349
        >
        > Now, please explain how your nemesis, Klaus Tues, makes it into the
        > ranks of a moderator on this list? Yes, folks, the sheriff from
        the
        > mountain commune that guards against the evils of the drug-crazed
        > Uncle Taz is now a moderator here since June.
        >
        > But hey, maybe you two made up for all I know. It certainly makes
        > for a headline story in the Star, or National Enquirer, though.
        >
        > Steve

        This post is meddling with list managment. You have been warned about
        the only off topic. You are hereby banned form anthroposophy tomorrow.

        Faithfully

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