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

think piece: Is the Internet good or bad for the Consciousness Soul?

Expand Messages
  • Robert Mason
    To All: I ran across a blog by Michael A. Hoffman, who was discussing the publication and promotion of his new book:
    Message 1 of 4 , Aug 7, 2008
    • 0 Attachment
      To All:

      I ran across a blog by Michael A. Hoffman, who
      was discussing the publication and promotion of
      his new book:
      <http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2008/07/war-of-ideas-and-promotion-of-judaism.html>

      For those who don't recognize the name, Hoffman
      is one of the deeper of non-Anthro thinkers and
      writers about the occult-political power
      structure. I think he coined the term
      *cryptocracy*. Unhappily, in the past year or
      two censorship on the public Internet computers
      that I use has been tightened, and so I can't
      get to his website. But this blog isn't on his
      site, and it slipped through.

      In the course of discussing his new publication
      he does bring forth some interesting and
      provocative ideas about the Internet and its
      relation to the consciousness and practical
      will of the public. Anthros may recall how
      Steiner taught that the Consciousness Soul in
      its outer, socio-political aspect arises
      instinctively in the English-speaking peoples.
      Of course, he said that almost a century ago,
      and we are now forced to ask how and why there
      so little of the Consciousness Soul culture
      manifesting in present socio-political
      formations, why the "sheople" are in such
      abject thrall to the "elite". I have brought
      some Anthroposophical musings by Gennady
      Bondarev on this question; basically his answer
      is that people (the world over) are under the
      very effective influence of the "black magic"
      of political occultisms of the Luciferic,
      Ahrimanic, and Asuric kinds. We might also
      consider, as have plenty of non-Anthro
      observers, the soul-deadening power of mass
      inoculations, fluoride poisoning, the
      "deliberate dumbing down" by the "educational"
      system, television, etc., etc. -- to which we
      can now add the increasingly sophisticated
      electro-psychotronic onslaught. (About this
      last item, see here for one of the more
      tech-savvy and less far-out accounts:
      <http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/electronic_harassment.html>)

      But it does seem to many that the advent of the
      Internet is working against the "power elite" -
      - that it is the first really free "press" in
      history, that it is enabling "the people" to
      work effectively outside "the system", and
      therefore that it may eventually enable "the
      people" to inform themselves, to organize, and
      (perhaps, hopefully) to change the realities of
      socio-political power for the better. And
      apparently, some of the "elite" seem to believe
      that this is so; thus moves are in the works to
      get control over the Net, with the "Internet 2"
      scheme and so on. See, for example:
      <http://www.infowars.com/?p=3753>

      Asking this question about the mini-world of
      Anthro politics: One might think that the
      Internet is decentralizing power; it seems
      unlikely that the organizational turmoil of
      recent years would have happened if people
      outside the center of the Anthro organization
      had not been able to communicate more freely
      through the Internet than they had before. On
      the other hand, we might observe that, even
      after all the turmoil, the Anthro power
      structure remains essentially the same as it
      was before, and apparently with the support of
      most Anthros.

      And enlarging this last observation to the
      wider world, we might observe that the "power
      elite" it still very much in power, and is
      actively grabbing even more power -- and
      apparently with the support of most of "the
      people", at least passively, at least in the
      USA. How can this be the case despite the
      presumably liberating, pervasive presence of
      the Internet?

      There is a book from an Anthro viewpoint by
      Paul Emberson, *From Gondhishapur to Silicon
      Valley*, which, unhappily, I haven't read yet.
      But I gather that he follows up on Steiner's
      idea that our machines are putting us into an
      environment of Ahrimanic demons, extending
      Steiner's idea to the idea that the pervasive
      presence of computers is (perhaps?) putting us
      ever more dangerously under the influence of
      this demonic world. -- Maybe so; but now to
      turn to Hoffman's thoughts:

      >>Does the Internet make us "stoopid"? It has
      enlarged my own research and supplemented my
      hard-copy reading; but books and journals are
      still my central source of information and
      enlightenment. One reason involves free
      enterprise: the best writers, historians and
      researchers are professionals, meaning of
      course, that they earn their livelihood by
      selling their work and consequently cannot
      offer their writing and research free of
      charge.

      >>Another reason touches on Marshall McLuhan's
      "medium is the message" epigram. The Internet's
      speed, abundance, distractions and format
      contribute to a trivialization of information
      on the road to the bromide, "Information is
      power." Au contraire, people are confused by
      competing and contradictory information-
      overload and paralyzed by it; hence the eerie
      silence in the heartland, as election after
      election is stolen by vote fraud, as Jim Condit
      Jr. has documented with the rip-off of Ron
      Paul's primary votes, beginning with the Iowa
      Straw Poll (without vote fraud, Paul would
      probably have been the Republican candidate for
      President).

      >>Information-overload is also paralyzing due
      to its manifestation as amusement. Many people
      imagine that the word amusement means joy. It
      doesn't. It denotes distraction. There is a
      whole genre of competing conspiracy theories
      that have proved endlessly entertaining and
      thrilling to millions of consumers of this
      material who regard themselves as opponents and
      critics of the System. Yet, other than acting
      as an audience for conspiracy theories, they do
      little or nothing because conspiracy theory on
      the Internet is sometimes not an inspiration,
      it's an amusement, a DIVERSION. Could some
      forms of conspiracy theory-dissemination online
      be a function of the Cryptocracy itself? Again,
      the question is not asked.

      >>In pre-Internet days, even when television
      reigned in the 1950s, millions of Americans
      went on strike for weeks or months, and engaged
      in street marches and protests. Going a bit
      farther back in our history, in late 1931 a
      Pennsylvania Catholic priest led an army of
      12,000 jobless men to rally for legislation for
      unemployment insurance benefits. In May, 1932,
      a mass of unemployed WWI vets, organized by
      former factory laborer Walt Walters, arrived in
      Washington DC calling themselves the "Bonus
      Expeditionary Forces," and demanding early
      payment of a bonus Congress had promised them
      for their war service.

      >>If those grievances had occurred today
      Americans online would be doing little more
      than signing online petitions, blogging and e-
      mailing. That's a good start but it's no
      substitute for the kind of activism that
      requires we undertake the seemingly Augean task
      of walking out our front door.

      >>We are determined to get "Judaism Discovered"
      [Hoffman's new book] noticed on the Internet,
      which is undoubtedly very important, and in
      newspapers and magazines, which is even more
      important. Why? Because that's where the brains
      are. This runs counter to the image of the
      Brave New online pioneers with their futurism
      born of science fiction supposedly replacing
      the "obsolete" Gutenberg universe in a fevered
      American rush for change for the sake of
      change.

      >>But we counter with the fact that readers of
      the printed page still think deeply and would
      seem to be more active than Internet folk, in
      spite of the legends of how "e-mail and blogs
      aroused the grassroots!" Ron Paul certainly
      benefited from just such electronic organizing
      but there was no victory. Arousal there may be,
      but consummation is another matter.

      >>Information is not power. The ability to
      detect fraud is power. That ability has
      atrophied in proportion of the extent to which
      the printed page has been abandoned.
      Coincidence?

      >>I'm hardly alone in this conviction. There is
      a growing sense of an ominous decline in
      intellectual ability. I hope you will take the
      time to print out, read, contemplate and digest
      the important essay, "Is Google Making Us
      Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr, in this month's
      Atlantic Monthly, at
      http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
      (click the "printer format" in the box at the
      upper right).

      >>In spite of the notion that genius these days
      comes in the shape of computer hackers and
      software programmers in ripped jeans and
      goatees, the elite, the people we aim to reach
      with our new book, are predominately found
      reading newspapers, books and magazines.
      Whether they are a "dying breed" remains to be
      seen. One of the tricks of the Cryptocracy is
      what this writer terms, "predictive
      programming," in this case to declare victory
      in a war in which all the battles have not yet
      been fought.<<

      -- Is that really WHERE THE BRAINS ARE -- still
      in the realm of the print media?

      And is the Internet a net plus or a net minus
      for the Consciousness Soul? -- My prejudice is
      that it is a net plus, as least it seems to be
      for me. I like the (relatively) free
      availability of such vast information; it seems
      to be "food for thought" that makes my
      Consciousness Soul stronger. But I also have
      to admit that it might be apt to become an
      addictive distraction from "real life". And
      maybe it makes my Attention Deficit Disorder
      worse? I would think that it might well have
      that tendency for people who do not regularly
      practice meditational thinking.

      And in the wider socio-political realm? --
      Well, we might compare the modern citizenry of
      the USA to the revolutionary Minuteman and the
      sturdy Jeffersonian-Jacksonian peasant on his
      freehold. It seems a dismal comparison;
      considering, for instance, the effective fight
      in the early years of the Republic against a
      private central bank, as compared to the supine
      submission to the falsely so-called "Federal
      Reserve System" over the past 95 years. -- But
      on the other hand, maybe that sturdy peasant
      is mostly an idealized phantasm of wishful,
      ignorant nostalgia? The good old days couldn't
      have been all that good; else how could they
      have degenerated so badly into the present?

      Anyway . . .

      I don't know the answers to all these
      questions. Right now, I'm just putting them
      out there, hopefully as a springboard for
      fruitful discussion. But this much seems
      clear: the Internet is here, for better or for
      worse, and we're going to have to live with it
      as best we can.

      Robert Mason
    • Durward Starman
      ******* This has nothing whatever to do with anthropsophy. It s conspiracy theory rubbish with someone using one or two concepts from out of anthroposphy to
      Message 2 of 4 , Aug 7, 2008
      • 0 Attachment
        ******* This has nothing whatever to do with anthropsophy. It's conspiracy theory rubbish with someone using one or two concepts from out of anthroposphy to analyze the garbage, which is kind of like using gold utensils to eat poison off a plate. No more anti-Israel, "revisionist historians" or hysterical political ranting here, please. It's only a distraction from the spiritual path. True spiritual science empowers Man to accomplish; belief in conspiracy theories makes you believe yourself impotent and helpless, unable to influence your world. It's a thought-pattern that Steiner addresses many times, such as in Knowledge of the Higher Worlds. Moreover, the whole tone is assuming multiple prejudices to be "facts", while seeking spiritual knowledge requires ridding oneself of prejudice and retaining common sense. Simply put, to grasp spirit-science requires us to raise ourselves towards higher consciousness, not lower ourselves into a cesspool of irrational fear and hatred. Spend time listening to Beethoven and you might get somewhere, spend it listening to Noam Chomsky or Michael Moore and you're only going in one direction---down.
         
          There's an interesting article in the latest edition of the Steinerbooks catalog about how many leftists wind up mouthing anthropsophy, while not noticing that it is the exact opposite of leftist beliefs, and therefore causes cognitive dissonance, as much as trying to remain a Darwinist and become an anthroposophist would. Chuck out the prejudices and think freely and things may begin to seem quite different. Never mind whatever you think are "facts" in this kind of diatribe: feel the tone of it and ask, is this coming from the same plane as spiritual science? If it's overwhelmingly negative and pulls you down, reject it and go take a walk in the fresh air.
         
        As Goethe put it, "Only that which is fruitful is true."
         
        -starman

        www.DrStarman.com




        To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com; anthroposophy_world@yahoogroups.com; steiner@yahoogroups.com; anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com
        From: robertsmason_99@...
        Date: Thu, 7 Aug 2008 11:39:18 -0700
        Subject: [steiner] think piece: Is the Internet good or bad for the Consciousness Soul?


        To All:

        I ran across a blog by Michael A. Hoffman, who
        was discussing the publication and promotion of
        his new book:
        <http://revisionistr eview.blogspot. com/2008/ 07/war-of- ideas-and- promotion- of-judaism. html>

        For those who don't recognize the name, Hoffman
        is one of the deeper of non-Anthro thinkers and
        writers about the occult-political power
        structure....

        .



        Got Game? Win Prizes in the Windows Live Hotmail Mobile Summer Games Trivia Contest Find out how.
      • Mathew Morrell
        Seriously Robert, come on. Do you really count yourself among the Revisionists? Or is this a prank? You re one of the more likeable and friendly people in
        Message 3 of 4 , Aug 7, 2008
        • 0 Attachment


          Seriously Robert, come on.  Do you really count yourself among the Revisionists?  Or is this a prank?  You're one of the more likeable and friendly people in Anthroposophy, yet you've joined forces with people who are the antithesis of these qualities.  Maybe I'm not the only one with a dark side.  

          I read Revisionist literature when I was in my early twenties, when I was a member of JZs school in Yelm , WA .  JZ is an anti-Semite if you didn't know (I used to buy copies of the Searchlight magazine from her book store.). Their anti Zionist theories are merely a thin veil obscuring a deeper hatred toward Jews in general.

          I'm sad to see you're still a member.

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

           

          --- In steiner@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
          >
          > To All:
          >
          > I ran across a blog by Michael A. Hoffman, who
          > was discussing the publication and promotion of
          > his new book:
          > <http://revisionistreview.blogspot.com/2008/07/war-of-ideas-and-promotion-of-judaism.html>
          >
          > For those who don't recognize the name, Hoffman
          > is one of the deeper of non-Anthro thinkers and
          > writers about the occult-political power
          > structure. I think he coined the term
          > *cryptocracy*. Unhappily, in the past year or
          > two censorship on the public Internet computers
          > that I use has been tightened, and so I can't
          > get to his website. But this blog isn't on his
          > site, and it slipped through.
          >
          > In the course of discussing his new publication
          > he does bring forth some interesting and
          > provocative ideas about the Internet and its
          > relation to the consciousness and practical
          > will of the public. Anthros may recall how
          > Steiner taught that the Consciousness Soul in
          > its outer, socio-political aspect arises
          > instinctively in the English-speaking peoples.
          > Of course, he said that almost a century ago,
          > and we are now forced to ask how and why there
          > so little of the Consciousness Soul culture
          > manifesting in present socio-political
          > formations, why the "sheople" are in such
          > abject thrall to the "elite". I have brought
          > some Anthroposophical musings by Gennady
          > Bondarev on this question; basically his answer
          > is that people (the world over) are under the
          > very effective influence of the "black magic"
          > of political occultisms of the Luciferic,
          > Ahrimanic, and Asuric kinds. We might also
          > consider, as have plenty of non-Anthro
          > observers, the soul-deadening power of mass
          > inoculations, fluoride poisoning, the
          > "deliberate dumbing down" by the "educational"
          > system, television, etc., etc. -- to which we
          > can now add the increasingly sophisticated
          > electro-psychotronic onslaught. (About this
          > last item, see here for one of the more
          > tech-savvy and less far-out accounts:
          > <http://www.bugsweeps.com/info/electronic_harassment.html>)
          >
          > But it does seem to many that the advent of the
          > Internet is working against the "power elite" -
          > - that it is the first really free "press" in
          > history, that it is enabling "the people" to
          > work effectively outside "the system", and
          > therefore that it may eventually enable "the
          > people" to inform themselves, to organize, and
          > (perhaps, hopefully) to change the realities of
          > socio-political power for the better. And
          > apparently, some of the "elite" seem to believe
          > that this is so; thus moves are in the works to
          > get control over the Net, with the "Internet 2"
          > scheme and so on. See, for example:
          > <http://www.infowars.com/?p=3753>
          >
          > Asking this question about the mini-world of
          > Anthro politics: One might think that the
          > Internet is decentralizing power; it seems
          > unlikely that the organizational turmoil of
          > recent years would have happened if people
          > outside the center of the Anthro organization
          > had not been able to communicate more freely
          > through the Internet than they had before. On
          > the other hand, we might observe that, even
          > after all the turmoil, the Anthro power
          > structure remains essentially the same as it
          > was before, and apparently with the support of
          > most Anthros.
          >
          > And enlarging this last observation to the
          > wider world, we might observe that the "power
          > elite" it still very much in power, and is
          > actively grabbing even more power -- and
          > apparently with the support of most of "the
          > people", at least passively, at least in the
          > USA. How can this be the case despite the
          > presumably liberating, pervasive presence of
          > the Internet?
          >
          > There is a book from an Anthro viewpoint by
          > Paul Emberson, *From Gondhishapur to Silicon
          > Valley*, which, unhappily, I haven't read yet.
          > But I gather that he follows up on Steiner's
          > idea that our machines are putting us into an
          > environment of Ahrimanic demons, extending
          > Steiner's idea to the idea that the pervasive
          > presence of computers is (perhaps?) putting us
          > ever more dangerously under the influence of
          > this demonic world. -- Maybe so; but now to
          > turn to Hoffman's thoughts:
          >
          > >>Does the Internet make us "stoopid"? It has
          > enlarged my own research and supplemented my
          > hard-copy reading; but books and journals are
          > still my central source of information and
          > enlightenment. One reason involves free
          > enterprise: the best writers, historians and
          > researchers are professionals, meaning of
          > course, that they earn their livelihood by
          > selling their work and consequently cannot
          > offer their writing and research free of
          > charge.
          >
          > >>Another reason touches on Marshall McLuhan's
          > "medium is the message" epigram. The Internet's
          > speed, abundance, distractions and format
          > contribute to a trivialization of information
          > on the road to the bromide, "Information is
          > power." Au contraire, people are confused by
          > competing and contradictory information-
          > overload and paralyzed by it; hence the eerie
          > silence in the heartland, as election after
          > election is stolen by vote fraud, as Jim Condit
          > Jr. has documented with the rip-off of Ron
          > Paul's primary votes, beginning with the Iowa
          > Straw Poll (without vote fraud, Paul would
          > probably have been the Republican candidate for
          > President).
          >
          > >>Information-overload is also paralyzing due
          > to its manifestation as amusement. Many people
          > imagine that the word amusement means joy. It
          > doesn't. It denotes distraction. There is a
          > whole genre of competing conspiracy theories
          > that have proved endlessly entertaining and
          > thrilling to millions of consumers of this
          > material who regard themselves as opponents and
          > critics of the System. Yet, other than acting
          > as an audience for conspiracy theories, they do
          > little or nothing because conspiracy theory on
          > the Internet is sometimes not an inspiration,
          > it's an amusement, a DIVERSION. Could some
          > forms of conspiracy theory-dissemination online
          > be a function of the Cryptocracy itself? Again,
          > the question is not asked.
          >
          > >>In pre-Internet days, even when television
          > reigned in the 1950s, millions of Americans
          > went on strike for weeks or months, and engaged
          > in street marches and protests. Going a bit
          > farther back in our history, in late 1931 a
          > Pennsylvania Catholic priest led an army of
          > 12,000 jobless men to rally for legislation for
          > unemployment insurance benefits. In May, 1932,
          > a mass of unemployed WWI vets, organized by
          > former factory laborer Walt Walters, arrived in
          > Washington DC calling themselves the "Bonus
          > Expeditionary Forces," and demanding early
          > payment of a bonus Congress had promised them
          > for their war service.
          >
          > >>If those grievances had occurred today
          > Americans online would be doing little more
          > than signing online petitions, blogging and e-
          > mailing. That's a good start but it's no
          > substitute for the kind of activism that
          > requires we undertake the seemingly Augean task
          > of walking out our front door.
          >
          > >>We are determined to get "Judaism Discovered"
          > [Hoffman's new book] noticed on the Internet,
          > which is undoubtedly very important, and in
          > newspapers and magazines, which is even more
          > important. Why? Because that's where the brains
          > are. This runs counter to the image of the
          > Brave New online pioneers with their futurism
          > born of science fiction supposedly replacing
          > the "obsolete" Gutenberg universe in a fevered
          > American rush for change for the sake of
          > change.
          >
          > >>But we counter with the fact that readers of
          > the printed page still think deeply and would
          > seem to be more active than Internet folk, in
          > spite of the legends of how "e-mail and blogs
          > aroused the grassroots!" Ron Paul certainly
          > benefited from just such electronic organizing
          > but there was no victory. Arousal there may be,
          > but consummation is another matter.
          >
          > >>Information is not power. The ability to
          > detect fraud is power. That ability has
          > atrophied in proportion of the extent to which
          > the printed page has been abandoned.
          > Coincidence?
          >
          > >>I'm hardly alone in this conviction. There is
          > a growing sense of an ominous decline in
          > intellectual ability. I hope you will take the
          > time to print out, read, contemplate and digest
          > the important essay, "Is Google Making Us
          > Stupid?" by Nicholas Carr, in this month's
          > Atlantic Monthly, at
          > http://www.theatlantic.com/doc/200807/google
          > (click the "printer format" in the box at the
          > upper right).
          >
          > >>In spite of the notion that genius these days
          > comes in the shape of computer hackers and
          > software programmers in ripped jeans and
          > goatees, the elite, the people we aim to reach
          > with our new book, are predominately found
          > reading newspapers, books and magazines.
          > Whether they are a "dying breed" remains to be
          > seen. One of the tricks of the Cryptocracy is
          > what this writer terms, "predictive
          > programming," in this case to declare victory
          > in a war in which all the battles have not yet
          > been fought.<<
          >
          > -- Is that really WHERE THE BRAINS ARE -- still
          > in the realm of the print media?
          >
          > And is the Internet a net plus or a net minus
          > for the Consciousness Soul? -- My prejudice is
          > that it is a net plus, as least it seems to be
          > for me. I like the (relatively) free
          > availability of such vast information; it seems
          > to be "food for thought" that makes my
          > Consciousness Soul stronger. But I also have
          > to admit that it might be apt to become an
          > addictive distraction from "real life". And
          > maybe it makes my Attention Deficit Disorder
          > worse? I would think that it might well have
          > that tendency for people who do not regularly
          > practice meditational thinking.
          >
          > And in the wider socio-political realm? --
          > Well, we might compare the modern citizenry of
          > the USA to the revolutionary Minuteman and the
          > sturdy Jeffersonian-Jacksonian peasant on his
          > freehold. It seems a dismal comparison;
          > considering, for instance, the effective fight
          > in the early years of the Republic against a
          > private central bank, as compared to the supine
          > submission to the falsely so-called "Federal
          > Reserve System" over the past 95 years. -- But
          > on the other hand, maybe that sturdy peasant
          > is mostly an idealized phantasm of wishful,
          > ignorant nostalgia? The good old days couldn't
          > have been all that good; else how could they
          > have degenerated so badly into the present?
          >
          > Anyway . . .
          >
          > I don't know the answers to all these
          > questions. Right now, I'm just putting them
          > out there, hopefully as a springboard for
          > fruitful discussion. But this much seems
          > clear: the Internet is here, for better or for
          > worse, and we're going to have to live with it
          > as best we can.
          >
          > Robert Mason
          >

        • happypick
          Robert Mason wrote: Dear Robert et al, Each and every point you ve brought up below is important, but I, myself, cannot take part in discussions involving
          Message 4 of 4 , Aug 10, 2008
          • 0 Attachment
            Robert Mason wrote:

            Dear Robert et al,

            Each and every point you've brought up below is important, but I, myself, cannot take part in discussions involving those such as Gennady Bondarev due to my adherence to Steiner as my source. In spite of the occasional  errors in translations, I at least feel on "sure ground," so to say, with Steiner. Thank you for introducing possible varying viewpoint(s).

            Best Wishes,

            Sheila

            To All:

            I ran across a blog by Michael A. Hoffman, who
            was discussing the publication and promotion of
            his new book:
            <http://revisionistr eview.blogspot. com/2008/ 07/war-of- ideas-and- promotion- of-judaism. html>

            For those who don't recognize the name, Hoffman
            is one of the deeper of non-Anthro thinkers and
            writers about the occult-political power
            structure. I think he coined the term
            *cryptocracy* . Unhappily, in the past year or
            two censorship on the public Internet computers
            that I use has been tightened, and so I can't
            get to his website. But this blog isn't on his
            site, and it slipped through.

            In the course of discussing his new publication
            he does bring forth some interesting and
            provocative ideas about the Internet and its
            relation to the consciousness and practical
            will of the public. Anthros may recall how
            Steiner taught that the Consciousness Soul in
            its outer, socio-political aspect arises
            instinctively in the English-speaking peoples.
            Of course, he said that almost a century ago,
            and we are now forced to ask how and why there
            so little of the Consciousness Soul culture
            manifesting in present socio-political
            formations, why the "sheople" are in such
            abject thrall to the "elite". I have brought
            some Anthroposophical musings by Gennady
            Bondarev on this question; basically his answer
            is that people (the world over) are under the
            very effective influence of the "black magic"
            of political occultisms of the Luciferic,
            Ahrimanic, and Asuric kinds. We might also
            consider, as have plenty of non-Anthro
            observers, the soul-deadening power of mass
            inoculations, fluoride poisoning, the
            "deliberate dumbing down" by the "educational"
            system, television, etc., etc. -- to which we
            can now add the increasingly sophisticated
            electro-psychotroni c onslaught. (About this
            last item, see here for one of the more
            tech-savvy and less far-out accounts:
            <http://www.bugsweep s.com/info/ electronic_ harassment. html>)


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