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

Re: Feuds

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    ... hyper critical of Tomberg and Tobergians? [sic] I don t get it. I haven t read any of his books, just his on-line material, and he seems like an excellent
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 16, 2006
    • 0 Attachment
      To Mathew Morrell, who wrote:

      >>Is there a reason why Anthroposophists are
      hyper critical of Tomberg and Tobergians? [sic]
      I don't get it. I haven't read any of his
      books, just his on-line material, and he seems
      like an excellent thinker.<<

      Robert writes:

      This is a recurring theme on the Anthro Net;
      Tombergism is a chronic disease that just won't
      go away. A lot could be said; a lot has
      already been said. Books have been written,
      and probably more will be written. There's no
      way I can put an end to it here; just a few
      points:

      "Excellent thinker"? -- Obviously a kind of
      intelligence was at work in Tomberg. The real
      question is: What kind? Ahriman is supremely
      intelligent but not truthful; he is the "father
      of lies".

      "Books"? "Online material"? -- Most of
      Tomberg's writings online are from his early
      period. But, in a sense, there are two
      Tombergs. In his early period he was
      supposedly Anthroposophical. Then he went
      through a deep change of personality; according
      to him, the later Tomberg was as different from
      the early Tomberg as are previous and
      subsequent incarnations. The later Tomberg
      (the Tomberg of the *Tarot*) renounced his
      earlier, supposedly Anthroposophical writings.
      (A few snips from the *Tarot* book are online
      at <http://www.medtarot.freeserve.co.uk>.
      Perhaps you will notice the hypnotic,
      incantational quality of the writing. IMO,
      that's about what it amounts to: black-
      magickal incantations designed to lull the
      reader to sleep and put him under the
      influence of that sinister "community of
      spririts" which Tomberg mentions in his
      introduction.)

      "A reason why"? -- Yes; the short answer is
      that Tomberg is an advocate and promoter of
      profoundly anti-Anthroposophical occult
      "streams", streams that are not only anti-
      Anthroposophical but anti-human, linked to the
      Jesuits, to the forces that instigated the
      first world war, to the perpetrators of the
      crimes against Kaspar Hauser. And even the
      early, supposedly Anthroposophical Tomberg was,
      as Marie Steiner correctly said, lost in
      delusion.

      The basic book to read is Sergei Prokofieff's
      *exposé*:
      <http://www.steinerbooks.org//detail.html?session=e4b7f17f7ea5db1224f4b070f427ed26&id=0904693856>

      And his follow-up booklet:
      <http://www.steinerbooks.org//detail.html?session=6b6eb1ea3260fbf698d72f01cfff2649&id=1902636643>

      (I'm not saying that I agree with his every
      last word, but Proky is generally a meticulous
      researcher and documents his contentions.)

      Mathew Morrell wrote:

      >>Prokofiev is another guy that
      Anthroposophists pound on. Last summer some
      fellow dropped out of our Steiner Forum here
      simply because Prokofiev was discussed very
      briefly by a few people. It was weird.<<

      Robert writes:

      Well, Proky is catching it from two sides. The
      Tombergians are after him because of his
      *exposé* of Tomberg. And others are after him
      mainly because he is accused of the same sins
      (in a different way) of which he accuses
      Tomberg. The basic book to read is by the late
      (possibly murdered) Irina Gordienko:
      <http://www.lochmann-verlag.com/gordienkoEnglish_info.htm>

      Mathew Morrell wrote:

      >>As an outsider in the movement, having never
      met an Anthroposophist, these fueds [sic] are
      perplexing. Is it political?<<

      Robert writes:

      I have met only two or three Anthros in the
      flesh, and those only briefly. Most of my
      "meeting" has been in cyberspace, and plenty of
      those encounters have been plenty perplexing.
      I doubt that merely meeting Anthros would cure
      your perplexity. Anyone can call himself an
      "Anthroposophist", and some rather perplexing
      people do. -- If you are using *political* to
      refer to power struggles in Anthro
      organizations, I suppose such struggles might
      work into the "feuds", but this fact would not
      imply that they are all "merely political" in
      the petty sense. Deep matters of principle are
      at stake.

      Robert Mason


      __________________________________________________
      Do You Yahoo!?
      Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
      http://mail.yahoo.com
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.