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

5116RE: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy/political distractions again

Expand Messages
  • Durward Starman
    Dec 17, 2009
      ******* I knew this would happen as soon as I started talking about politics again.  But this time I'm not going to just say, okay discussion of politics is off-topic. There are just too many people trying to study esoteric things who have the most irrational so-called "thinking" about current events. I'm tired of not responding to it.  I'm also tired of the disrespectful attitude that is epidemic in our times, so forgive me "Rumy" if I take you to task about "Rudy" Steiner, this list, and your contribution to it.

         You are not  "compelled" to speak about conspiracy theories, you want to speak about them because everybody loves a soapbox ---because we are in a very egotistical time, by which I mean we're supposed to be developing the ego. But what needs to happen to ordinary ideas is that they need to be raised up through working with anthroposophy, otherwise you have no clear ideas about the mundane events you observe.

          I can suggest two books and two videos.  The first book is "What Went Wrong" by Bernard Lewis, a professor emeritus of Middle Eastern studies at, which is an excellent overview of the stagnation of the Islamic intellectual world and how the anti-modern Wahhabi Islam developed in response to our Western world advancing beyond and therefore militarily defeating the Arabs 200 years ago, when they had a religion that said that they had all the truth and infidels had nothing to teach them.  The second is "Hatred's Kingdom"  about Saudi Arabia and how, since the 1920s, it has used its oil wealth to fund the anti-modern, anti-western madrassas and mosques in Pakistan and all over the world. This has been going on since long before the creation of Palestine,  and long before the United States of America had any involvement in the Middle East.  The two videos are the film "Obsession"  and Geert Wilders'  film "Fitna"  which he did after the Moslems killed his fellow filmmaker and friend Theo van Gogh in Holland.  You can see and hear the Moslem "imams"  preaching clearly and openly that they will take over the United States, take over the United Kingdom, impose their traditional tribal Sharia law,  abolish freedoms, impose restrictions on all women, kill all Jews and homosexuals and on and on and on.   Western people who try to have a reasonable, moderate opinion of Islam all need to watch these films and hear direct from their mouths what these people want,  in order to break out of the  ethnocentric delusion that all their hatred has been caused by the United States, that all we have to do is stop supporting Israel and they will like us, etc. etc. etc.  That is a fantasy.

          As Steiner said repeatedly, we have to have realistic thinking first in order to understand what comes from higher worlds. All right, I don't know how many times I have to repeat this as I've been saying it for eight years unnecessarily, but here we go again. Number one, there is no truth to the anti-Semitic rumor that no Jews were in the World Trade Center towers, having been warned beforehand; hundreds of Jews (as well as Arabs,  for that matter) were killed there.  Number two: it's completely false that the towers were demolished by explosives.  You can get any number of films for yourself and see that the buildings began collapsing in the exact floors that the planes crashed into, meaning that, if they were destroyed by pre-planted explosives, people who somehow got into the World Trade Center and planted those explosives (without being seen doing it) must have known exactly what floors the planes would crash into in advance, which is an absurd stretch of imagination (not even considering the plane that crashed into the Pentagon and the one that was probably headed for the White House which the passengers caused to crash beforehand ---  there was no pre-planted explosives in those cases),  and moreover if the buildings were to be destroyed by explosives, why would anyone bother to hijack planes and fly them into the buildings? If the purpose was a Reichstag Fire strategy, of a staged event to encourage people to support a military counteraction, that could've been accomplished by just using bombs to bring the buildings down and blaming it on bin Laden,  so these people with way too much time on their hands who try to say the buildings were demolished by explosive charges are being completely irrational.  [I was there, teaching in New York City, the first time the buildings were bombed in 1993:  it was a well-known goal of the Wahhabi Muslims for decades to destroy them.]

          Therefore, the buildings were definitely destroyed by the planes that crashed into them. Number three: we have security camera videos of the 19 hijackers getting on board the planes;  we have the airlines' flight lists showing who was on board, real people whose husbands and wives know they went on those planes and died.  Anyone who tries to say those people didn't really board the planes and didn't really die on those planes  has to maintain an enormous conspiracy involving hundreds of people faking security camera video tapes,  all of which has been kept secret for eight years from massive investigations.  So there's no rational dispute about who was on those planes. Number four: the hijackers were 19 Saudis and Egyptians who were all Wahhabi Muslims, members of Al Qaeda, who left behind numerous documents saying what they intended to do such as Mohammed Atta's will,  and we have Osama bin Laden on tape with mullah Omar immediately after the crashes talking about how they planned them  and how he was confident the buildings would actually collapse from the jet fuel because he had a background in construction work in his family. We also have the open confession from Khalid Sheikh Mohammed, the mastermind here in the US, about to be tried in New York City.

          Respond to that with concrete, rational thoughts.

          What I've seen for the past eight years are two kinds of irrationality among Americans: first, antigovernment feelings pressure people to look for our government behind every event which happens, without recognizing that this is being ethnocentric, denying that there are forces and events in the world which have nothing to do with us. It's a sort of hidden egotism that subconsciously feels that we are so powerful that we have to be the people causing everything that happens. [ The war of Islam against the entire world goes back to the sixth century and has nothing to do with the United States of America that has only existed for three centuries.  The hatred of the United States comes about because of our power and success, making us the most visible representative of the Western world;  actually, the humiliation of the Arabs was at the hands of the French and the British who were the colonial powers, not the US, and the real holy war began after the aggressively atheist Soviet Union invaded Afghanistan in 1979.  in other words, we are under attack because we are the greatest Western power while secondary attacks are underway against England, France and Russia. ] The second kind of irrational thinking is related to the first, namely an inability to advance one's ideas to grasp new geopolitical realities. For people who formed their world of ideas during the Cold War, the reality of a worldwide violent war led by a dark ages religion  is just not digestible,  does not compute.  We call them "September 10th thinkers" or people stuck in the 20th century.

          Besides the facts of the attacks by Al Qaeda, I'll address the other things you've mixed in here.  First, thankfully you left the name George Bush out of your screed which is so much like the ones I've been hearing for eight years, but those diatribes were all directed against him and making him out to be a villain. Okay, both President Clinton and Hillary Clinton, as well as numerous leading politicians in the 1990s, also believed that Saddam Hussein was pursuing nuclear and biological weapons.  Intelligence was saying  so to all the countries, not just the US. The reason why was that, as we now know, he went to great lengths to convince everyone he was doing so so that they would fear his power, particularly Iran  which was also pursuing them (and is now succeeding).  I bring up George Bush because this kind of argument has always been made by liberal Democrats to attack Bush, so, okay, now that your boy is president, if this was all just a conspiracy, why is he continuing to search for bin Laden and send more troops to Afghanistan?  He has access to all the intelligence now.  And why did Tony Blair agree with who was responsible and agree to send troops to Iraq and Afghanistan?  You want to sell people on the idea that it was a conspiracy by George Bush and the prime minister of England?  So where are all the tell-all books by people revealing the conspiracy now that both of them are out of power? How come Pres. Obama hasn't revealed it?  Why is he keeping troops in Iraq and sending more troops to Afghanistan? Why did he confront fundamentalist Islam in his speech in Egypt about its anti-Semitism and the support of the Arab masses for Al Qaeda and their hatred of the modern Western world? Is he part of the conspiracy? This is absurd.

          There's lots that could be said here about the mysteries and initiation. In ancient Greece they were the greater mysteries and the lesser mysteries. The lesser mysteries involve learning to use your reason and intelligence correctly and govern your emotions, and you had to pass through that before you will be ready for the greater mysteries.  if you think people here on this list such as myself have nothing to communicate to you  about such matters unless we are "intelligent" enough in your judgment -- -- -- meaning we agree with your conspiracy theories, which I've dissected above -- -- --  then that's your loss. 

         As to the relevance  to Steiner and anthroposophy: see his prediction about the demonic forces becoming active in 1998 which I posted earlier. Let's just put it very simply: our modern Western world is the result of the Christ-Impulse working in the world, raising us up from the more primitive levels most of us were at 2000 years ago. This is the source of our art, music and advanced technology such as you are looking at right now.  But there are opposing forces working against the powers which draw us up:  the Marxism that has been spread all over the Western world for 150 years now and which teaches us to hate the free actions of human beings and our civilization created by them, the  environmentalist movement that has been taken over by the same socialists, using the "global warming" hoax as an excuse to gain power, the backward fundamentalist religions  which in a variety of forms  also want to gain power and eliminate all freedom, etc.  What forces are upward drawing and which are evil can be recognized by their fruits. Look at the fruits of Hitler, Stalin, Osama bin Laden.  Here in the US, ignore the hyperbole and propaganda from liberal Democrats, stuck in their pre-2001 world of ideas.  This is a worldwide war and has nothing to do with the CIA or whatever US politician somebody wants to rant about.  The attacks on us, just like the attack on Madrid, London, the bombing in Bali,  are very real parts of it.  They were not staged by the United States government.  Oh yes, and, by the way, Paul McCartney didn't die,  JFK isn't in a nursing home in Florida, the moon landings were not faked, and the Holocaust did happen.

       Next subject? 


      To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
      From: rayofdarkness@...
      Date: Thu, 17 Dec 2009 22:15:43 -0500
      Subject: RE: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy


         Greetings, I am a new member who has been sort of lurking for the past few weeks. I haven't been able to fit myself into any spiritual group very cleanly but currently I'm sort of a neo-pagan with an interest in my Irish heritage. I found Rudy Steiner searching for as much information as I could find on something called 'the hibernian mysteries'. I'll try to pick your brain on that later. I write today because I am compelled to speak out about your statements about conspiracy theories. It is hard for me to understand how any thinking man can accept what our country is doing, has been doing over the past decade in the Arab world, as it is presented to us by the media. Was the individual who the day after Colin Powell's speach to the U.N. expressed doubts about the presence of WMD's in Iraq a conspiracy theorist? He probably would have been considered one if we hadn't found out first hand that there were not. Of course there are backward,racist,  violent 'bad guys' in the arab world, but aren't there a few of those over here as well? You're doing exactly what they'd hope you'd do; fear them and ignore the fact that the U.S. has literally assaulted reason and logic with it's disgraceful foreign policy. 

       I agree that conspiracy theories are dangerous to the mind when a person doesn't maintain an measure of emotional detatchment to them. No one should assume something as serious as Americans conspiring to have 3000 of it's citizens murdered in order to justify a multi-billion dollar military campain to be true with out addequate proof.  And there isn't adequate proof that this happened, so no one should be believe that with any emotional investment. But a thinking person can't help but notice that it was just that event that has fueled a foreign policy that is in many ways bizarrely illogical. What we are doing could never have been accepted had it not been for sept.11. And we are, hippocritically and arrogantly, a country completely unconcerned( unquestioning) about why sept.11 happened in terms of our actions in THEIR land, and how it could have happened in terms of the events that went down that day, and how we can truly prevent it from happening again. There is one answer for each of those questions and it is answers given to us by the government (on sept.11 bizzarely enough), relayed by the media without an significant debate, and wholeheartedley accepted by all those brave americans who don't want the stigma of being a conspiracy theorist. Again, the answers to all of those questions today are the same one's given to us by the government on the day of the event! And if you don't just except that you are a conspiracy theorist? You have that much faith in our media?

      Anyway, I have found the small amount I have read of Steiner to be fascinating, and I'd like to know what you guys know about the 'hibernian mysteries'. But if you guys aren't smart enough to see through the con job this country is pulling over on the world I'll always question the fruits of anthroposophical methods.

      Rumann O'Duinn


      ----- Original Message -----
      From: Ray Dunne
      Sent: 12/15/09 08:18 PM
      To: steiner@yahoogroups .com
      Subject: RE: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy

      ******* I believe Dr. Steiner's remark about the philosophical path being the most difficult for men in our time was in the exact same place where he said it was the safest path -- -- -- the exact place escapes my mind right now, but perhaps another member of our group could quote it.

         He did indeed say that his Philosophy of Freedom would outlive all of his other works.  I put this remark in the same category  as something he said when he was giving an early cycle of lectures: he started out his first lecture of it by saying he was happy to come to that city to do a course of lectures based on his spiritual scientific research, but then qualified it by saying that, in another sense, he was a little let down by the fact that HE had to come to the city to give the course of lectures, because anyone who REALLY READ his book Theosophy could give the same lectures.  What he referred to is that vigorous, living thinking is the use of the human spirit in man, so that anyone really reading his books with will in their thinking will experience what is described in them.  I can testify that this is true. The unfortunate reality that many anthroposophists don't make the breakthrough to spiritual knowledge likewise testifies that they simply don't really have living thinking or have the beginnings of it but don't have enough confidence in it and themselves.  The "Philosophie der Freiheit" enables any thinking being to become aware of his human spirit and become able to act in freedom, provided he can TRULY read and think the book, and that's what he meant by its importance.

          Connected with this unfortunate reality that many anthroposophy lists can't reach firsthand knowledge, is the somewhat silly overvaluing of the first class of the school of spiritual science.  My first class teacher, Hans Gebert,  was honest enough to confess up front that the Doctor said the mantras would lose their power if anyone outside the school read them,  but he knew that during the war the Gestapo had them, and so trying to pretend everything was still the same as it was in 1924 was absurd.  My feeling about it is the same as any old traditions that people with very little insight into the origin of the traditions keep going,  like the Catholic Church for instance, that it's very easy to find things to criticize about them,  but on the other hand the people have a good motivation, that of attempting to preserve something they sense was of great value.  I have known many students of spiritual science who have gone very far on the path through reading the basic books, or through Eurythmy,  through being Waldorf school teachers and other ways. They all work -- -- if you put enough work into them.

          In order for spiritual science to have any meaning to people today,  it has to evolve, and it does.   No Waldorf school teacher is just following indications by Steiner chapter and verse every day in the classroom;  every artist developing watercolor painting, eurythmy,  music etc.,  is just repeating what Steiner said in his lectures in the 1920s;  and wholly new branches  of anthroposophy have come into existence since Steiner's time such as the Camphill villages for the retarded which, as a further evolution, have taken up the Christian Community Church impulse.  Either it will continue to evolve or it will degenerate into just a personality cult and die out, like Blavatsky's movement did and so many others do.  But the Doctor knew this danger and created something that was capable of evolution to offset it.  That's why the emphasis on the arts.

         Dr. Steiner said that the previous World-Age had to wrestle with the mystery of Death, and this is why the image of the crucified and resurrecting God was placed before us; our age is meant to wrestle with the mystery of Evil. One contribution he made towards understanding this mystery is where he said that anything which would be good in its right time and place, if it is held over, frozen in time, preserved into a later age, will become a force for evil -- -- -- as the Catholic Church was a specter of ancient Rome.  Well, this also applies to spiritual science, that it must not be frozen in its old form, because when it is, it loses its goodness and vitality. 

         A very sad example of this is how people repeat remarks Steiner made in Germany in the 1920s about the English-speaking peoples dominating economics and politics.  It was quite natural to express opinions this way in that time and place, where the British Empire had utterly crushed the country of Germany in the aftermath of the first world war, the background of which was the economic competition between England and Germany.  To talk about the world being dominated by the Anglo-American forces TODAY is simply absurd, and becoming more absurd with each decade of the rise of China and India economically. In fact, in one of his lectures shortly before his death, he pointed out an observation by a thinker of the times that the economic center of gravity of the world had already shifted from Europe to the Far East. It provides a dismal example of why the Doctor did not want his lectures written down,  that so many alienated, self-hating Westerners still quote such things from the 1920s to justify their ridiculous conspiracy theories ascribing all world events to Freemasons, the CIA and George Bush (or whomever). The rise of China after its  "century of humiliation" by foreign powers, the conflict between East and West represented by murderous Islam, the growth of economic power in India, Japan, and the oil-producing countries -- -- -- all that has happened since Steiner's voice was silenced, and which of course he would've taken into account in his opinions on world affairs, is ignored, leading to a wholly unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping anything that is really happening before one's eyes. I've known people who call themselves anthroposophists who believe the insanity of people like Michael Moore, denying that the Muslim religion really is on the warpath against the West, trying to blame it all on a CIA conspiracy or something else that prevents one from confronting the reality of events in the 21st century (which Steiner predicted).  In fact, here in America, most of the people I meet in the anthroposophical movement are Marxists, with completely unrealistic thinking incapable of grasping the simplest economic or political realities (none of which fit into neat, grandiose conspiracy theories).  

         I don't like to bring up politics, but it is an elementary basic of spiritual science that one has to train one's own thinking to be realistic in relation to everyday facts of the physical world, otherwise one will carry the same exaggerated, fantastical thinking with one when one enters the spiritual world, resulting only in hallucinations and no definite knowledge.  A few years ago, when I was at the Goetheanum,  Christopher Budd gave a few lectures on economics that were very insightful, and I was so distressed at hearing the warped thinking of people  talking about the subject in the audience afterwards, that at the beginning of his next lecture I asked him if he would just remind his audience that Dr. Steiner was completely against socialism and the government taking over the economy, and he gladly did so (since it's true), but he had some mighty irritable-looking faces in the audience as he poked their sacred cows.  It's been absolutely amazing to me how many people try to justify all their preconceptions by seizing upon one or another quote from Dr. Steiner about things in the 1920s or earlier.  Just imagine how successful Waldorf schools would be if they kept applying unchanged what Steiner said about children going through puberty at the age of 14, when over the past century it has happened at a younger and younger age! 

          The true relationship of an anthroposophist to the Anthroposophical Society is not supposed to be one of  "What can I do for the society?",  but rather, "My spirit leads me to do such and such in the world; how can the society support my efforts?"  That's what Dr. Steiner called the "reversed cultus" of our times.  As individuals come into the world and associate themselves with this movement, they make it evolve into something new.  I know many of the leaders of the movement, and they are always looking for the next direction of evolution.


      To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
      From: peter.lam41@yahoo.com
      Date: Mon, 14 Dec 2009 20:38:13 -0800
      Subject: [steiner] different approaches to anthroposophy


      Thanks very much Starman for your prompt, comprehensive response on this subject.  I missed your 'post' until today because being new to Yahoo it got left in my 'spam' folder.  What you have said helps me try for a new orientation towards certain concerns.  I was aware that the philosophical approach (epistemological plus ethical I suppose one could say) has been described as the safest or surest one - and I believe der Doctor said the most appropriate to our age - I am not sure about it being the most difficult.  Any source for the latter?  There is also the report that, when asked what he would be remembered for in a thousand years time, the Dr said:  The Philosophy of Freedom, everything else would be forgotton.  I think that came from Walter Johannes Stein.  Another concern is that in the Society, to be a dinkum anthroposophist seems to entail participation in the 'first class'; whereas if these are all valid paths as you explain, taking the philosophical or one of the other ones you mention should be on a par with that of the 'lessons'.  As it is, the arrangement with the 'lessons' (and the 'sections') within the School of Spiritual Science seems very much to be wanting to stay with where the good Dr left off in 1924/25, rather than moving ahead, as you have also pointed out one should expect to do.  I think someone has suggested new forms for working with anthroposophy about every 5-10 years would be consistent with what happened in the Dr's life time.  I don't know how well this subject fits within 'steiner group' but any comments would be of interest.  PS: "dinkum" is an Australian term, perhaps not used elsewhere, it means variously: authentic, genuine, reliable, or on the level.

      Hotmail: Trusted email with powerful SPAM protection. Sign up now.

      Hotmail: Free, trusted and rich email service. Get it now.
    • Show all 13 messages in this topic