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

Fw: [steiner] question

Expand Messages
  • LilOleMissy
    I think I made a mistake in putting my answer at the very end of Dr. Starman s words...they seems to have been overlooked. :) I m very glad you two brought
    Message 1 of 5 , Feb 17, 2003
    • 0 Attachment
      I think I made a mistake in putting my answer at the very end of Dr. Starman's words...they seems to have been overlooked. :)  I'm very glad you two brought out the reason for their not being solid English speaking nations comprising the world, or most of it: already materialism is far too rampant, although from various sources. It seems to me a language takes on a life of sorts all its own that is more "felt" than intellectualized or reasoned.
       
      For what they're worth, my thoughts are at the end, following those excellent Dr. Starman thoughts I always gain enormously from.
       
      Sheila
       
      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 2:34 AM
      Subject: Re: [steiner] question

       
      sarahwh@... writes:

      Dear Dr Starman,
      I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the current Iraq/US situation, as you always have interesting and thought provoking things to say about these issues.

      Does anthroposophy come into this dilemma the world is facing?
       
      ¸..· ´¨¨))  -:¦:-
          ¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
        ((¸¸.·´  ..·´   -:¦:- Sarah
      -:¦:-    ((¸¸.·´*      


      *******Well, first let me say that the discussion of politics seldom will lead to agreement between people, or even agreement that the other person is entitled to their opinion in these days of "political correctness" where so many people believe there's only one right way to think about things. Then I'll make two further observations: first, it seems sometimes that virtually every New Ager (including anthroposophists) is an extreme left-winger, and doesn't even seem to realize or admit that; and, second, that many people who have just dabbled a little bit in Anthroposophy seem to confuse their own political opinions with knowledge actually derived from the spiritual world. I won't confuse my opinion with direct knowledge from the spiritual world: these will be just my opinions.

         First, I think that it's not a good thing that the English-speaking people, such as the U.S., England and Australia, have become the dominant powers in the world, nor do I think that Anglo-American creation, the United Nations, is a good thing. I fear it will lead to a world government such as that seen by the mystic Soloviev in his vision of the Antichrist's coming in the 21st century (and if people have never read that, perhaps I can scan it in and put it here).  So I can sympathize with some of the anti-U.S. attitudes people have.

         But not much. It may be that each world emergency, like the invasion of Kuwait, the genocide in Yugoslavia, and now the mass murders carried out by the fundamentalist Islamicists in the U.S. and Bali, is just leading us to a more powerful world government currently under the control primarily of the English-speaking peoples-- -- -- I think that's unfortunate, but no excuse for not taking action. We had to act in Serbia, and we have to act where conscience dictates.

            In this case I think action is absolutely required. If anyone watched Colin Powell's presentation to the U.N. he should have been convinced that this powerful madman in Babylon has been doing everything possible to develop biological and chemical weapons in secret-- -- -- for instance, putting the laboratories on railroad cars that can be moved everywhere around the country -- -- -- in order to continue his dream of dominating the Middle East militarily. Powell's presentation of the evidence even convinced anti-Bush columnist Marianne Means (see her Feb. 8th column "The Madman Must Be Stopped"), and liberal columnist Thomas Friedman characterized pretty well the foolishness of the position of the French ("Vote France off the Island", New York Times Feb. 11th), whose imitation of an ostrich (or perhaps Neville Chamberlain) is embarrassing to anyone at all aware of what's really happening.

         As to the connection between Osama bin Laden and Saddam Hussein, the latter has been financing al-Qaida in North Iraq for years, to keep the Kurds under control, a group known as Ansar al Islam, and that's where many al-Qaida went after the fall of Afghanistan. Hussein has been financing their terrorism, right along with bin Laden and wealthy Saudis. The goal of these fundamentalist nuts, to set off a nuclear weapon in either New York or Tel Aviv, is only realizable with the help of a modern industrial state. His is one they've been using.

         This is the primary danger we face in our time, now that the Soviet Union is no longer a threat, the danger of rogue nations and international terrorism motivated by ethno-nationalism (in this case, using a dark ages religion as a cover). It will take a concerted campaign by the entire civilized world to combat it over many years-- -- -- which is what it looked like we would have immediately after Sept. 11th 2001; but when the need to take actual action came closer, that alleged agreement among the civilized nations turned out to be more apparent than real. That doesn't really matter in this particular case: the United States needs no help to handle Iraq (in fact even the military forces of France and England are so far behind us that they just get in the way, as we're about to demonstrate), anymore than Israel needed anybody else's help to take out Hussein's nuclear reactor 20 years ago. What is needed, however, is for the so-called statesman of the European nations to start recognizing certain realities and to cease squabbling out of jealousy of the U.S. or playing to their own leftist voters.

          I think the world is faced with a crisis that has to be addressed, Not just this current madman, but what Steiner referred to as the surfacing of the Sun Demon Sorath ('666') about 1998, which he connected with Mohammedeanism. The characteristic of this demonic movement is to be against everything modern and Western, against individual freedom and consciousness, and, just as was the case with the very similar movement of Marxism, people in the West seem to have lost all sense of the value of the own culture that needs to be defended against it. I think people need to rediscover that culture and its spiritual basis of individualism, in order to see why these people planting bombs and flying planes into buildings cannot be justified in any way, but rather are EVIL.

         As Albert Camus said, "The hottest pits of Hell are reserved for those who, in a time of moral crisis, maintain their neutrality."

        I wonder if they still read him in France and Germany?

      Dr. Starman
      http://www.DrStarman.net
       
      Dear Friends,
       
      Excellent question and excellent reply! Thank you, Sarah, and thank you, Dr. Starman for your always clear thoughts. I am one Anthroposophist who is not a left winger and I'm not sure what that implies in Anthroposophical thought, but perhaps that doesn't matter in contrast to the Evil currently facing the world from Islamic radicalism. I was sickened by the cowardly behavior and denial shown by the world's representatives, with 4 rare exceptions, in the UN's Council the other day in the face of truth - truth so earnestly visible coming from Colin Powell. How delighted the Evil Beings working through human beings were! Soloviev indeed saw and realized what was and is still invisible to the vast majority of mankind, and as a very young teenager, Albert Camus' writing awakened within me an everlasting insight into many human reactions elicited by the same behavior patterns the vast majority of the world is today hopelessly attempting to avoid with their heads in the sand. How very clearly I can still hear my mother's words of truth from so long ago, speaking of the inception of the UN as a failure, so clearly shown in Friday's shameful parody of "world leadership." For anyone to think I fail to understand the horrors of war, I can only say I spent three years during the Vietnam fiasco working in various M.A.S.H. facilities. Unless mankind destroys this current EVIL as well as its many tentacles, the civilized world is totally lost as is mankind himself.
       
      Blessings to All,
       
      Sheila
       
    • George Thomas
      I ve been wondering when this topic would come up again in the group. This has been a trying time for me. I am thankful for this oportunity to organize some
      Message 2 of 5 , Feb 17, 2003
      • 0 Attachment
        I've been wondering when this topic would come up
        again in the group. This has been a trying time for
        me. I am thankful for this oportunity to organize
        some of my thoughts "on paper." Here they are for
        those who might be interested.

        I would argue that these are certainly times of
        important action. Personally, I've been finding that
        it is important for me not to act too hastily and be
        careful not to get lost in the strong waves that are
        churning on all sides of the issues at hand. In
        particular, I've made a conscious decision not to
        align myself blindly and wholeheartedly with any
        popular faction, as I've found strong arguments on all
        sides of the spectrum for dealing with the current
        threats with and without the use of varying degrees of
        military force.

        The wild card factor of the unknown is being played
        strongly in the media by those in power at this
        moment. I am reminded of the words given to Franklin
        Roosevelt for use in his inaugural address, "The only
        thing we have to fear is fear itself," and I believe
        it's wise to remember these words in this time and not
        to be drawn in by those who spread the message of
        fear, especially for its own sake. Fear and mass
        media are being used to confuse the populations.
        False leads have led to improper detainments and the
        destruction of innocent lives, and misguided
        interpretations of religious texts are inciting
        violence and anger. Many factions are claiming moral
        grounds for their actions when lower motivations are
        mixed in with higher intentions. France and Russia
        oppose the war on supposed moral grounds, but there
        are also large debts owed by Iraq to both France and
        Russia. (France is also a major supplier of arms to
        terrorist factions.) The United States claims
        morality and security as basic motivators for this
        war. However, it was also the CIA that formerly had
        Osama Bin Laden on its payroll. The Bush family had
        been doing close business with the Bin Laden family
        until quite recently. The United States was also
        instrumental in bringing Saddam Hussein to power.
        These are some examples of the questionable judgment
        of some powerful members of the US government. For
        these, I am a bit wary of the true intentions and
        authority of the United States and how the outcome
        will be handled once a war begins and Saddam Hussein
        is removed from power. Afghanistan is a completely
        different situation, but we have quite a mess on our
        hands. I would wonder when we�ll ever be able to get
        out of there and leave behind a stable government.
        Certainly not continuing to act against terrorist
        aggression would be foolish, but an all out war could
        be as horrible, and with the distinct possibility
        that, at least temporarily, we might see a rise in
        terrorist activity and increased fervor in the Middle
        East fueled by the actions of the United States.

        I watched the prime time interview with two former FBI
        agents who were monitoring some of the Sept. 11th
        hijackers two years or so before the disaster. Their
        superiors requested that monitoring cease
        approximately a year before the attacks, even after
        repeated requests by the agents to continue
        surveillance. I would like to see that such actions
        are truly being investigated and would appreciate more
        forthright information from those responsible. All
        the increased security and foreign wars will be for
        naught if there continue to be such breakdowns within
        our own security programs. We heard much about the
        anthrax deliveries right after the Trade Center
        disaster, but the stories promptly ended around the
        time it was revealed that the strain of anthrax used
        was the very same that the US government keeps in its
        laboratories.

        The United States is arrogant in its current approach.
        I am not a general supporter of the United Nations,
        and coming from a family that was instrumental in the
        creation of what has come to be known as the United
        States, having arrived here nearly a hundred years in
        advance of July 4, 1776, it is saddening to see our
        having ceded control of our borders and trade
        relations to international treaties. I appreciate the
        spirit of self-sufficient individuality embodied by
        the true American ethos, but I'm still not certain
        that an all out war is necessarily our best and only
        option, with or without the support of our allies.
        Certainly, something needs to be done about nations
        such as Iraq, but careful planning and execution are
        absolutely essential. Our surveillance abilities are
        excellent, and probably much better than even the
        examples that have been disclosed publicly. Why then
        aren't we sending inspectors directly to intercept
        these moving laboratories the moment they are
        detected? Why aren�t we simply destroying such
        convoys as we do frequently with other targets in
        Iraq? We are concerned, and rightly so, about Iraq's
        creation of biological agents and methods for their
        delivery. Why then are we continuing to stockpile
        such agents and devices in much larger quantities than
        we'd ever find elsewhere on the face of the planet
        right here at home? By doing this, we are
        contributing to the problem while claiming to be
        cleaning it up.

        We have made martyrs of those who have lost their
        lives in the crossfire of the terrorists of September
        11th and our government and the various corporate and
        religious structures on all sides of the equation. I
        certainly hope we will pay the same respect to those
        innocents who are caught in the crossfire of any
        action we may take in foreign lands, as surely there
        are and continue to be innocent victims of any war
        which is waged. It is important to remember that
        there are many people in places like Iraq who have far
        less control over their leadership than we do here in
        the western world. These people are often so occupied
        simply with the day to day efforts of making a life
        and a home for their families that there is little
        time and energy left over for political or religious
        musings and hysteria. There are innocent people dying
        everyday that there are people blowing themselves up
        in the crowded busses of Jerusalem and people snorting
        cocaine in the back rooms of Las Vegas casinos. This
        is a tragedy.

        Personally, I strive to continue to be vigilant and
        independent in the processing of impressions and
        formation of conclusions, remaining conscious of these
        exciting times in which we live by paying attention to
        the various media reports available as well as the
        lives of my friends, family, neighbors and coworkers.
        I believe in evil as misplaced good, intentions and
        actions that have the ability to serve the betterment
        of humanity except that they occur out of a proper
        placement in time. There are valuable lessons being
        taken up at this moment, although quite painful. I
        must be careful that I do not allow my development to
        be unduly hindered by the actions and course of others
        and strive to be careful to be mindful of my influence
        on those around me. I continue to hope that all in
        all, none of these struggles is for naught and that
        even the most heinous of human actions might become
        fertilizer for a better tomorrow. I have an adverse
        reaction to the overemphasis upon material nature, but
        I am thankful for the opportunity to be here at this
        important crossroads in human history. I am grateful
        for the opportunity to experience first hand the
        results of an overly materialistic world view. We can
        ponder much what is the best way for living our lives
        and the correct way of seeing the world, but without
        the real experience of ways that are wrong, we are
        left with little support for why something else is
        right. The reality is that very few of us are
        currently able to tread the true path of
        anthroposophy, even among those who consider
        themselves to be anthroposophists. My hope is that
        through these difficult times, more and more of us
        will be prepared to take up such a path than would
        have been able to do so otherwise, and this will
        happen if we are to continue on in any form into the
        future. Either enough of us will figure it out and
        work it out or we won't, in which case, consequently,
        the world won't. I maintain strongly that we will
        continue on.

        Since Sept. 11th, one of my favorite quotes has been
        from Benjamin Franklin, "They that give up essential
        liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve
        neither liberty nor safety." Freedom is many
        wonderful things, but safety is not among its
        attributes. If one desires safety from opposing
        thoughts and actions, one might best go in this day
        and age to Communist China where the crime rate is low
        but oppression of the individual runs rampant. Danger
        is an aspect of freedom that can only be cured through
        the vigilance of those in its practice to work
        carefully and consciously. It is a motivator in the
        creation of a more perfect society, and its removal
        would cause us to become unduly lazy and fat.

        And finally, from Thomas Jefferson, "I hold it that a
        little rebellion now and then is a good thing, and as
        necessary in the political world as storms in the
        physical." While it can be confusing and burdensome,
        the dialogue and the dance are important in the
        creation of a more perfect society. Every idea and
        scenario with which we are presented should be
        deserving of proper respect, to be taken up on its own
        merits, keeping in mind its unique nature and context,
        without accepting nor dismissing outright any such
        notion on the basis of personal prejudice, sympathy or
        antipathy.

        Wishing all of you and yours the best during these
        times and always-
        George


        --- LilOleMissy <lilolemissy@...> wrote:
        > I think I made a mistake in putting my answer at the
        > very end of Dr. Starman's words...they seems to have
        > been overlooked. :) I'm very glad you two brought
        > out the reason for their not being solid English
        > speaking nations comprising the world, or most of
        > it: already materialism is far too rampant, although
        > from various sources. It seems to me a language
        > takes on a life of sorts all its own that is more
        > "felt" than intellectualized or reasoned.
        >
        > For what they're worth, my thoughts are at the end,
        > following those excellent Dr. Starman thoughts I
        > always gain enormously from.
        >
        > Sheila
        >
        > ----- Original Message -----
        > From: LilOleMissy
        > To: steiner@yahoogroups.com
        > Sent: Sunday, February 16, 2003 2:34 AM
        > Subject: Re: [steiner] question
        >
        >
        >
        > sarahwh@... writes:
        >
        >
        > Dear Dr Starman,
        > I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the
        > current Iraq/US situation, as you always have
        > interesting and thought provoking things to say
        > about these issues.
        >
        > Does anthroposophy come into this dilemma the
        > world is facing?
        >
        > �..� ���)) -:�:-
        > �.�� .����))
        > ((��.�� ..�� -:�:- Sarah
        > -:�:- ((��.��*
        >
        >
        >
        > *******Well, first let me say that the discussion
        > of politics seldom will lead to agreement between
        > people, or even agreement that the other person is
        > entitled to their opinion in these days of
        > "political correctness" where so many people believe
        > there's only one right way to think about things.
        > Then I'll make two further observations: first, it
        > seems sometimes that virtually every New Ager
        > (including anthroposophists) is an extreme
        > left-winger, and doesn't even seem to realize or
        > admit that; and, second, that many people who have
        > just dabbled a little bit in Anthroposophy seem to
        > confuse their own political opinions with knowledge
        > actually derived from the spiritual world. I won't
        > confuse my opinion with direct knowledge from the
        > spiritual world: these will be just my opinions.
        >
        > First, I think that it's not a good thing that
        > the English-speaking people, such as the U.S.,
        > England and Australia, have become the dominant
        > powers in the world, nor do I think that
        > Anglo-American creation, the United Nations, is a
        > good thing. I fear it will lead to a world
        > government such as that seen by the mystic Soloviev
        > in his vision of the Antichrist's coming in the 21st
        > century (and if people have never read that, perhaps
        > I can scan it in and put it here). So I can
        > sympathize with some of the anti-U.S. attitudes
        > people have.
        >
        > But not much. It may be that each world
        > emergency, like the invasion of Kuwait, the genocide
        > in Yugoslavia, and now the mass murders carried out
        > by the fundamentalist Islamicists in the U.S. and
        > Bali, is just leading us to a more powerful world
        > government currently under the control primarily of
        > the English-speaking peoples-- -- -- I think that's
        > unfortunate, but no excuse for not taking action. We
        > had to act in Serbia, and we have to act where
        > conscience dictates.
        >
        > In this case I think action is absolutely
        > required. If anyone watched Colin Powell's
        > presentation to the U.N. he should have been
        > convinced that this powerful madman in Babylon has
        > been doing everything possible to develop biological
        > and chemical weapons in secret-- -- -- for instance,
        > putting the laboratories on railroad cars that can
        > be moved everywhere around the country -- -- -- in
        > order to continue his dream of dominating the Middle
        > East militarily. Powell's presentation of the
        > evidence even convinced anti-Bush columnist Marianne
        > Means (see her Feb. 8th column "The Madman Must Be
        > Stopped"), and liberal columnist Thomas Friedman
        > characterized pretty well the foolishness of the
        > position of the French ("Vote France off the
        > Island", New York Times Feb. 11th), whose imitation
        > of an ostrich (or perhaps Neville Chamberlain) is
        > embarrassing to anyone at all aware of what's really
        > happening.
        >
        > As to the connection between Osama bin Laden
        > and Saddam Hussein, the latter has been financing
        > al-Qaida in North Iraq for years, to keep the Kurds
        > under control, a group known as Ansar al Islam, and
        > that's where many al-Qaida went after the fall of
        > Afghanistan. Hussein has been financing their
        > terrorism, right along with bin Laden and wealthy
        > Saudis. The goal of these fundamentalist nuts, to
        > set off a nuclear weapon in either New York or Tel
        > Aviv, is only realizable with the help of a modern
        > industrial state. His is one they've been using.
        >
        > This is the primary danger we face in our time,
        > now that the Soviet Union is no longer a threat, the
        > danger of rogue nations and international terrorism
        > motivated by ethno-nationalism (in this case, using
        > a dark ages religion as a cover). It will take a
        > concerted campaign by the entire civilized world to
        > combat it over many years-- -- -- which is what it
        > looked like we would have immediately after Sept.
        > 11th 2001; but when the need to take actual action
        > came closer, that alleged agreement among the
        > civilized nations turned out to be more apparent
        > than real. That doesn't really matter in this
        > particular case: the United States needs no help to
        > handle Iraq (in fact even the military forces of
        > France and England are so far behind us that they
        > just get in the way, as we're about to demonstrate),
        > anymore than Israel needed anybody else's help to
        > take out Hussein's nuclear reactor 20 years ago.
        > What is needed, however, is for the so-called
        > statesman of the European nations to start
        > recognizing certain realities and to cease
        > squabbling out of jealousy of the U.S. or playing to
        > their own leftist voters.
        >
        > I think the world is faced with a crisis that
        > has to be addressed, Not just this current madman,
        > but what Steiner referred to as the surfacing of the
        > Sun Demon Sorath ('666') about 1998, which he
        > connected with Mohammedeanism. The characteristic of
        > this demonic movement is to be against everything
        > modern and Western, against individual freedom and
        > consciousness, and, just as was the case with the
        > very similar movement of Marxism, people in the West
        > seem to have lost all sense of the value of the own
        > culture that needs to be defended against it. I
        > think people need to rediscover that culture and its
        > spiritual basis of individualism, in order to see
        > why these people planting bombs and flying planes
        > into buildings cannot be justified in any way, but
        > rather are EVIL.
        >
        > As Albert Camus said, "The hottest pits of Hell
        > are reserved for those who, in a time of moral
        > crisis, maintain their neutrality."
        >
        > I wonder if they still read him in France and
        > Germany?
        >
        > Dr. Starman
        > http://www.DrStarman.net
        >
        > Dear Friends,
        >
        > Excellent question and excellent reply! Thank you,
        > Sarah, and thank you, Dr. Starman for your always
        > clear thoughts. I am one Anthroposophist who is not
        > a left winger and I'm not sure what that implies in
        > Anthroposophical thought, but perhaps that doesn't
        > matter in contrast to the Evil currently facing the
        > world from Islamic radicalism. I was sickened by the
        > cowardly behavior and denial shown by the world's
        > representatives, with 4 rare exceptions, in the UN's
        > Council the other day in the face of truth - truth
        > so earnestly visible coming from Colin Powell. How
        > delighted the Evil Beings working through human
        > beings were! Soloviev indeed saw and realized what
        > was and is still invisible to the vast majority of
        > mankind, and as a very young teenager, Albert Camus'
        > writing awakened within me an everlasting insight
        > into many human reactions elicited by the same
        > behavior patterns the vast majority of the world is
        > today hopelessly attempting to avoid with their
        > heads in the sand. How very clearly I can still hear
        > my mother's words of truth from so long ago,
        > speaking of the inception of the UN as a failure, so
        > clearly shown in Friday's shameful parody of "world
        > leadership." For anyone to think I fail to
        > understand the horrors of war, I can only say I
        > spent three years during the Vietnam fiasco working
        > in various M.A.S.H. facilities. Unless mankind
        > destroys this current EVIL as well as its many
        > tentacles, the civilized world is totally lost as is
        > mankind himself.
        >
        > Blessings to All,
        >
        === message truncated ===


        __________________________________________________
        Do you Yahoo!?
        Yahoo! Shopping - Send Flowers for Valentine's Day
        http://shopping.yahoo.com
      • DRStarman2001@aol.com
        ... *******They also have large numbers of Arab immigrants to pacify. I appreciate your thoughtful post, but there are some errors I feel I have to correct
        Message 3 of 5 , Feb 19, 2003
        • 0 Attachment
          social_artist@... writes:
          >>>  France and Russia oppose the war on supposed moral grounds, but there
          are also large debts owed by Iraq to both France and
          Russia.  (France is also a major supplier of arms to terrorist factions.) ...


          *******They also have large numbers of Arab immigrants to pacify.
              I appreciate your thoughtful post, but there are some errors I feel I have to correct before the conversation goes on repeating them here, and a few comments.


          >> ...the CIA.... formerly had
          Osama Bin Laden on its payroll.  The Bush family had
          been doing close business with the Bin Laden family until quite recently... 



          *****This is untrue. Bin Laden, a multimillionaire, supported the mujahadeen in Afghanistan with his OWN money. THEY  accepted help from the CIA. Bin Laden allied with us temporarily only to fight the Russians: he always regarded us as just as bad.
               The Bin Laden family has a huge construction empire in Saudi Arabia that lots of people do business with, still.



          >>>The United States was also
          instrumental in bringing Saddam Hussein to power.



          *******I'm afraid this is also quite untrue: Hussein was brought to power by the Soviets in the 1970s, who have always been allied with Iraq AGAINST the US. The US does not have, and never had, any influence there.



          >>>I watched the prime time interview with two former FBI
          agents who were monitoring some of the Sept. 11th hijackers two years or so before the disaster.  Their
          superiors requested that monitoring cease approximately a year before the attacks, even after repeated requests by the agents to continue surveillance.  I would like to see that such actions are truly being investigated...



          ******What television show was this on? It certainly hasn't made the headlines, as I've never heard any such accusations. I watch the credible news stories closely.
              Insinuations that the US government allowed the Sept. 11th, 2001 bombings sound pretty paranoiac. It's absurd, for instance, to believe anyone could get away with issuing orders to delberately NOT investigate some identified potential bombers----meaning some top guys knew who they were and what they were in the US for over a year beforehand and kept it secret all that time.
               But agents being told to not investigate MUSLIMS they had become individually suspicious of is believeable. The refusal to keep track of illegal aliens, lest we be charged with 'profiling', is exactly what led to our vulnerability ---and it's STILL the INS practice, and why we still ARE. (Hopefully that will change now that it's becoming part of the Homeland Security Dept. )
              This racial politics could have easily led superiors in the FBI to give ignorant orders to agents, pre-9/11. As I recall, it was a lowly flight instructor who called the FBI warning them that a 747 loaded with jet fuel could be used as a bomb, and telling them about Arabs in his flight school learning to fly a 747 without bothering to learn how to land. The lack of follow-up was bureaucratic ineptitude, not conspiracy. It would be an error to assume the reverse.


           
          >>>We heard much about the
          anthrax deliveries right after the Trade Center
          disaster, but the stories promptly ended around the time it was revealed that the strain of anthrax usedwas the very same that the US government keeps in its
          laboratories.



          *******The implication of which is that it was our own government that planted it. I don't think that's credible. It's absurd to believe that Tom Daschle and Tom Brokaw wouldn't have found out who tried to poison them by now. Secrets can't be kept in Washington.
              And there are several suspects under investigation who had access to US Army stores of anthrax; nor have the news stories stopped at all.




          >> There are innocent people dying everyday that there are people blowing themselves up in the crowded busses of Jerusalem....
          Since Sept. 11th, one of my favorite quotes has been from Benjamin Franklin, "They that give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."  .....



          ********It's unfortunately the truth that liberty is always restricted in wartime, and I'm afraid we Americans will probably put up with a lot to ensure our safety, as we did in earlier wars...perhaps more than we should.
              But then, the Israelis you mention have managed for 50 years, and their country is one of the only free ones in that part of the world.

          Dr. Starman

          >
          >
          >   Dear Dr Starman,
          >   I'd really like to hear your thoughts on the
          >current Iraq/US situation, as you always have
          >interesting and thought provoking things to say
          >about these issues.
          >   Does anthroposophy come into this dilemma the
          >world is facing?  
          >   ¸..· ´¨¨))  -:¦:-
          >     ¸.·´ .·´¨¨))
          >    ((¸¸.·´  ..·´   -:¦:- Sarah
          >   -:¦:-   ((¸¸.·´*    
          >
          >
          >
          >  *******Well, first let me say that the discussion
          >of politics seldom will lead to agreement between
          >people, or even agreement that the other person is
          >entitled to their opinion in these days of
          >"political correctness" where so many people believe
          >there's only one right way to think about things.
          >Then I'll make two further observations: first, it
          >seems sometimes that virtually every New Ager
          >(including anthroposophists) is an extreme
          >left-winger, and doesn't even seem to realize or
          >admit that; and, second, that many people who have
          >just dabbled a little bit in Anthroposophy seem to
          >confuse their own political opinions with knowledge
          >actually derived from the spiritual world. I won't
          >confuse my opinion with direct knowledge from the
          >spiritual world: these will be just my opinions.
          >
          >   First, I think that it's not a good thing that
          >the English-speaking people, such as the U.S.,
          >England and Australia, have become the dominant
          >powers in the world, nor do I think that
          >Anglo-American creation, the United Nations, is a
          >good thing. I fear it will lead to a world
          >government such as that seen by the mystic Soloviev
          >in his vision of the Antichrist's coming in the 21st
          >century (and if people have never read that, perhaps
          >I can scan it in and put it here).  So I can
          >sympathize with some of the anti-U.S. attitudes
          >people have.
          >
          >   But not much. It may be that each world
          >emergency, like the invasion of Kuwait, the genocide
          >in Yugoslavia, and now the mass murders carried out
          >by the fundamentalist Islamicists in the U.S. and
          >Bali, is just leading us to a more powerful world
          >government currently under the control primarily of
          >the English-speaking peoples-- -- -- I think that's
          >unfortunate, but no excuse for not taking action. We
          >had to act in Serbia, and we have to act where
          >conscience dictates.
          >
          >     In this case I think action is absolutely
          >required. If anyone watched Colin Powell's
          >presentation to the U.N. he should have been
          >convinced that this powerful madman in Babylon has
          >been doing everything possible to develop biological
          >and chemical weapons in secret-- -- -- for instance,
          >putting the laboratories on railroad cars that can
          >be moved everywhere around the country -- -- -- in
          >order to continue his dream of dominating the Middle
          >East militarily. Powell's presentation of the
          >evidence even convinced anti-Bush columnist Marianne
          >Means (see her Feb. 8th column "The Madman Must Be
          >Stopped"), and liberal columnist Thomas Friedman
          >characterized pretty well the foolishness of the
          >position of the French ("Vote France off the
          >Island", New York Times Feb. 11th), whose imitation
          >of an ostrich (or perhaps Neville Chamberlain) is
          >embarrassing to anyone at all aware of what's really
          >happening.
          >
          >   As to the connection between Osama bin Laden
          >and Saddam Hussein, the latter has been financing
          >al-Qaida in North Iraq for years, to keep the Kurds
          >under control, a group known as Ansar al Islam, and
          >that's where many al-Qaida went after the fall of
          >Afghanistan. Hussein has been financing their
          >terrorism, right along with bin Laden and wealthy
          >Saudis. The goal of these fundamentalist nuts, to
          >set off a nuclear weapon in either New York or Tel
          >Aviv, is only realizable with the help of a modern
          >industrial state. His is one they've been using.
          >
          >   This is the primary danger we face in our time,
          >now that the Soviet Union is no longer a threat, the
          >danger of rogue nations and international terrorism
          >motivated by ethno-nationalism (in this case, using
          >a dark ages religion as a cover). It will take a
          >concerted campaign by the entire civilized world to
          >combat it over many years-- -- -- which is what it
          >looked like we would have immediately after Sept.
          >11th 2001; but when the need to take actual action
          >came closer, that alleged agreement among the
          >civilized nations turned out to be more apparent
          >than real. That doesn't really matter in this
          >particular case: the United States needs no help to
          >handle Iraq (in fact even the military forces of
          >France and England are so far behind us that they
          >just get in the way, as we're about to demonstrate),
          >anymore than Israel needed anybody else's help to
          >take out Hussein's nuclear reactor 20 years ago.
          >What is needed, however, is for the so-called
          >statesman of the European nations to start
          >recognizing certain realities and to cease
          >squabbling out of jealousy of the U.S. or playing to
          >their own leftist voters.
          >
          >    I think the world is faced with a crisis that
          >has to be addressed, Not just this current madman,
          >but what Steiner referred to as the surfacing of the
          >Sun Demon Sorath ('666') about 1998, which he
          >connected with Mohammedeanism. The characteristic of
          >this demonic movement is to be against everything
          >modern and Western, against individual freedom and
          >consciousness, and, just as was the case with the
          >very similar movement of Marxism, people in the West
          >seem to have lost all sense of the value of the own
          >culture that needs to be defended against it. I
          >think people need to rediscover that culture and its
          >spiritual basis of individualism, in order to see
          >why these people planting bombs and flying planes
          >into buildings cannot be justified in any way, but
          >rather are EVIL.
          >
          >   As Albert Camus said, "The hottest pits of Hell
          >are reserved for those who, in a time of moral
          >crisis, maintain their neutrality."
          >
          >   I wonder if they still read him in France and
          >Germany?
          >
          >  Dr. Starman

          >
          >  Dear Friends,

          >  Excellent question and excellent reply! Thank you,
          >Sarah, and thank you, Dr. Starman for your always
          >clear thoughts. I am one Anthroposophist who is not
          >a left winger and I'm not sure what that implies in
          >Anthroposophical thought, but perhaps that doesn't
          >matter in contrast to the Evil currently facing the
          >world from Islamic radicalism. I was sickened by the
          >cowardly behavior and denial shown by the world's
          >representatives, with 4 rare exceptions, in the UN's
          >Council the other day in the face of truth - truth
          >so earnestly visible coming from Colin Powell. How
          >delighted the Evil Beings working through human
          >beings were! Soloviev indeed saw and realized what
          >was and is still invisible to the vast majority of
          >mankind, and as a very young teenager, Albert Camus'
          >writing awakened within me an everlasting insight
          >into many human reactions elicited by the same
          >behavior patterns the vast majority of the world is
          >today hopelessly attempting to avoid with their
          >heads in the sand. How very clearly I can still hear
          >my mother's words of truth from so long ago,
          >speaking of the inception of the UN as a failure, so
          >clearly shown in Friday's shameful parody of "world
          >leadership." For anyone to think I fail to
          >understand the horrors of war, I can only say I
          >spent three years during the Vietnam fiasco working
          >in various M.A.S.H. facilities. Unless mankind
          >destroys this current EVIL as well as its many
          >tentacles, the civilized world is totally lost as is
          >mankind himself.
          >
        • S. Groth <sgroth@bredband.net>
          ... Hussein to ... power by ... AGAINST the ... There was a coup, probably supported by Soviet, that ousted the king, a figure installed by the british in the
          Message 4 of 5 , Feb 20, 2003
          • 0 Attachment
            --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, DRStarman2001@a... wrote:
            > social_artist@y... writes:

            > >>>The United States was also> instrumental in bringing Saddam
            Hussein to
            > > power.
            >
            >
            > *******I'm afraid this is also quite untrue: Hussein was brought to
            power by
            > the Soviets in the 1970s, who have always been allied with Iraq
            AGAINST the
            > US. The US does not have, and never had, any influence there.

            There was a coup, probably supported by Soviet, that ousted the king,
            a figure installed by the british in the 30'ties .. by the baath
            party, Saddam on his own eventually brutalized his way to sole power
            as leader of the bath-party - he is obvously a national-socialist, and
            consciously studied Stalin and Hitler -- this has been known for 35
            years without the world reacting.
            In the cold-war period the thing was a balance question ... but
            eventually as there was a shift from a bi-polar superpower balance to
            a unilateral powerposition, this position has unfortunatedly NOT been
            used to promote the fine principles of freedom and democracy ..
            So Saddam suddenly became "our" bastard in the 80'ties - as Iran was
            seen as the main enemy...
            However with a little insigth it turns out that the shiite political
            islam is less dangerous than sunni islam, especially in the saudi
            version (Osama bin Laden) ... However the US continually is allied
            with some of the most reactionarey islamo-totalitarian regimes in the
            region... and the current administration have nice talk about a
            post-war Iraq - but no clue who they are dealing with and what they
            are doing... Especially the adversion towards the shiite moderates and
            the reformed communists in the iraqi opposition is plain stupid, as
            they are the only two groups which is actually on site figthing Saddam
            and have any civil society fundament in Iraq...

            So the iraqi people are not in for freedom and democracy.. the kurds
            will be sacrificed to keep Turkey happy, the shiites to keep the Sunni
            totlaitarian arab monarchies happy - and the commies - yeah who cares ??
            So the talk about "difficulties" in a postwar Iraq.. is really
            meaning "we can't get the people in charge in a democratic way, that
            we need"

            "(3) The promotion of democracy: The ouster of Saddam Hussein, it is
            claimed, will clear the space for the Iraqi people (under American
            guidance, of course) to establish a truly democratic government and
            serve as a beacon and inspiration for the spread of democracy
            throughout the Islamic world, which is said to be sadly deficient in
            this respect. Certainly, the spread of democracy to the Islamic world
            would be a good thing, and should be encouraged. But is there any
            reason to believe that the administration is motivated by a desire to
            spread democracy in its rush to war with Iraq?

            There are several reasons to doubt this. First of all, many of the top
            leaders of the current administration, particularly Donald Rumsfeld
            and Dick Cheney, were completely happy to embrace the Saddam Hussein
            dictatorship in the 1980s when Iraq was the enemy of our enemy (that
            is, Iran) and thus considered our de facto friend. Under the so-called
            "tilt" toward Iraq, the Reagan-Bush administration decided to assist
            Iraq in its war against Iran during the Iran-Iraq War of 1980-88. As
            part of this policy, Reagan removed Iraq from the list of countries
            that support terrorism, thus permitting the provision of billions of
            dollars' worth of agricultural credits and other forms of assistance
            to Hussein. The bearer of this good news was none other than Donald
            Rumsfeld, who traveled to Baghdad and met with Hussein in December
            1983 as a special representative of President Reagan. At the same
            time, the Department of Defense provided Iraq with secret satellite
            data on Iranian military positions. This information was provided to
            Saddam even though U.S. leaders were informed by a senior State
            Department official on November 1, 1983 that the Iraqis were using
            chemical weapons against the Iranians "almost daily," and were aware
            that U.S. satellite data could be used by Baghdad to pinpoint CW
            attacks on Iranian positions. Dick Cheney, who took over as Secretary
            of Defense in 1989, continued the practice of supplying Iran with
            secret intelligence data. Not once did Mssrs. Rumsfeld and Cheney
            speak out against Iraqi CW use or suggest that the United States
            discontinue its support of the Hussein dictatorship during this
            period. So there is no reason whatsoever to believe that the current
            leadership has a principled objection to dictatorial rule in Iraq--it
            is only when Saddam is threatening us instead of our enemies that they
            care about his tyrannical behavior.

            There is another reason to be skeptical about the Bush
            administration's commitment to democracy in this part of the world,
            and that is the fact that the administration has developed close
            relationships with a number of other dictatorial or authoritarian
            regimes in the area. Most notably, the United States had developed
            close ties with the post-Soviet dictatorships in Azerbaijan,
            Kazakhstan, and Uzbekistan. Each of these countries is ruled by a
            Stalinist dictator who once served as a loyal agent of the Soviet
            empire: Heydar Aliyev in Azerbaijan, Nursultan Nazarbaev of
            Kazakhstan, and Islam Karimov of Uzbekistan. Only slightly less odious
            than Saddam Hussein, these tyrants have been welcomed to the White
            House and showered with American aid and support. And there certainly
            is nothing even remotely democratic about Kuwait or Saudi Arabia, two
            of America's other close allies in the region. So it is hard to
            believe that the Bush administration is motivated by a love of
            democracy, when it has been so quick to embrace patently undemocratic
            regimes that have agreed to do its bidding."

            http://www.fpif.org/commentary/2003/0301warreasons.html


            > But agents being told to not investigate MUSLIMS they had become
            > individually suspicious of is believeable. The refusal to keep track
            >of
            > illegal aliens, lest we be charged with 'profiling',

            None were illegal aliens .. all had legal staus for being in the States
            And to call non-racial profiling in policies for racial politics is a
            tonguetwister ..
            A bit like the one about the white mans burden:
            "Why don't people understand how troublesome it is for me to be tough
            on the niggers to make them carry my load"
            Hey man carry it yourself

            Sören Groth
          • DRStarman2001@aol.com
            *******The so-called anthroposophy list you post to all the time, Soren, has deteriorated to the point where there s no anthroposophy at all on it, nothing
            Message 5 of 5 , Feb 20, 2003
            • 0 Attachment
              *******The so-called "anthroposophy" list you post to all the time, Soren, has deteriorated to the point where there's no anthroposophy at all on it, nothing but shrill political rants in place of any higher knowledge. You were one of the main causes of this, and so I'm putting you on moderated status: you and several other leftists formed your own list to express your ides there, so you don't lack a forum.

                 I don't want this list to likewise deteriorate, so I'm calling a halt to the politics thread. As I said when answering Sarah's question, it's not likely to serve any good purpose, and certainly not lead to any agreement among people---it never does.

                 But one simple comment. The study of Steiner and anthroposophy has nothing in common with Marxist-type political agitation and diatribes against "capitalism." In fact, they are opposites, because there is nothing spiritual whatsoever in such materialist oratory.

                 As for the many misstatements in your post, such as that the Sept. 11th bombers were not "illegal aliens" (when in fact they had overstayed their visas and should legally have been deported), I won't try to correct them all, because so many corrections of fact are needed that it would just distract more from the purpose of this list.

              Dr. Starman
              http://www.DrStarman.net
            Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.