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

Der Staudi and the real

Expand Messages
  • ted.wrinch
    What is reality and how could we know it? We will never know from Der Staudi s current recap of his confused understanding of Steiner s epistemology, that he
    Message 1 of 18 , Sep 28, 2011
    • 0 Attachment
      What is 'reality' and how could we know it? We will never know from Der Staudi's current recap of his confused understanding of Steiner's epistemology, that he first retailed over two years ago and is currently regaling Dennis with again. His confusion starts with the first sentence and spirals ever further into the mire from there onwards:

      "Steiner's text Truth and Knowldge, like any substantial philosophical text,
      bases its argument on a number of presuppositions,
      including the presupposition that external reality exists and that it can be
      made sense
      of to some extent..."

      (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/21601)

      This list of presuppositions, and the over 10 other ones he recounts in a florid list - which are ever less relevant as the list goes on - are exactly what Steiner's thesis sought to leave behind. Instead Steiner attempted to start with William James's 'buzzin' bloomin' confusion' of experience that constitutes an hypothesised first state of awareness. A state where the notion of 'external' or even 'object' doesn't exist. This is the psychological state a baby seems to have and one we can asymptotically recover for ourselves, as Steiner suggests, by thinking ourselves back in time towards our earliest childhood memories. Since we've suggested that Der Staudi may in fact be the first artificial life form it could be that he doesn't have such memories or experiences and this might account for his apparent inability to do epistemology. Anyway, the rest of his rambling incoherent account seems too piffling to bother responding to.

      T.

      Ted Wrinch
    • elfuncle
      Der Staudi s rambling rants about epistemology (must be especially embarrassing for an academic), his nonsensical fantasies about Steiner s autobiography (that
      Message 2 of 18 , Sep 28, 2011
      • 0 Attachment
        Der Staudi's rambling rants about epistemology (must be especially embarrassing for an academic), his nonsensical fantasies about Steiner's autobiography (that he disremembered his past inner life which Der Staudi knows much better than Steiner himself did, who got it all wrong), his obsessive and exceptionally hostile invectives against esotericists, his constant references to his own brilliance, erudition, and excellence etc. -- all of this makes it a waste of time to read anything he writes.

        It's a curious phenomenon, however, to observe how his handful of faithfuls, his fellow Sugar Cherubs,  swallow his balderdash lock, stock and barrel. The Sugar Cherubs have been very concerned from the beginning, at least they used to be, that anthroposophy is a brainwashing cult blindly following a leader -- in this case not a living one, unless a guide in the spiritual world is meant, ONE single guide, not many, and comparisons have been made to Jonestown and Heaven's Gate.

        Because no mass suicide has occurred in anthroposophical circles yet, they've given up hope for that and moved on to other angles. They've also given up on the Satanism charge and the alleged OTO-sex-magic stuff because the Christian fundies have stopped "fellowshippin" with them, probably due to their fierce anti-religious atheism. So the only thing they're left with is der Staudi's angle, and it's amazing to see how each and every one of them seems to be able to repeat der Staudi's views and arguments almost verbatim, like they've memorized them, when some bewildered anthroposophist who finds himself stranded there brings up this or that topic.

        Dottie was right years ago when she said that Sugerland is nothing but a Cult of Peter, and that he is indeed the proverbial Pied Piper. It's almost like a Simon Says kind of thing. And the irony is that they've always accused anthroposophists of not practicing independent critical thinking. There is absolutely no independence of thought going on there outside der Staudi's doctrines. And these doctrines resemble those of fascism, even of Nazism. His descriptions of esotericists are very similar to how the Nazis described the Jews, and also the Gypsies.

        Take his ever-repeated mantra that esotericists don't read, that they are especially averse to history, that they hate scholars and academics and so on. "Yours for reading." You and me both probably know a lot of so-called working class people, handimen like plumbers, carpenters, brick layers who don't read a lot. They get their news and their entertainment on radio and TV, they use social networks on the internet, but they don't care for books, and their average formal education may be somewhere between grade school and high school; they're positively not academics; they're blue-collars "forever in bluejeans". Der Staudi's arrogant and hateful contempt for non-academics and for people who don't like to read is extremely anti-working class. What about dyslectics who find it painfully difficult to read, or illiterates who can't read at all -- like some Gypsies? Yours for reading, yours for ignorance, yours for arrogance!

        What I'm getting at is not der Staudi's nonsensical rants where he picks up something he doesn't understand (like epistemology, because this "historian" is apparently unfamiliar with the Enlightenment philosophers, or he has never comprehended any of them); it's his ice cold arrogance, contempt, and hatred. And this is the kind of rhetoric that paved the way to the Holocaust and the gas chambers, this very type of polemics.

        But then der Staudi's habit of projection kicks in, deliberate or subconscious, not easy to tell. He projects his own pathologies and maladies upon his declared enemies, namely the esotericists, who have never been capable of educating themselves to be academics, who despise academics, hate to read, and want to know nothing about history, who are superstitious and harmful, almost like the insects and the vermin Heinrich Himmler described when he talked about the Jews. And the SS were academics; one out of every four SS-officers had a PhD, which made them a very formidable terror police force.

        From this, it's also easy to see that when the Sugar Cherubs say that anthroposophists are Nazi-like and that anthroposophy paved the way for Hitler and the holocaust and so forth, they are projecting. Joseph Goebbels preached hate in a manner very similar to the way the Sugar Cherubs preach about anthroposophists and esotericists. And that madman who blew up Oslo and executed about 70 young innocent people this summer -- I refuse to contribute to his place in history by mentioning his name; I'll leave that to historians like der Staudi -- wrote a manifest where his concerns about Muslims are very similar to the Sugar Cherubs' concerns about anthroposophists and esotericists.

        There is a lot of circular reasoning coming from der Staudi, circular arguments -- something I believe he's been accusing anthroposophists of; once more he's projecting. Circular reasoning is "a formal logical fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or explicitly in one of the premises." And:

        "The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."
        (T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)

        Notice also the title of one of their recent threads: "Observing the Racial Hatred in Anthroposophy" It has nothing or little to do with what they actually write, but the title itself, which is repeated with each post and noticed by the casual browser or lurker, sends a signal, doesn't it?

        Joseph Goebbels would have been quite pleased with them.

        Tarjei


        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
        >
        > What is 'reality' and how could we know it? We will never know from Der Staudi's current recap of his confused understanding of Steiner's epistemology, that he first retailed over two years ago and is currently regaling Dennis with again. His confusion starts with the first sentence and spirals ever further into the mire from there onwards:
        >
        > "Steiner's text Truth and Knowldge, like any substantial philosophical text,
        > bases its argument on a number of presuppositions,
        > including the presupposition that external reality exists and that it can be
        > made sense
        > of to some extent..."
        >
        > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/21601)
        >
        > This list of presuppositions, and the over 10 other ones he recounts in a florid list - which are ever less relevant as the list goes on - are exactly what Steiner's thesis sought to leave behind. Instead Steiner attempted to start with William James's 'buzzin' bloomin' confusion' of experience that constitutes an hypothesised first state of awareness. A state where the notion of 'external' or even 'object' doesn't exist. This is the psychological state a baby seems to have and one we can asymptotically recover for ourselves, as Steiner suggests, by thinking ourselves back in time towards our earliest childhood memories. Since we've suggested that Der Staudi may in fact be the first artificial life form it could be that he doesn't have such memories or experiences and this might account for his apparent inability to do epistemology. Anyway, the rest of his rambling incoherent account seems too piffling to bother responding to.
        >
        > T.
        >
        > Ted Wrinch
        >

      • fs13997
        Why do you insist so much with germany s wwii stuff? After all the most advanced anthroposophist of the last two decades in Italy (who died last year and was
        Message 3 of 18 , Sep 28, 2011
        • 0 Attachment
          Why do you insist so much with germany's wwii stuff? After all the most advanced anthroposophist of the last two decades in Italy (who died last year and was buried in his uniform) had been in the waffen, was decorated, and also designed the anthroposophical collar tab with three arrows (Wollen-Wissen-Konnen) and yoke, to wear instead of the traditional runes.

          Isn't it time to move on and look at the evils of today? How about the liberals and the left-wing? Their tactics are just those adopted by the notorious historian.

          As someone already noted, the first is the syndrome of the use of words. After years of liberal cultural dominance, words like 'racism' immediately call for automatic condemnation; while democracy calls for immediate approval. A sort of Pavlovian reflex. It is then easy to polarize anthros and non-anthros against Steiner or Scaligero when they used a word that have assumed an aprioristically negative connotation. The "war of words" so dear to the left-wing.

          The second is the presumption of bad faith imputed to the designated victim. In our case, Steiner is accused of having manipulated and lied ex post about his biography and his spiritual experiences (similar fate seems to be happening to Scaligero, this time with the support of some anthros).

          Last, the tendency to trivialize, i.e. the attempt to show that Steiner was not original and that his teachings were a patch of teachings from others. These three techniques are typical of the left-wing and are those used against Steiner and his teachings today.


          .

          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
          >
          > Der Staudi's rambling rants about epistemology (must be especially
          > embarrassing for an academic), his nonsensical fantasies about Steiner's
          > autobiography (that he disremembered his past inner life which Der
          > Staudi knows much better than Steiner himself did, who got it all
          > wrong), his obsessive and exceptionally hostile invectives against
          > esotericists, his constant references to his own brilliance, erudition,
          > and excellence etc. -- all of this makes it a waste of time to read
          > anything he writes.
          >
          > It's a curious phenomenon, however, to observe how his handful of
          > faithfuls, his fellow Sugar Cherubs, swallow his balderdash lock, stock
          > and barrel. The Sugar Cherubs have been very concerned from the
          > beginning, at least they used to be, that anthroposophy is a
          > brainwashing cult blindly following a leader -- in this case not a
          > living one, unless a guide in the spiritual world is meant, ONE single
          > guide, not many, and comparisons have been made to Jonestown and
          > Heaven's Gate.
          >
          > Because no mass suicide has occurred in anthroposophical circles yet,
          > they've given up hope for that and moved on to other angles. They've
          > also given up on the Satanism charge and the alleged OTO-sex-magic stuff
          > because the Christian fundies have stopped "fellowshippin" with them,
          > probably due to their fierce anti-religious atheism. So the only thing
          > they're left with is der Staudi's angle, and it's amazing to see how
          > each and every one of them seems to be able to repeat der Staudi's views
          > and arguments almost verbatim, like they've memorized them, when some
          > bewildered anthroposophist who finds himself stranded there brings up
          > this or that topic.
          >
          > Dottie was right years ago when she said that Sugerland is nothing but a
          > Cult of Peter, and that he is indeed the proverbial Pied Piper. It's
          > almost like a Simon Says kind of thing. And the irony is that they've
          > always accused anthroposophists of not practicing independent critical
          > thinking. There is absolutely no independence of thought going on there
          > outside der Staudi's doctrines. And these doctrines resemble those of
          > fascism, even of Nazism. His descriptions of esotericists are very
          > similar to how the Nazis described the Jews, and also the Gypsies.
          >
          > Take his ever-repeated mantra that esotericists don't read, that they
          > are especially averse to history, that they hate scholars and academics
          > and so on. "Yours for reading." You and me both probably know a lot of
          > so-called working class people, handimen like plumbers, carpenters,
          > brick layers who don't read a lot. They get their news and their
          > entertainment on radio and TV, they use social networks on the internet,
          > but they don't care for books, and their average formal education may be
          > somewhere between grade school and high school; they're positively not
          > academics; they're blue-collars "forever in bluejeans". Der Staudi's
          > arrogant and hateful contempt for non-academics and for people who don't
          > like to read is extremely anti-working class. What about dyslectics who
          > find it painfully difficult to read, or illiterates who can't read at
          > all -- like some Gypsies? Yours for reading, yours for ignorance, yours
          > for arrogance!
          >
          > What I'm getting at is not der Staudi's nonsensical rants where he picks
          > up something he doesn't understand (like epistemology, because this
          > "historian" is apparently unfamiliar with the Enlightenment
          > philosophers, or he has never comprehended any of them); it's his ice
          > cold arrogance, contempt, and hatred. And this is the kind of rhetoric
          > that paved the way to the Holocaust and the gas chambers, this very type
          > of polemics.
          >
          > But then der Staudi's habit of projection kicks in, deliberate or
          > subconscious, not easy to tell. He projects his own pathologies and
          > maladies upon his declared enemies, namely the esotericists, who have
          > never been capable of educating themselves to be academics, who despise
          > academics, hate to read, and want to know nothing about history, who are
          > superstitious and harmful, almost like the insects and the vermin
          > Heinrich Himmler described when he talked about the Jews. And the SS
          > were academics; one out of every four SS-officers had a PhD, which made
          > them a very formidable terror police force.
          >
          > From this, it's also easy to see that when the Sugar Cherubs say that
          > anthroposophists are Nazi-like and that anthroposophy paved the way for
          > Hitler and the holocaust and so forth, they are projecting. Joseph
          > Goebbels preached hate in a manner very similar to the way the Sugar
          > Cherubs preach about anthroposophists and esotericists. And that madman
          > who blew up Oslo and executed about 70 young innocent people this summer
          > -- I refuse to contribute to his place in history by mentioning his
          > name; I'll leave that to historians like der Staudi -- wrote a manifest
          > where his concerns about Muslims are very similar to the Sugar Cherubs'
          > concerns about anthroposophists and esotericists.
          >
          > There is a lot of circular reasoning coming from der Staudi, circular
          > arguments -- something I believe he's been accusing anthroposophists of;
          > once more he's projecting. Circular reasoning is "a formal logical
          > fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or
          > explicitly in one of the premises." And:
          >
          > "The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or
          > unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the
          > conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it
          > as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise
          > is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a
          > circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."
          > (T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)
          >
          > Notice also the title of one of their recent threads: "Observing the
          > Racial Hatred in Anthroposophy" It has nothing or little to do with what
          > they actually write, but the title itself, which is repeated with each
          > post and noticed by the casual browser or lurker, sends a signal,
          > doesn't it?
          >
          > Joseph Goebbels would have been quite pleased with them.
          >
        • elfuncle
          ... The second world war has not been mentioned by anyone in this thread. Looks like a total non sequitor to me. But then again, Der Staudi once told me
          Message 4 of 18 , Sep 28, 2011
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@...> wrote:
            >
            > Why do you insist so much with germany's wwii stuff?


            The second world war has not been mentioned by anyone in this thread. Looks like a total non sequitor to me. But then again, Der Staudi once told me repeatedly (in 2001 and 2004) that I needed new reading glasses. I've got new glasses now, but maybe I'm suffering from dementia because I'm almost the same age Steiner was when he wrote his autobiography.

            > After all the most advanced anthroposophist of the last two decades in Italy (who died last year and was buried in his uniform) had been in the waffen, was decorated, and also designed the anthroposophical collar tab with three arrows (Wollen-Wissen-Konnen) and yoke, to wear instead of the traditional runes.

            The anthroposophical collar tab with three arrows? I'm learning something new here. Maybe there is a Nazi cult in anthroposophy after all, like the Sugar Cherubs say, if this is indeed true. What you're describing here is a Third Reich insignia, which you call "anthroposophical". Do you have any references to support the argument that this Nazi symbol was "anthroposophical" -- ?
             
            > Isn't it time to move on and look at the evils of today? How about the liberals and the left-wing? Their tactics are just those adopted by the notorious historian.


            So liberals and left-wingers are using Der Staudi's-tactics -- for Communist purposes, I assume. Or the other way around, it makes no difference.

            > As someone already noted, the first is the syndrome of the use of words. After years of liberal cultural dominance, words like 'racism' immediately call for automatic condemnation; while democracy calls for immediate approval.

            I see nothing wrong with that, for the simple reason that racism is immoral (especially against children), while democracy is healthy if it works. But maybe it's the other way around in the Nazi-Anthro-Land of Nameless and Anonymous Adorable Darlings? (I wouldn't want to meet a flock like that at night in some remote back alley in Naples or Florence.

            > A sort of Pavlovian reflex. It is then easy to polarize anthros and non-anthros against Steiner or Scaligero when they used a word that have assumed an aprioristically negative connotation. The "war of words" so dear to the left-wing.

            The left-wing again? Doesn't the right wing wage a war on words too every once in a while, to balance things out?

            > The second is the presumption of bad faith imputed to the designated victim. In our case, Steiner is accused of having manipulated and lied ex post about his biography and his spiritual experiences (similar fate seems to be happening to Scaligero, this time with the support of some anthros).
            >
            > Last, the tendency to trivialize, i.e. the attempt to show that Steiner was not original and that his teachings were a patch of teachings from others. These three techniques are typical of the left-wing and are those used against Steiner and his teachings today.


            In other words, to oppose the kind of things being done against Steiner's teachings these days, one would have to go right wing and support militarism, invasions, war for profit, the death penalty, police brutality and so on? And if not, we'll be untrustworthy left-wingers with sneaky Der Staudi-tactics?

            Tarjei
          • ted.wrinch
            Yes, the hole folks do seem like brain-washed cultists in their unthinking allegiance to Der Staudi s words. Your phrase ice cold arrogance, contempt, and
            Message 5 of 18 , Sep 28, 2011
            • 0 Attachment
              Yes, the hole folks do seem like brain-washed cultists in their unthinking allegiance to Der Staudi's words. Your phrase 'ice cold arrogance, contempt, and hatred' describes one aspect of his character very well that everyone who's interacted with him is familiar with; others have labeled it a lack of compassion, which may go to the heart of why he behaves like this. It's a wonder to me that someone of such low character - he's also an inveterate liar - is given tenure in the university system; but then, as Steiner said many times, in our time very high intelligence can be coupled with low moral character in the same person ( he says that this will not be the case in the future). The title in recent currency in the hole that you mention, "Observing the Racial Hatred in Anthroposophy", would at one time have shocked me and seemed vey much, as you rightly observe, like the kind of hate speech that the Nazi's used against their targets. But it's just par for the course in the hole these days.

              Circular reasoning is just one of the many logical fallacies that Der Staudi uses in his argumentations. You may remember that I provided a formal analysis of his use of logical fallacies within one post of the Ostwald debate he had with me: http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/45741.

              T.

              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
              >
              > Der Staudi's rambling rants about epistemology (must be especially
              > embarrassing for an academic), his nonsensical fantasies about Steiner's
              > autobiography (that he disremembered his past inner life which Der
              > Staudi knows much better than Steiner himself did, who got it all
              > wrong), his obsessive and exceptionally hostile invectives against
              > esotericists, his constant references to his own brilliance, erudition,
              > and excellence etc. -- all of this makes it a waste of time to read
              > anything he writes.
              >
              > It's a curious phenomenon, however, to observe how his handful of
              > faithfuls, his fellow Sugar Cherubs, swallow his balderdash lock, stock
              > and barrel. The Sugar Cherubs have been very concerned from the
              > beginning, at least they used to be, that anthroposophy is a
              > brainwashing cult blindly following a leader -- in this case not a
              > living one, unless a guide in the spiritual world is meant, ONE single
              > guide, not many, and comparisons have been made to Jonestown and
              > Heaven's Gate.
              >
              > Because no mass suicide has occurred in anthroposophical circles yet,
              > they've given up hope for that and moved on to other angles. They've
              > also given up on the Satanism charge and the alleged OTO-sex-magic stuff
              > because the Christian fundies have stopped "fellowshippin" with them,
              > probably due to their fierce anti-religious atheism. So the only thing
              > they're left with is der Staudi's angle, and it's amazing to see how
              > each and every one of them seems to be able to repeat der Staudi's views
              > and arguments almost verbatim, like they've memorized them, when some
              > bewildered anthroposophist who finds himself stranded there brings up
              > this or that topic.
              >
              > Dottie was right years ago when she said that Sugerland is nothing but a
              > Cult of Peter, and that he is indeed the proverbial Pied Piper. It's
              > almost like a Simon Says kind of thing. And the irony is that they've
              > always accused anthroposophists of not practicing independent critical
              > thinking. There is absolutely no independence of thought going on there
              > outside der Staudi's doctrines. And these doctrines resemble those of
              > fascism, even of Nazism. His descriptions of esotericists are very
              > similar to how the Nazis described the Jews, and also the Gypsies.
              >
              > Take his ever-repeated mantra that esotericists don't read, that they
              > are especially averse to history, that they hate scholars and academics
              > and so on. "Yours for reading." You and me both probably know a lot of
              > so-called working class people, handimen like plumbers, carpenters,
              > brick layers who don't read a lot. They get their news and their
              > entertainment on radio and TV, they use social networks on the internet,
              > but they don't care for books, and their average formal education may be
              > somewhere between grade school and high school; they're positively not
              > academics; they're blue-collars "forever in bluejeans". Der Staudi's
              > arrogant and hateful contempt for non-academics and for people who don't
              > like to read is extremely anti-working class. What about dyslectics who
              > find it painfully difficult to read, or illiterates who can't read at
              > all -- like some Gypsies? Yours for reading, yours for ignorance, yours
              > for arrogance!
              >
              > What I'm getting at is not der Staudi's nonsensical rants where he picks
              > up something he doesn't understand (like epistemology, because this
              > "historian" is apparently unfamiliar with the Enlightenment
              > philosophers, or he has never comprehended any of them); it's his ice
              > cold arrogance, contempt, and hatred. And this is the kind of rhetoric
              > that paved the way to the Holocaust and the gas chambers, this very type
              > of polemics.
              >
              > But then der Staudi's habit of projection kicks in, deliberate or
              > subconscious, not easy to tell. He projects his own pathologies and
              > maladies upon his declared enemies, namely the esotericists, who have
              > never been capable of educating themselves to be academics, who despise
              > academics, hate to read, and want to know nothing about history, who are
              > superstitious and harmful, almost like the insects and the vermin
              > Heinrich Himmler described when he talked about the Jews. And the SS
              > were academics; one out of every four SS-officers had a PhD, which made
              > them a very formidable terror police force.
              >
              > From this, it's also easy to see that when the Sugar Cherubs say that
              > anthroposophists are Nazi-like and that anthroposophy paved the way for
              > Hitler and the holocaust and so forth, they are projecting. Joseph
              > Goebbels preached hate in a manner very similar to the way the Sugar
              > Cherubs preach about anthroposophists and esotericists. And that madman
              > who blew up Oslo and executed about 70 young innocent people this summer
              > -- I refuse to contribute to his place in history by mentioning his
              > name; I'll leave that to historians like der Staudi -- wrote a manifest
              > where his concerns about Muslims are very similar to the Sugar Cherubs'
              > concerns about anthroposophists and esotericists.
              >
              > There is a lot of circular reasoning coming from der Staudi, circular
              > arguments -- something I believe he's been accusing anthroposophists of;
              > once more he's projecting. Circular reasoning is "a formal logical
              > fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or
              > explicitly in one of the premises." And:
              >
              > "The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or
              > unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the
              > conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it
              > as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise
              > is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a
              > circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."
              > (T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)
              >
              > Notice also the title of one of their recent threads: "Observing the
              > Racial Hatred in Anthroposophy" It has nothing or little to do with what
              > they actually write, but the title itself, which is repeated with each
              > post and noticed by the casual browser or lurker, sends a signal,
              > doesn't it?
              >
              > Joseph Goebbels would have been quite pleased with them.
              >
              > Tarjei
              >
              >
              > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
              > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
              > >
              > > What is 'reality' and how could we know it? We will never know from
              > Der Staudi's current recap of his confused understanding of Steiner's
              > epistemology, that he first retailed over two years ago and is currently
              > regaling Dennis with again. His confusion starts with the first
              > sentence and spirals ever further into the mire from there onwards:
              > >
              > > "Steiner's text Truth and Knowldge, like any substantial philosophical
              > text,
              > > bases its argument on a number of presuppositions,
              > > including the presupposition that external reality exists and that it
              > can be
              > > made sense
              > > of to some extent..."
              > >
              > > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/21601)
              > >
              > > This list of presuppositions, and the over 10 other ones he recounts
              > in a florid list - which are ever less relevant as the list goes on -
              > are exactly what Steiner's thesis sought to leave behind. Instead
              > Steiner attempted to start with William James's 'buzzin' bloomin'
              > confusion' of experience that constitutes an hypothesised first state of
              > awareness. A state where the notion of 'external' or even 'object'
              > doesn't exist. This is the psychological state a baby seems to have and
              > one we can asymptotically recover for ourselves, as Steiner suggests, by
              > thinking ourselves back in time towards our earliest childhood memories.
              > Since we've suggested that Der Staudi may in fact be the first
              > artificial life form it could be that he doesn't have such memories or
              > experiences and this might account for his apparent inability to do
              > epistemology. Anyway, the rest of his rambling incoherent account seems
              > too piffling to bother responding to.
              > >
              > > T.
              > >
              > > Ted Wrinch
              > >
              >
            • ted.wrinch
              I see nothing wrong with that, for the simple reason that racism is immoral (especially against children), while democracy is healthy if it works. Exactly.
              Message 6 of 18 , Sep 28, 2011
              • 0 Attachment
                "I see nothing wrong with that, for the simple reason that racism is immoral (especially against children), while democracy is healthy if it works."

                Exactly. There are goods on both left and right, and evils, much evidenced in the history of both political movements during the C20.

                "In other words, to oppose the kind of things being done against Steiner's teachings these days, one would have to go right wing and support militarism, invasions, war for profit, the death penalty, police brutality and so on? And if not, we'll be untrustworthy left-wingers with sneaky Der Staudi-tactics? "

                Quite so.

                T.

                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                >
                >
                > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@>
                > wrote:
                > >
                > > Why do you insist so much with germany's wwii stuff?
                >
                > The second world war has not been mentioned by anyone in this thread.
                > Looks like a total non sequitor to me. But then again, Der Staudi once
                > told me repeatedly (in 2001 and 2004) that I needed new reading glasses.
                > I've got new glasses now, but maybe I'm suffering from dementia because
                > I'm almost the same age Steiner was when he wrote his autobiography.
                >
                > > After all the most advanced anthroposophist of the last two decades in
                > Italy (who died last year and was buried in his uniform) had been in the
                > waffen, was decorated, and also designed the anthroposophical collar tab
                > with three arrows (Wollen-Wissen-Konnen) and yoke, to wear instead of
                > the traditional runes.
                >
                > The anthroposophical collar tab with three arrows? I'm learning
                > something new here. Maybe there is a Nazi cult in anthroposophy after
                > all, like the Sugar Cherubs say, if this is indeed true. What you're
                > describing here is a Third Reich insignia, which you call
                > "anthroposophical". Do you have any references to support the argument
                > that this Nazi symbol was "anthroposophical" -- ?
                >
                > > Isn't it time to move on and look at the evils of today? How about the
                > liberals and the left-wing? Their tactics are just those adopted by the
                > notorious historian.
                >
                > So liberals and left-wingers are using Der Staudi's-tactics -- for
                > Communist purposes, I assume. Or the other way around, it makes no
                > difference.
                >
                > > As someone already noted, the first is the syndrome of the use of
                > words. After years of liberal cultural dominance, words like 'racism'
                > immediately call for automatic condemnation; while democracy calls for
                > immediate approval.
                >
                > I see nothing wrong with that, for the simple reason that racism is
                > immoral (especially against children), while democracy is healthy if it
                > works. But maybe it's the other way around in the Nazi-Anthro-Land of
                > Nameless and Anonymous Adorable Darlings? (I wouldn't want to meet a
                > flock like that at night in some remote back alley in Naples or
                > Florence.
                >
                > > A sort of Pavlovian reflex. It is then easy to polarize anthros and
                > non-anthros against Steiner or Scaligero when they used a word that have
                > assumed an aprioristically negative connotation. The "war of words" so
                > dear to the left-wing.
                >
                > The left-wing again? Doesn't the right wing wage a war on words too
                > every once in a while, to balance things out?
                >
                > > The second is the presumption of bad faith imputed to the designated
                > victim. In our case, Steiner is accused of having manipulated and lied
                > ex post about his biography and his spiritual experiences (similar fate
                > seems to be happening to Scaligero, this time with the support of some
                > anthros).
                > >
                > > Last, the tendency to trivialize, i.e. the attempt to show that
                > Steiner was not original and that his teachings were a patch of
                > teachings from others. These three techniques are typical of the
                > left-wing and are those used against Steiner and his teachings today.
                >
                > In other words, to oppose the kind of things being done against
                > Steiner's teachings these days, one would have to go right wing and
                > support militarism, invasions, war for profit, the death penalty, police
                > brutality and so on? And if not, we'll be untrustworthy left-wingers
                > with sneaky Der Staudi-tactics?
                >
                > Tarjei
                >
              • ted.wrinch
                And the SS were academics; one out of every four SS-officers had a PhD, which made them a very formidable terror police force. Forgot to say: fascinating! I
                Message 7 of 18 , Sep 29, 2011
                • 0 Attachment
                  "And the SS were academics; one out of every four SS-officers had a PhD, which made them a very formidable terror police force."

                  Forgot to say: fascinating! I never knew that. Perhaps there can be a bigger disconnect between morality and the intellect for those people than the usual for a population. Maybe Der Staudi is a left-wing SS wannabe!

                  T.

                  Ted Wrinch


                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                  >
                  > Der Staudi's rambling rants about epistemology (must be especially
                  > embarrassing for an academic), his nonsensical fantasies about Steiner's
                  > autobiography (that he disremembered his past inner life which Der
                  > Staudi knows much better than Steiner himself did, who got it all
                  > wrong), his obsessive and exceptionally hostile invectives against
                  > esotericists, his constant references to his own brilliance, erudition,
                  > and excellence etc. -- all of this makes it a waste of time to read
                  > anything he writes.
                  >
                  > It's a curious phenomenon, however, to observe how his handful of
                  > faithfuls, his fellow Sugar Cherubs, swallow his balderdash lock, stock
                  > and barrel. The Sugar Cherubs have been very concerned from the
                  > beginning, at least they used to be, that anthroposophy is a
                  > brainwashing cult blindly following a leader -- in this case not a
                  > living one, unless a guide in the spiritual world is meant, ONE single
                  > guide, not many, and comparisons have been made to Jonestown and
                  > Heaven's Gate.
                  >
                  > Because no mass suicide has occurred in anthroposophical circles yet,
                  > they've given up hope for that and moved on to other angles. They've
                  > also given up on the Satanism charge and the alleged OTO-sex-magic stuff
                  > because the Christian fundies have stopped "fellowshippin" with them,
                  > probably due to their fierce anti-religious atheism. So the only thing
                  > they're left with is der Staudi's angle, and it's amazing to see how
                  > each and every one of them seems to be able to repeat der Staudi's views
                  > and arguments almost verbatim, like they've memorized them, when some
                  > bewildered anthroposophist who finds himself stranded there brings up
                  > this or that topic.
                  >
                  > Dottie was right years ago when she said that Sugerland is nothing but a
                  > Cult of Peter, and that he is indeed the proverbial Pied Piper. It's
                  > almost like a Simon Says kind of thing. And the irony is that they've
                  > always accused anthroposophists of not practicing independent critical
                  > thinking. There is absolutely no independence of thought going on there
                  > outside der Staudi's doctrines. And these doctrines resemble those of
                  > fascism, even of Nazism. His descriptions of esotericists are very
                  > similar to how the Nazis described the Jews, and also the Gypsies.
                  >
                  > Take his ever-repeated mantra that esotericists don't read, that they
                  > are especially averse to history, that they hate scholars and academics
                  > and so on. "Yours for reading." You and me both probably know a lot of
                  > so-called working class people, handimen like plumbers, carpenters,
                  > brick layers who don't read a lot. They get their news and their
                  > entertainment on radio and TV, they use social networks on the internet,
                  > but they don't care for books, and their average formal education may be
                  > somewhere between grade school and high school; they're positively not
                  > academics; they're blue-collars "forever in bluejeans". Der Staudi's
                  > arrogant and hateful contempt for non-academics and for people who don't
                  > like to read is extremely anti-working class. What about dyslectics who
                  > find it painfully difficult to read, or illiterates who can't read at
                  > all -- like some Gypsies? Yours for reading, yours for ignorance, yours
                  > for arrogance!
                  >
                  > What I'm getting at is not der Staudi's nonsensical rants where he picks
                  > up something he doesn't understand (like epistemology, because this
                  > "historian" is apparently unfamiliar with the Enlightenment
                  > philosophers, or he has never comprehended any of them); it's his ice
                  > cold arrogance, contempt, and hatred. And this is the kind of rhetoric
                  > that paved the way to the Holocaust and the gas chambers, this very type
                  > of polemics.
                  >
                  > But then der Staudi's habit of projection kicks in, deliberate or
                  > subconscious, not easy to tell. He projects his own pathologies and
                  > maladies upon his declared enemies, namely the esotericists, who have
                  > never been capable of educating themselves to be academics, who despise
                  > academics, hate to read, and want to know nothing about history, who are
                  > superstitious and harmful, almost like the insects and the vermin
                  > Heinrich Himmler described when he talked about the Jews. And the SS
                  > were academics; one out of every four SS-officers had a PhD, which made
                  > them a very formidable terror police force.
                  >
                  > From this, it's also easy to see that when the Sugar Cherubs say that
                  > anthroposophists are Nazi-like and that anthroposophy paved the way for
                  > Hitler and the holocaust and so forth, they are projecting. Joseph
                  > Goebbels preached hate in a manner very similar to the way the Sugar
                  > Cherubs preach about anthroposophists and esotericists. And that madman
                  > who blew up Oslo and executed about 70 young innocent people this summer
                  > -- I refuse to contribute to his place in history by mentioning his
                  > name; I'll leave that to historians like der Staudi -- wrote a manifest
                  > where his concerns about Muslims are very similar to the Sugar Cherubs'
                  > concerns about anthroposophists and esotericists.
                  >
                  > There is a lot of circular reasoning coming from der Staudi, circular
                  > arguments -- something I believe he's been accusing anthroposophists of;
                  > once more he's projecting. Circular reasoning is "a formal logical
                  > fallacy in which the proposition to be proved is assumed implicitly or
                  > explicitly in one of the premises." And:
                  >
                  > "The circular argument uses its own conclusion as one of its stated or
                  > unstated premises. Instead of offering proof, it simply asserts the
                  > conclusion in another form, thereby inviting the listener to accept it
                  > as settled when, in fact, it has not been settled. Because the premise
                  > is no different from and therefore as questionable as its conclusion, a
                  > circular argument violates the criterion of acceptability."
                  > (T. Edward Damer, Attacking Faulty Reasoning. Wadsworth, 2001)
                  >
                  > Notice also the title of one of their recent threads: "Observing the
                  > Racial Hatred in Anthroposophy" It has nothing or little to do with what
                  > they actually write, but the title itself, which is repeated with each
                  > post and noticed by the casual browser or lurker, sends a signal,
                  > doesn't it?
                  >
                  > Joseph Goebbels would have been quite pleased with them.
                  >
                  > Tarjei
                  >
                  >
                  > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
                  > <ted.wrinch@> wrote:
                  > >
                  > > What is 'reality' and how could we know it? We will never know from
                  > Der Staudi's current recap of his confused understanding of Steiner's
                  > epistemology, that he first retailed over two years ago and is currently
                  > regaling Dennis with again. His confusion starts with the first
                  > sentence and spirals ever further into the mire from there onwards:
                  > >
                  > > "Steiner's text Truth and Knowldge, like any substantial philosophical
                  > text,
                  > > bases its argument on a number of presuppositions,
                  > > including the presupposition that external reality exists and that it
                  > can be
                  > > made sense
                  > > of to some extent..."
                  > >
                  > > (http://groups.yahoo.com/group/waldorf-critics/message/21601)
                  > >
                  > > This list of presuppositions, and the over 10 other ones he recounts
                  > in a florid list - which are ever less relevant as the list goes on -
                  > are exactly what Steiner's thesis sought to leave behind. Instead
                  > Steiner attempted to start with William James's 'buzzin' bloomin'
                  > confusion' of experience that constitutes an hypothesised first state of
                  > awareness. A state where the notion of 'external' or even 'object'
                  > doesn't exist. This is the psychological state a baby seems to have and
                  > one we can asymptotically recover for ourselves, as Steiner suggests, by
                  > thinking ourselves back in time towards our earliest childhood memories.
                  > Since we've suggested that Der Staudi may in fact be the first
                  > artificial life form it could be that he doesn't have such memories or
                  > experiences and this might account for his apparent inability to do
                  > epistemology. Anyway, the rest of his rambling incoherent account seems
                  > too piffling to bother responding to.
                  > >
                  > > T.
                  > >
                  > > Ted Wrinch
                  > >
                  >
                • elfuncle
                  I m beginning to understand why this cat prefers to be nameless and anonymous. 36 years ago I was living in Los Angeles, and I listened regularly to a certain
                  Message 8 of 18 , Sep 29, 2011
                  • 0 Attachment
                    I'm beginning to understand why this cat prefers to be nameless and anonymous. 36 years ago I was living in Los Angeles, and I listened regularly to a certain radio talk show. I called in too and participated in som fun. I remember the nice hostess but not her name. Anyway, one night they were talking about race and racism, and a dude called in who said he kept his hood in the closet. So he was Ku Klux Klan. Very creepy. And I loved the way that hostess made her final speech to him before finishing the conversation.

                    There's something creepy about our cat here. He or she -- let's call our cat "it" for the sake of accuracy and simplicity -- is talking about anthroposophical Nazi insignia; I've never heard of anything like that, sounds like a Sugar Cherub wet dream. So I figure it's got some Nazi memorabilia in its closet along with some kind of anthroposophical items -- maybe it puts some swastikas and rosy crosses and photos of Adolf and Himmler and Eichman and some of Steiner and Marie and Wegman and Rittelmeyer into the same basket so it lives in a Nazi-anthro fantasy world, unless it can prove to us that this world is real and that the Pied Piper is right with regard to Nazism and anthroposophy.

                    Our cat could also be an undercover agent or troll from Sugarland; I deserve that kind of payback after trolling them so much in the past myself. But if so, this trolling is amateurish.

                    Well, it lets us conclude that it's right wing, and when we take its closet content into consideration, it's got to be a fascist of sorts, either Mussolini or Hitler, or maybe both. And it's got left-wingers on its tail, anti-fascists and anti-racists, so it has to hide out, keep a low profile and stay incognito.

                    A third possibility is that the cat has forgotten to take its medicine as an outpatient at a mental hospital, or has perhaps escaped from an institution, breaking out of the strait jacket and knocking down the guards like Linda Hamilton in Terminator II.




                    Tarjei


                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch" <ted.wrinch@...> wrote:
                    >
                    >
                    > "I see nothing wrong with that, for the simple reason that racism is immoral (especially against children), while democracy is healthy if it works."
                    >
                    > Exactly. There are goods on both left and right, and evils, much evidenced in the history of both political movements during the C20.
                    >
                    > "In other words, to oppose the kind of things being done against Steiner's teachings these days, one would have to go right wing and support militarism, invasions, war for profit, the death penalty, police brutality and so on? And if not, we'll be untrustworthy left-wingers with sneaky Der Staudi-tactics? "
                    >
                    > Quite so.
                    >
                    > T.
                    >
                    > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" elfuncle@ wrote:
                    > >
                    > >
                    > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@>
                    > > wrote:
                    > > >
                    > > > Why do you insist so much with germany's wwii stuff?
                    > >
                    > > The second world war has not been mentioned by anyone in this thread.
                    > > Looks like a total non sequitor to me. But then again, Der Staudi once
                    > > told me repeatedly (in 2001 and 2004) that I needed new reading glasses.
                    > > I've got new glasses now, but maybe I'm suffering from dementia because
                    > > I'm almost the same age Steiner was when he wrote his autobiography.
                    > >
                    > > > After all the most advanced anthroposophist of the last two decades in
                    > > Italy (who died last year and was buried in his uniform) had been in the
                    > > waffen, was decorated, and also designed the anthroposophical collar tab
                    > > with three arrows (Wollen-Wissen-Konnen) and yoke, to wear instead of
                    > > the traditional runes.
                    > >
                    > > The anthroposophical collar tab with three arrows? I'm learning
                    > > something new here. Maybe there is a Nazi cult in anthroposophy after
                    > > all, like the Sugar Cherubs say, if this is indeed true. What you're
                    > > describing here is a Third Reich insignia, which you call
                    > > "anthroposophical". Do you have any references to support the argument
                    > > that this Nazi symbol was "anthroposophical" -- ?
                    > >
                    > > > Isn't it time to move on and look at the evils of today? How about the
                    > > liberals and the left-wing? Their tactics are just those adopted by the
                    > > notorious historian.
                    > >
                    > > So liberals and left-wingers are using Der Staudi's-tactics -- for
                    > > Communist purposes, I assume. Or the other way around, it makes no
                    > > difference.
                    > >
                    > > > As someone already noted, the first is the syndrome of the use of
                    > > words. After years of liberal cultural dominance, words like 'racism'
                    > > immediately call for automatic condemnation; while democracy calls for
                    > > immediate approval.
                    > >
                    > > I see nothing wrong with that, for the simple reason that racism is
                    > > immoral (especially against children), while democracy is healthy if it
                    > > works. But maybe it's the other way around in the Nazi-Anthro-Land of
                    > > Nameless and Anonymous Adorable Darlings? (I wouldn't want to meet a
                    > > flock like that at night in some remote back alley in Naples or
                    > > Florence.
                    > >
                    > > > A sort of Pavlovian reflex. It is then easy to polarize anthros and
                    > > non-anthros against Steiner or Scaligero when they used a word that have
                    > > assumed an aprioristically negative connotation. The "war of words" so
                    > > dear to the left-wing.
                    > >
                    > > The left-wing again? Doesn't the right wing wage a war on words too
                    > > every once in a while, to balance things out?
                    > >
                    > > > The second is the presumption of bad faith imputed to the designated
                    > > victim. In our case, Steiner is accused of having manipulated and lied
                    > > ex post about his biography and his spiritual experiences (similar fate
                    > > seems to be happening to Scaligero, this time with the support of some
                    > > anthros).
                    > > >
                    > > > Last, the tendency to trivialize, i.e. the attempt to show that
                    > > Steiner was not original and that his teachings were a patch of
                    > > teachings from others. These three techniques are typical of the
                    > > left-wing and are those used against Steiner and his teachings today.
                    > >
                    > > In other words, to oppose the kind of things being done against
                    > > Steiner's teachings these days, one would have to go right wing and
                    > > support militarism, invasions, war for profit, the death penalty, police
                    > > brutality and so on? And if not, we'll be untrustworthy left-wingers
                    > > with sneaky Der Staudi-tactics?
                    > >
                    > > Tarjei
                    > >
                    >

                  • elfuncle
                    Gee, I forgot one detail: In addition to being a right winger (by virtue of being a dedicated anti-left-winger), our cat also prefers racism to democracy, and
                    Message 9 of 18 , Sep 29, 2011
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Gee, I forgot one detail: In addition to being a right winger (by virtue of being a dedicated anti-left-winger), our cat also prefers racism to democracy, and that's got to be Nazi ideology in a nutshell. Our cat laments that people dislike racism and praise democracy, because this, it says, is something sneaky left-wingers have brainwashed into people's heads. So it (the cat) thinks it should be the other way around: If people understood the Truth the way the cat understands the Truth, they would be praising racism and disliking democracy. In other words, we've got a nameless, anonymous, genderless cat in our midst with a weird mix of Nazi memorabilia and anthroposophical items in his closet, who wants to do away with democracy and replace it with racism. And it's roaming the streets of Italian cities at night, probably in a group of ferocious Nazi-cats.

                      I rest my case and I say no more. It's Michaelmas today, and I expect him to drop by soon and bring us some stability. I know he's busy; being Michael on September 29 is like being Santa Claus the night before Christmas.

                      Tarjei


                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                      >
                      > I'm beginning to understand why this cat prefers to be nameless and
                      > anonymous. 36 years ago I was living in Los Angeles, and I listened
                      > regularly to a certain radio talk show. I called in too and participated
                      > in som fun. I remember the nice hostess but not her name. Anyway, one
                      > night they were talking about race and racism, and a dude called in who
                      > said he kept his hood in the closet. So he was Ku Klux Klan. Very
                      > creepy. And I loved the way that hostess made her final speech to him
                      > before finishing the conversation.
                      >
                      > There's something creepy about our cat here. He or she -- let's call our
                      > cat "it" for the sake of accuracy and simplicity -- is talking about
                      > anthroposophical Nazi insignia; I've never heard of anything like that,
                      > sounds like a Sugar Cherub wet dream. So I figure it's got some Nazi
                      > memorabilia in its closet along with some kind of anthroposophical items
                      > -- maybe it puts some swastikas and rosy crosses and photos of Adolf and
                      > Himmler and Eichman and some of Steiner and Marie and Wegman and
                      > Rittelmeyer into the same basket so it lives in a Nazi-anthro fantasy
                      > world, unless it can prove to us that this world is real and that the
                      > Pied Piper is right with regard to Nazism and anthroposophy.
                      >
                      > Our cat could also be an undercover agent or troll from Sugarland; I
                      > deserve that kind of payback after trolling them so much in the past
                      > myself. But if so, this trolling is amateurish.
                      >
                      > Well, it lets us conclude that it's right wing, and when we take its
                      > closet content into consideration, it's got to be a fascist of sorts,
                      > either Mussolini or Hitler, or maybe both. And it's got left-wingers on
                      > its tail, anti-fascists and anti-racists, so it has to hide out, keep a
                      > low profile and stay incognito.
                      >
                      > A third possibility is that the cat has forgotten to take its medicine
                      > as an outpatient at a mental hospital, or has perhaps escaped from an
                      > institution, breaking out of the strait jacket and knocking down the
                      > guards like Linda Hamilton in Terminator II.
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      >
                      > Tarjei
                      >
                      >
                      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "ted.wrinch"
                      > ted.wrinch@ wrote:
                      > >
                      > >
                      > > "I see nothing wrong with that, for the simple reason that racism is
                      > immoral (especially against children), while democracy is healthy if it
                      > works."
                      > >
                      > > Exactly. There are goods on both left and right, and evils, much
                      > evidenced in the history of both political movements during the C20.
                      > >
                      > > "In other words, to oppose the kind of things being done against
                      > Steiner's teachings these days, one would have to go right wing and
                      > support militarism, invasions, war for profit, the death penalty, police
                      > brutality and so on? And if not, we'll be untrustworthy left-wingers
                      > with sneaky Der Staudi-tactics? "
                      > >
                      > > Quite so.
                      > >
                      > > T.
                      > >
                      > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" elfuncle@
                      > wrote:
                      > > >
                      > > >
                      > > > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@>
                      > > > wrote:
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Why do you insist so much with germany's wwii stuff?
                      > > >
                      > > > The second world war has not been mentioned by anyone in this
                      > thread.
                      > > > Looks like a total non sequitor to me. But then again, Der Staudi
                      > once
                      > > > told me repeatedly (in 2001 and 2004) that I needed new reading
                      > glasses.
                      > > > I've got new glasses now, but maybe I'm suffering from dementia
                      > because
                      > > > I'm almost the same age Steiner was when he wrote his autobiography.
                      > > >
                      > > > > After all the most advanced anthroposophist of the last two
                      > decades in
                      > > > Italy (who died last year and was buried in his uniform) had been in
                      > the
                      > > > waffen, was decorated, and also designed the anthroposophical collar
                      > tab
                      > > > with three arrows (Wollen-Wissen-Konnen) and yoke, to wear instead
                      > of
                      > > > the traditional runes.
                      > > >
                      > > > The anthroposophical collar tab with three arrows? I'm learning
                      > > > something new here. Maybe there is a Nazi cult in anthroposophy
                      > after
                      > > > all, like the Sugar Cherubs say, if this is indeed true. What you're
                      > > > describing here is a Third Reich insignia, which you call
                      > > > "anthroposophical". Do you have any references to support the
                      > argument
                      > > > that this Nazi symbol was "anthroposophical" -- ?
                      > > >
                      > > > > Isn't it time to move on and look at the evils of today? How about
                      > the
                      > > > liberals and the left-wing? Their tactics are just those adopted by
                      > the
                      > > > notorious historian.
                      > > >
                      > > > So liberals and left-wingers are using Der Staudi's-tactics -- for
                      > > > Communist purposes, I assume. Or the other way around, it makes no
                      > > > difference.
                      > > >
                      > > > > As someone already noted, the first is the syndrome of the use of
                      > > > words. After years of liberal cultural dominance, words like
                      > 'racism'
                      > > > immediately call for automatic condemnation; while democracy calls
                      > for
                      > > > immediate approval.
                      > > >
                      > > > I see nothing wrong with that, for the simple reason that racism is
                      > > > immoral (especially against children), while democracy is healthy if
                      > it
                      > > > works. But maybe it's the other way around in the Nazi-Anthro-Land
                      > of
                      > > > Nameless and Anonymous Adorable Darlings? (I wouldn't want to meet a
                      > > > flock like that at night in some remote back alley in Naples or
                      > > > Florence.
                      > > >
                      > > > > A sort of Pavlovian reflex. It is then easy to polarize anthros
                      > and
                      > > > non-anthros against Steiner or Scaligero when they used a word that
                      > have
                      > > > assumed an aprioristically negative connotation. The "war of words"
                      > so
                      > > > dear to the left-wing.
                      > > >
                      > > > The left-wing again? Doesn't the right wing wage a war on words too
                      > > > every once in a while, to balance things out?
                      > > >
                      > > > > The second is the presumption of bad faith imputed to the
                      > designated
                      > > > victim. In our case, Steiner is accused of having manipulated and
                      > lied
                      > > > ex post about his biography and his spiritual experiences (similar
                      > fate
                      > > > seems to be happening to Scaligero, this time with the support of
                      > some
                      > > > anthros).
                      > > > >
                      > > > > Last, the tendency to trivialize, i.e. the attempt to show that
                      > > > Steiner was not original and that his teachings were a patch of
                      > > > teachings from others. These three techniques are typical of the
                      > > > left-wing and are those used against Steiner and his teachings
                      > today.
                      > > >
                      > > > In other words, to oppose the kind of things being done against
                      > > > Steiner's teachings these days, one would have to go right wing and
                      > > > support militarism, invasions, war for profit, the death penalty,
                      > police
                      > > > brutality and so on? And if not, we'll be untrustworthy left-wingers
                      > > > with sneaky Der Staudi-tactics?
                      > > >
                      > > > Tarjei
                      > > >
                      > >
                      >

                    • fs13997
                      ... glasses. ... because ... You mentioned three prominent figures that were part of Germany s politics during WWII, plus a series of references to ss corps
                      Message 10 of 18 , Sep 29, 2011
                      • 0 Attachment
                        --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                        >
                        >
                        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" fs13997@
                        > wrote:
                        > >

                        >
                        > The second world war has not been mentioned by anyone in this thread.
                        > Looks like a total non sequitor to me. But then again, Der Staudi once
                        > told me repeatedly (in 2001 and 2004) that I needed new reading glasses.
                        > I've got new glasses now, but maybe I'm suffering from dementia because
                        > I'm almost the same age Steiner was when he wrote his autobiography.

                        You mentioned three prominent figures that were part of Germany's politics during WWII, plus a series of references to ss corps and other events related to WWII. All in one post. You may need reading glasses. I leave to you exploring the other option.

                        >

                        >
                        > The anthroposophical collar tab with three arrows? I'm learning
                        > something new here. Maybe there is a Nazi cult in anthroposophy after
                        > all, like the Sugar Cherubs say, if this is indeed true. What you're
                        > describing here is a Third Reich insignia, which you call
                        > "anthroposophical". Do you have any references to support the argument
                        > that this Nazi symbol was "anthroposophical" -- ?

                        It was designed with three arrow that symbolize the three forces of the soul, i.e. feeling, thinking and willing. It was meant to have an anthro meaning. However, the symbol was adopted only for aesthetic reasons, not because of ideological or spiritual reasons. (Sergio Corbatti & Marco Nava - Sentire - Pensare - Volere: Storia della Legione SS italiana, p356). Also, soldiers of the 1st battallion of the 81th regiment had Steiner's books in their backback, although they did not have much time to read it, and most died very soon at Nettuno. 

                        >
                        >
                        > So liberals and left-wingers are using Der Staudi's-tactics -- for
                        > Communist purposes, I assume. Or the other way around, it makes no
                        > difference.

                        No it does not. left-wingers have been using these techniques for decades. Our historian is just following.

                        >
                        >
                        > I see nothing wrong with that, for the simple reason that racism is
                        > immoral (especially against children), while democracy is healthy if it
                        > works. But maybe it's the other way around in the Nazi-Anthro-Land of
                        > Nameless and Anonymous Adorable Darlings? (I wouldn't want to meet a
                        > flock like that at night in some remote back alley in Naples or
                        > Florence.

                        If it works? You know what the Doctor wrote about democracy (see infra). And you know what the accusations are about racism. If you just stop at the "word," and react according to the Pavlovian reflex, as you did here, there is no surprise that people may think that Steiner's work is racist. This is the way the dominant "Kultur" was educated to react, at least in Italy. You see the "word" and you attack, without analyzing what is behind. For example, Steiner would be immediately considered racist and attacked. So do some anthros who see the "word" used in old articles written by Scaligero and automatically reject everything. Don't they realize that by adopting this reflex the same will happen with Steiner?


                        You will no doubt have heard that certain people are over and over again proclaiming to the world that democracy must spread to the whole civilized world. Salvation lies in making the whole of humanity democratic; everything will have to be smashed to pieces so that democracy may spread in the world. Well, if people go on to accept ideas presented to them as they are, with wholesale acceptance of the term democracy, for instance, their idea of democracy will be like the definition of the human being which I gave you: A human being is a creature with two legs and without feathers: a plucked cockerel. The people who are glorifying democracy today know about as much about it as someone who is shown a plucked cockerel knows about the human being. Concepts are taken for reality, and as a result illusion may take the place of reality where human life is concerned by lulling people to sleep with concepts. They believe the fruits of their endeavours will be that every individual will be able to express their will in the different democratic institutions, and they fail to see that these institutions are such that it is always just a few people who pull the wires, whilst the rest are pulled along. They are persuaded, however, that they are part of democracy and so they do not notice they are being pulled and that some individuals are pulling the strings. Those individuals will find it all the easier to do the pulling if the others all believe they are doing it themselves, instead of being pulled along. It is quite easy to lull people to sleep with abstract concepts and make them believe the opposite of what is really true. This gives the powers of darkness the best opportunity to do what they want. And if anyone should wake up they are simply ignored.

                        It is interesting to note that in 1910 someone wrote that large scale capitalism had succeeded in making democracy into the most marvellous, flexible and effective tool for exploiting the whole population. Financiers were usually imagined to be the enemies of democracy, the individual concerned wrote, but this was a fundamental error. On the contrary, they run democracy and encourage it, for it provides a screen behind which they can hide their method of exploitation, and they find it their best defence against any objections which the populace may raise.

                        For once, therefore, a man woke up and saw that what mattered was not to proclaim democracy but to see the full reality, not to follow slogans, but to see things as they are. This would be particularly important today, for people would then realize that the events which reign with such blood and terror over the whole of humanity are guided and directed from just a few centres. People will never realize this if they persist in the delusion that nation is fighting nation, and allow the European and American Press to lull them to sleep over the kinds of relations that are said to exist between nations. Everything said about antagonism and opposition between nations only exists to cast a veil over the true reasons. For we shall never arrive at the real truth if we feed on words in order to explain these events, but only if we point to actual people. The problem is that this tends to be unpalatable today. And the man who woke up and wrote these statements in 1910 also presented some highly unwelcome accounts in his book. He produced a list of fifty-five individuals who are the real rulers and exploiters of France. The list can be found in Francis Delaisi's La Democratie et les Financiers, written in 1910; the same man has also written La Guerre qui vient, a book which has become famous. In his La Democratie et les Financiers you will find statements of fundamental significance. There you have someone who has woken up to reality. The book contains impulses which allow one to see through much of what we should see through today, and also to cut through much of the fog which is made to wash over human brains today. Here again, we must resolve to look to reality.

                        The book has, of course, been ignored.

                        (Fall of the Spirits of Darkness, Lecture 14, Dornach, 28 October 1917)


                        >
                        > The left-wing again? Doesn't the right wing wage a war on words too
                        > every once in a while, to balance things out?

                        In Italy, mainstream culture is almost exclusively left-wing. Also, the right-wing is not relevant here because our interest is about spiritual topics and it is the left-wing that is dogmatically against it due to their materialistic and anti-spiritualistic orientation. Of course, with the exception of the conservative religious right-wing, which is equally opposed to anything spiritualistic that is not part of their belief.

                        >
                        > > The second is the presumption of bad faith imputed to the designated
                        > victim. In our case, Steiner is accused of having manipulated and lied
                        > ex post about his biography and his spiritual experiences (similar fate
                        > seems to be happening to Scaligero, this time with the support of some
                        > anthros).
                        > >
                        > > Last, the tendency to trivialize, i.e. the attempt to show that
                        > Steiner was not original and that his teachings were a patch of
                        > teachings from others. These three techniques are typical of the
                        > left-wing and are those used against Steiner and his teachings today.
                        >
                        > In other words, to oppose the kind of things being done against
                        > Steiner's teachings these days, one would have to go right wing and
                        > support militarism, invasions, war for profit, the death penalty, police
                        > brutality and so on? And if not, we'll be untrustworthy left-wingers
                        > with sneaky Der Staudi-tactics?

                        It is fascinating how you put words in my mouth that I have not used. All I have described is a technique of disinformation, extensively utilized by the dominant Kultur in Italy and, as we may note on the critics list, not only there. These techniques, i.e. the conformism created by the use of certain keywords; the presumption of bad faith; and the tendency to trivialize the enemy, have been denounced by an author, G. de Turris, in a book that had the introduction of one of the major historians in italy, i.e. G. Galli. Apparently this expose' of such techniques, which are being currently used as well against Steiner and Scaligero, only trigger you to react according to the Pavlovian reflex by bringing in the usual anti right-wing propaganda themes. In fact, I am not in support of any of the themes you are proposing. 


                        >
                      • fs13997
                        What a delusion! You seem to have adopted the very same techniques used by the critics (and the left-wingers in Italy). You should note, though, that left-wing
                        Message 11 of 18 , Sep 29, 2011
                        • 0 Attachment
                          What a delusion! You seem to have adopted the very same techniques used by the critics (and the left-wingers in Italy). You should note, though, that left-wing does not have the same meaning in different countries. For example, a democrat in the us would be likely considered a moderated "right-winger" in Italy.
                          The problem is that, again, you are attributing me something different from what I expressed.
                          First, I did not state my position. You assume I must be right-wing because I took an anti left-wing position. It is automatic, isn't it? Yet, one may be simply criticizing a position from a spiritualistic point of view, which is, of course not left-wing, i.e. materialistic, and still not be right-wing. There are extra choices in addition to your dualistic proposition.

                          Second, I never said I prefer one to the other. These are your words. I simply gave an example that I have explained in my previous post. It is too easy to react in the Pavlovian way, as you did, and miss the point. The point is to go beyond the appearances, do not stop, like the critics, or the Italian Kultur, at the "word" you have been taught to react to in a pre-determined manner. In fact, I didn't lament that people dislike racism and praise democracy. Order your new glasses! I warned against the habit of automatically reacting to certain keywords, because that has been the tactics that has eventually lead to the problem we have with people like the notorious historian. People see the word race and immediately condemn Steiner, or if they are anthros take the distance and reject what Steiner said - I am not implying here that all react this way; others posted extended responses to show the absurdity of such accusation. You probably did as well.

                          Third, I have no memorabilia of any kind.

                          With respect to your previous post, you simply show very little knowledge of Italian politics. There has been a universe of events between now and the time and people of fascism you describe. Communism in Italy has changed radically as well.
                          However, you should be aware that politics is not something that anthros should look at with involvement. Scaligero has dedicated a book to this topic. There is nothing good in politics anymore. What is required from the esotericist is inner action, not political activism or involvement. The change is always a change from within, which should be the cause of the change outside.

                          --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                          >
                          > Gee, I forgot one detail: In addition to being a right winger (by virtue
                          > of being a dedicated anti-left-winger), our cat also prefers racism to
                          > democracy, and that's got to be Nazi ideology in a nutshell. Our cat
                          > laments that people dislike racism and praise democracy, because this,
                          > it says, is something sneaky left-wingers have brainwashed into people's
                          > heads. So it (the cat) thinks it should be the other way around: If
                          > people understood the Truth the way the cat understands the Truth, they
                          > would be praising racism and disliking democracy. In other words, we've
                          > got a nameless, anonymous, genderless cat in our midst with a weird mix
                          > of Nazi memorabilia and anthroposophical items in his closet, who wants
                          > to do away with democracy and replace it with racism. And it's roaming
                          > the streets of Italian cities at night, probably in a group of ferocious
                          > Nazi-cats.
                          >
                          > I rest my case and I say no more. It's Michaelmas today, and I expect
                          > him to drop by soon and bring us some stability. I know he's busy; being
                          > Michael on September 29 is like being Santa Claus the night before
                          > Christmas.
                          >
                          > Tarjei
                          >
                          >
                          > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@>
                          > wrote:
                          > >
                          > > I'm beginning to understand why this cat prefers to be nameless and
                          > > anonymous. 36 years ago I was living in Los Angeles, and I listened
                          > > regularly to a certain radio talk show. I called in too and
                          > participated
                          > > in som fun. I remember the nice hostess but not her name. Anyway, one
                          > > night they were talking about race and racism, and a dude called in
                          > who
                          > > said he kept his hood in the closet. So he was Ku Klux Klan. Very
                          > > creepy. And I loved the way that hostess made her final speech to him
                          > > before finishing the conversation.
                          > >
                          > > There's something creepy about our cat here. He or she -- let's call
                          > our
                          > > cat "it" for the sake of accuracy and simplicity -- is talking about
                          > > anthroposophical Nazi insignia; I've never heard of anything like
                          > that,
                          > > sounds like a Sugar Cherub wet dream. So I figure it's got some Nazi
                          > > memorabilia in its closet along with some kind of anthroposophical
                          > items
                          > > -- maybe it puts some swastikas and rosy crosses and photos of Adolf
                          > and
                          > > Himmler and Eichman and some of Steiner and Marie and Wegman and
                          > > Rittelmeyer into the same basket so it lives in a Nazi-anthro fantasy
                          > > world, unless it can prove to us that this world is real and that the
                          > > Pied Piper is right with regard to Nazism and anthroposophy.
                          > >
                          > > Our cat could also be an undercover agent or troll from Sugarland; I
                          > > deserve that kind of payback after trolling them so much in the past
                          > > myself. But if so, this trolling is amateurish.
                          > >
                          > > Well, it lets us conclude that it's right wing, and when we take its
                          > > closet content into consideration, it's got to be a fascist of sorts,
                          > > either Mussolini or Hitler, or maybe both. And it's got left-wingers
                          > on
                          > > its tail, anti-fascists and anti-racists, so it has to hide out, keep
                          > a
                          > > low profile and stay incognito.
                          > >
                          > > A third possibility is that the cat has forgotten to take its medicine
                          > > as an outpatient at a mental hospital, or has perhaps escaped from an
                          > > institution, breaking out of the strait jacket and knocking down the
                          > > guards like Linda Hamilton in Terminator II.
                          > >
                          > >
                        • elfuncle
                          ... other ... That was about Der Staudi; he is defined by and through those dudes. You re on a different page altogether. ... the ... anthro ... not ... Der
                          Message 12 of 18 , Sep 30, 2011
                          • 0 Attachment
                            The Blob typed with its tentacles:

                            --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@...> wrote:

                            > You mentioned three prominent figures that were part of Germany's
                            > politics during WWII, plus a series of references to ss corps and other
                            > events related to WWII.


                            That was about Der Staudi; he is defined by and through those dudes. You're on a different page altogether.

                            > It was designed with three arrow that symbolize the three forces of the
                            > soul, i.e. feeling, thinking and willing. It was meant to have an anthro
                            > meaning. However, the symbol was adopted only for aesthetic reasons, not
                            > because of ideological or spiritual reasons. (Sergio Corbatti & Marco
                            > Nava - Sentire - Pensare - Volere: Storia della Legione SS italiana,
                            > p356). Also, soldiers of the 1st battallion of the 81th regiment had
                            > Steiner's books in their backback, although they did not have much
                            > time to read it, and most died very soon at Nettuno.


                            Der Staudi and Der Blob would get along terrifically. Like Tom Lehrer put it: "Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown.
                            "Ha, Nazi Schmazi," says Wernher von Braun."


                             

                            (Click on the picture for the song )

                            > So do some anthros who see
                            > the "word" used in old articles written by Scaligero and
                            > automatically reject everything.


                            I don't know why the Blob is rambling on about Scaligero from thread to thread, because neither Ted nor I have mentioned him or commented on him; perhaps it should start a thread about the fella when Frank returns, because this looks like a discussion between Frank and the Blob.




                            Tarjei
                          • elfuncle
                            ... position. Negative, Blobby-buddy or whatever thou art; I assume thou art right-wing because of thy clutching anthroposophical Nazi-symbols in thine closet,
                            Message 13 of 18 , Sep 30, 2011
                            • 0 Attachment
                              --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@...> wrote:

                              > You assume I must be right-wing because I took an anti left-wing position.


                              Negative, Blobby-buddy or whatever thou art; I assume thou art right-wing because of thy clutching anthroposophical Nazi-symbols in thine closet, which almost maketh me wonder what an anthroposophical Third Reich uniform looketh like.

                              Tarjei
                            • fs13997
                              You started mentioning nazi figures ad events from wwii. I indicated that the italian waffen had briefly a patch that was created to represent the three forces
                              Message 14 of 18 , Sep 30, 2011
                              • 0 Attachment
                                You started mentioning nazi figures ad events from wwii.
                                I indicated that the italian waffen had briefly a patch that was created to represent
                                the three forces of the soul (thinking, feeling and willing) with reference to anthro teachings. However, the symbol was chosen only because of aesthetic reasons, not because
                                it had an esoteric meaning. Look for "three arrows special red collar tabs."


                                --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                                >
                                >
                                > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@>
                                > wrote:
                                >
                                > > You assume I must be right-wing because I took an anti left-wing
                                > position.
                                >
                                > Negative, Blobby-buddy or whatever thou art; I assume thou art
                                > right-wing because of thy clutching anthroposophical Nazi-symbols in
                                > thine closet, which almost maketh me wonder what an anthroposophical
                                > Third Reich uniform looketh like.
                                >
                                > Tarjei
                                >
                              • fs13997
                                You are simply evading answering.
                                Message 15 of 18 , Sep 30, 2011
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  You are simply evading answering.



                                  --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                                  >
                                  > The Blob typed with its tentacles:
                                  >
                                  > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@>
                                  > wrote:
                                  >
                                  > > You mentioned three prominent figures that were part of Germany's
                                  > > politics during WWII, plus a series of references to ss corps and
                                  > other
                                  > > events related to WWII.
                                  >
                                  > That was about Der Staudi; he is defined by and through those dudes.
                                  > You're on a different page altogether.
                                  >
                                  > > It was designed with three arrow that symbolize the three forces of
                                  > the
                                  > > soul, i.e. feeling, thinking and willing. It was meant to have an
                                  > anthro
                                  > > meaning. However, the symbol was adopted only for aesthetic reasons,
                                  > not
                                  > > because of ideological or spiritual reasons. (Sergio Corbatti & Marco
                                  > > Nava - Sentire - Pensare - Volere: Storia della Legione SS italiana,
                                  > > p356). Also, soldiers of the 1st battallion of the 81th regiment had
                                  > > Steiner's books in their backback, although they did not have much
                                  > > time to read it, and most died very soon at Nettuno.
                                  >
                                  > Der Staudi and Der Blob would get along terrifically. Like Tom Lehrer
                                  > put it: "Call him a Nazi, he won't even frown.
                                  > "Ha, Nazi Schmazi," says Wernher von Braun."
                                  >
                                  > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVPjuiABp_E>
                                  >
                                  > (Click on the picture for the song
                                  > <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MVPjuiABp_E> )
                                  >
                                  > > So do some anthros who see
                                  > > the "word" used in old articles written by Scaligero and
                                  > > automatically reject everything.
                                  >
                                  > I don't know why the Blob is rambling on about Scaligero from thread to
                                  > thread, because neither Ted nor I have mentioned him or commented on
                                  > him; perhaps it should start a thread about the fella when Frank
                                  > returns, because this looks like a discussion between Frank and the
                                  > Blob.
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  >
                                  > Tarjei
                                  >
                                • elfuncle
                                  Blobby, I never answer questions. Never did, never will. You re on the wrong floor. Anthroposophy Tomorrow used to have an information desk around here
                                  Message 16 of 18 , Sep 30, 2011
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                    Blobby, I never answer questions. Never did, never will. You're on the wrong floor. Anthroposophy Tomorrow used to have an information desk around here somewhere for people with questions, and for inquisitive blobs and robots and trolls too, but I guess nobody cares to man it without pay.....

                                    Tarjei

                                    --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@...> wrote:
                                    >
                                    > You are simply evading answering.

                                  • fs13997
                                    Take him away. He s got nothing to say! Get out of here! Get out of here you, Get out of my life. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9ALiADrJro
                                    Message 17 of 18 , Sep 30, 2011
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      "Take him away.
                                      He's got nothing to say!
                                      Get out of here!
                                      Get out of here you,
                                      Get out of my life."

                                      http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9ALiADrJro



                                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "elfuncle" <elfuncle@...> wrote:
                                      >
                                      > Blobby, I never answer questions. Never did, never will. You're on the
                                      > wrong floor. Anthroposophy Tomorrow used to have an information desk
                                      > around here somewhere for people with questions, and for inquisitive
                                      > blobs and robots and trolls too, but I guess nobody cares to man it
                                      > without pay.....
                                      >
                                      > Tarjei
                                      >
                                      > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@>
                                      > wrote:
                                      > >
                                      > > You are simply evading answering.
                                      >
                                    • Frank Thomas Smith
                                      ... Check out this video of the 1st Mountain Guinea battalian della Legione SSS Anthromacaroni in ACTION: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg8l8M9534o Frank
                                      Message 18 of 18 , Oct 1, 2011
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        >
                                        > --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "fs13997" <fs13997@>
                                        > wrote:
                                        >
                                        >
                                        > > It was designed with three arrow that symbolize the three forces of
                                        > the
                                        > > soul, i.e. feeling, thinking and willing. It was meant to have an
                                        > anthro
                                        > > meaning. However, the symbol was adopted only for aesthetic reasons,
                                        > not
                                        > > because of ideological or spiritual reasons. (Sergio Corbatti & Marco
                                        > > Nava - Sentire - Pensare - Volere: Storia della Legione SS italiana,
                                        > > p356). Also, soldiers of the 1st battallion of the 81th regiment had
                                        > > Steiner's books in their backback, although they did not have much
                                        > > time to read it, and most died very soon at Nettuno.

                                        Check out this video of the 1st Mountain Guinea battalian della Legione SSS Anthromacaroni in ACTION:
                                        http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vg8l8M9534o

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