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

yet another attempt at 7fold thinking

Expand Messages
  • RobertM
    PREAMBLE: Many months have passed since my last posted attempt at 7fold thinking. My personal trials have been such that I have had very little time free for
    Message 1 of 1 , Oct 15, 2012

      Many months have passed since my last posted
      attempt at 7fold thinking. My personal trials
      have been such that I have had very little time
      free for writing, and almost none online. And
      my mind has been so disorganized that I have not
      made much use Anthro-wise of even the little
      free time that I have had. But now, my trials
      have entered a new phase, and I have more free
      time. So I am attempting to write down some of
      the thoughts that I have had over the past
      months, and to organize these thoughts enough to
      bring them into enough focus, and to make them
      readable and (hopefully) useful. Over the
      recent months I have written down almost nothing
      of these thoughts, so here I am trying to
      recapitulate them from my very faulty memory
      and, again, to bring them to some kind of focus.

      I had previously been trying to "do" the kind of
      7fold thinking that Gennady Bondarev expounded,
      as I understood it. (Links to my previous
      approaches and attempts can be found here:

      More recently, during the past months, I had
      been casting about for a subject for another
      attempt, and I settled upon a problem that
      really bothered me and seemed to call for a
      solution. And still, I wanted to learn how to
      *think*; it seemed to me that I had not yet
      learned how to do it well enough. I might have
      made a little progress, but somehow it wasn't
      enough; real thinking was still so rare and
      difficult for me. So I needed the "practice",
      it seemed to me. Even more, the practice of
      thinking had become a *raison d'etre* for me; if
      I wasn't here on earth to do that, then what
      else was I here for?

      And on a more crass, but pressing, level: As I
      am getting older, I am worried about my material
      upkeep. I recalled the promise of Jesus Christ
      if we seek first the kingdom of God and His
      righteousness, then all other things (such as
      material upkeep) would be added unto us. My
      life-path had brought me to the point, and my
      heart seemed to demand, that I first of all had
      to learn to *think*. Thinking might not be as
      obvious a kind of "righteousness" as, say,
      feeding the hungry or clothing the naked,
      nevertheless it is real work that needs to be
      done; really, every kind of human activity
      depends first of all upon thinking. And Steiner
      has admonished the esoteric student to come to
      the realization that inner work is at least as
      important for the world as is outer work. I
      suppose that most people cannot appreciate my
      work upon thinking, but I am convinced that at
      least Christ does appreciate it. I came to, and
      held onto, the conviction that to try to think
      truly is to seek the kingdom of God.

      But, as one with a long history of ultra-
      scepticism, I am beset with the nagging doubt:
      Is it even possible to think truly, or if even
      so, to know it? All thinking is merely "a
      matter of opinion", isn't it? Is it even
      possible for human thinking to truly, knowingly
      grasp objective Reality? -- But, as I have
      learned over many long years, my touchstone of
      Truth must be my feeling for Reality. Doubt
      itself is a thought, and the question becomes:
      is the doubt or the conviction, the belief,
      *more real*? The question I must always ask
      myself is: am *I* being real or unreal in what
      I am saying and doing?

      And so, I present the following ruminations
      partly as a record of my own struggles, but also
      in the hope that they may help, or provoke,
      others in a forward direction in their own
      efforts in self-development. If, as Bondarev
      says, and I am inclined to believe, sevenfold
      thinking must come into the general culture if
      civilization is not to go to ruin, then it falls
      upon us to learn to *do it*. I hope that my
      attempts, however weak they may be, will help
      "us" to learn to *think truly*.



      The particular problem that bothered me, and
      that I wanted to solve, is the fact of
      opposition to Anthroposophy. Anthroposophy, of
      course, has always had opposition; in earlier
      times it was even murderous, as was shown in the
      arson of the first Goetheanum and the poisoning
      of Rudolf Steiner. But my experience of social
      Anthroposophy and of that opposition has been
      mostly on the Internet, so my conundrum stems
      mainly from that experience. I am limited
      mostly to the English language, so my experience
      has been mostly with English-language e-groups.
      I am vaguely aware that in some places,
      especially in Europe, more overt, forceful moves
      are being made in opposition to Anthroposophy,
      but so far these have not touched me directly,
      and so, again, my awareness of them is rather
      vague. My experience of such opposition has
      been mainly "virtual": of the open kind, as in
      the "Waldorf Critics" e-list, and of a more
      covert kind, within Anthroposophical e-lists.
      It has become painfully obvious to me that
      Anthroposophy attracts a lot of mentally ill
      people, both pro and con. I have had to deal
      with both over the years, and the illness isn't
      always apparent at first.

      I did post briefly on the WC e-list, about six
      years ago, starting with a topic that was
      tangential to Anthroposophy. My posts can be
      found here:























      I tried to turn the discussion from the
      tangential to a more basic consideration of
      Anthroposophy, and I left when it became
      apparent that no one there was willing to engage
      in a real discussion of anything substantial.
      That was six years ago, yet I have been peeking
      in over there, from time to time, in horrified
      fascination. And now, perhaps I am more puzzled
      by the activity there than I was before.

      My problem is that it somehow doesn't seem quite
      possible to me that such opposition could exist.
      (I am taking the WC list as a representative
      example of more widespread, overt opposition to
      Anthroposophy. Such opposition is mostly
      verbal, sometimes tending toward the political.
      The more direct, deadly kind of opposition, such
      as that which perpetrated the Fire and the
      Poisoning, is probably more conscious but also
      more secretive. Thus I have no direct
      experience of *that* kind of opposition.) I
      could understand that some opposition might
      arise from pure ignorance of Anthroposophy, or
      from garbled misinformation, but the kind of
      opposition that really bothers me doesn't come
      for ignorance or misinformation; many of the
      overt, public opponents (such as the core group
      on the WC list) are very knowledgeable about
      Anthroposophy, sometimes more so than most
      Anthroposophical proponents. It doesn't seem
      possible to me that someone could have studied
      Anthroposophy, could have read Steiner
      thoroughly, and not have seen the obvious Truth
      in basic Anthroposophical ideas. I can
      understand ignorance; I can understand
      misunderstanding; but I have a really hard time
      understanding knowing opposition to Truth. (Or
      maybe such opposition is only seemingly

      My experience on the Internet was first of all
      in an Anthroposophical discussion group. Right
      away, I ran straight into an intelligent occult
      charlatan, a putative Anthroposophist (Joel
      Wendt), and I was shocked and befuddled -- and
      then more and more enraged. I hadn't known that
      a creature such as Joel Wendt could even exist
      upon the earth. Maybe I should have, but
      somehow I didn't. Joel was devious, and hardly
      anything "pushes my buttons" like deviousness.
      I was enraged, but also confused: I would
      approach Joel, and then give up on him, then
      approach him again and give up on him again.
      Literally years passed before I started to get a
      handle on what was happening with Joel. (Seems
      that he considers himself to be the Maitreya
      Bodhisattva, kinda, in a way.) -- I also ran
      into another clever occult charlatan (Alexander
      Kieding), but that experience was more passing
      and less infuriating; he had a quicker
      intelligence but was also less devious than

      I also became aware of a more open, direct kind
      of opposition to Anthroposophy, on the "Waldorf
      Critics" e-list. I observed this mainly from
      the outside, but I followed the discussion there
      somewhat. (I surely didn't read everything, and
      still don't.) Then, this kind of open
      opposition didn't bother me as much as did the
      trickier, more covert kind of opposition as
      exemplified by Joel Wendt and his chosen mentor
      Valentin Tomberg. And I said then, I suppose
      that much the same principle was at work as when
      the scab is more hated than the boss or when the
      captured soldier is treated as an honorable
      prisoner of war and the captured spy is shot:
      the false friend seems to be more of an enemy
      than is the open, honest enemy.

      But now, for me, the situation is somewhat
      reversed. The occult charlatan is more
      understandable to me than is the more direct,
      open opponent. As Steiner tells us, occult
      development entails a tremendous revolution in
      the soul of the occultist, and when such
      development goes awry, insanity can result.
      Steiner repeatedly warned that methods of occult
      develop other than he recommended could have
      disastrous consequences. (He uses the term
      *lotus flower* to refer to the major organs of
      clairvoyant perception in the human subtle

      STEINER SAID [from *KoHW*]:

      ". . . . only such things are here imparted
      as are attended by no danger whatsoever to
      the health of soul and body. There are other
      ways which lead more quickly to the goal [of
      clairvoyance], but what is here explained has
      nothing to do with them, because they have
      certain effects which no experienced
      spiritual scientist considers desirable.
      Since fragmentary information concerning
      these ways is continually finding its way
      into publicity, express warning must be given
      against entering upon them. For reasons which
      only the initiated can understand, these ways
      can never be made public in their true form.
      The fragments appearing here and there can
      never lead to profitable results, but may
      easily undermine health, happiness, and peace
      of mind. It would be far better for people to
      avoid having anything to do with such things
      than to risk entrusting themselves to wholly
      dark forces, of whose nature and origin they
      can know nothing."

      "Now this [16-petalled] lotus flower may be
      made to develop in another way by following
      certain other instructions. But all such
      methods are rejected by true spiritual
      science, for they lead to the destruction of
      physical health and to moral ruin. They are
      easier to follow than those here described.
      The latter, though protracted and difficult,
      lead to the true goal and cannot but
      strengthen morally. The distorted development
      of a lotus flower results not only in
      illusions and fantastic conceptions, should a
      certain degree of clairvoyance be acquired,
      but also in errors and instability in
      ordinary life. Such a development may be the
      cause of timidity, envy, vanity, haughtiness,
      willfulness and so on in a person who
      hitherto was free from these defects."

      "As regards the esoteric student, the
      observance of these [6] principles is
      indispensable. Should he attempt esoteric
      training without conforming to them, this
      could only result in his entering the higher
      worlds with inadequate organs, and instead of
      perceiving the truth he would be subject to
      deceptions and illusions. He would attain a
      certain clairvoyance, but for the most part,
      be the victim of greater blindness than
      before. Formerly he at least stood firmly
      within the physical world; now he looks
      beyond this physical world and grows confused
      about it before acquiring a firm footing in a
      higher world. All power of distinguishing
      truth from error would then perhaps fail him,
      and he would entirely lose his way in life.
      It is just for this reason that patience is
      so necessary in these matters. It must ever
      be borne in mind that the instructions given
      in esoteric training may go no further than
      is compatible with the willing readiness
      shown to develop the lotus flowers to their
      regular shape. Should these flowers be
      brought to fruition before they have quietly
      attained their correct form, mere caricatures
      would be the result. Their maturity can be
      brought about by the special instructions
      given in esoteric training, but their form is
      dependent on the method of life described

      "These are the three ways of error into which
      the student can stray: (1) exuberant violence
      of will, (2) sentimental emotionalism, and
      (3) cold, loveless striving for wisdom. For
      outward observation, and also from the
      ordinary (materialistic) medical standpoint,
      anyone thus gone astray is hardly
      distinguishable (especially in degree) from
      an insane or, at least, a highly neurasthenic
      person. Of course, the student must not
      resemble these. It is essential for him that
      the three fundamental soul-forces, thinking,
      feeling, and willing, should have undergone
      harmonious development before being released
      from their inherent connection and
      subordinated to the awakened higher
      consciousness. For once a mistake is made and
      one of the soul-forces falls a prey to
      unbridled excess, the higher soul comes into
      existence as a miscarriage."

      (Robert resumes now:)

      An occultist becomes a charlatan because of
      his uneven development; the worlds on the other
      side of the Veil are inherently deceptive, and
      if he enters them without going through the
      soul-revolution in a completely healthy way, he
      is almost inevitably deceived; he is lucky if he
      doesn't go "crazy". As Steiner warns of the
      unevenly developed occultist: "All power of
      distinguishing truth from error would then
      perhaps fail him . . . ." I passed through
      years of frustration, bewilderment, and anger
      before I realized that such things were
      happening before my very (e-)eyes. But now, I
      don't get so angry or confused: the irregular
      development of clairvoyance can drive people
      mad; they might lose all power of distinguishing
      truth from error. It's all very comprehensible,
      and now I don't get so worked up about it.

      So now, for me, the more direct opponents of
      Anthroposophy, such as those in the "WC",
      present more of a puzzle. They might be less
      infuriating, but they are also less
      understandable. So much so, that even their
      existence seems impossible. But as a matter of
      plain fact they do exist, ergo their existence
      is at least possible. What does all this prove?
      -- In the first place it proves that something
      is wrong with Robert Mason's cognition. He has
      these thoughts that are obviously out of
      conformity with Reality. The next step for
      Robert, if he would have healthy, true
      cognitions, is to find out how and why his
      cognition has gone wrong here, to find out *how*
      it is possible that, for instance, the WC
      opponents exist.

      But of course his cognition hasn't gone
      completely wrong; he recognizes the existence of
      the WC; indeed he has been following the
      discussions there for a long time (not all of
      them, but at least skimming enough to
      "reconnoiter enemy activity", as it were).
      Still, he has only seen it "from the outside" in
      a deeper sense; he doesn't understand *how* such
      people as those in the WC (I mean the loudest,
      most persistent voices there) could be as they
      are and be doing what they are doing. They, as
      it seems, are not at all ignorant of
      Anthroposophy; it seems that many of them have
      read even more Anthro literature, including the
      "basic books", than have many Anthros. I don't
      see how any intelligent person could read so
      much and learn so little; I don't see how anyone
      could oppose such obvious, vital Truth with so
      much evident energy. I just don't "get it"; it
      doesn't seem possible, despite the plain fact
      that it is actual.

      I try and try to put myself in the place of
      those such as the core WC-people, to see it from
      their point of view, and ultimately I can't. I
      look back to my younger self, and I can see that
      as an ultra-sceptic I likely would have scoffed
      and sneered at Steiner. But then, I didn't know
      about Steiner, hadn't read him at all. I didn't
      know that Steiner addressed the epistemological
      problems of scepticism, and solved them. The
      course of my life had, after my life with
      scepticism, brought me to the point that, even
      before my encounter with Steiner, I was ready
      for more positive world-views and epistemologies
      than utter scepticism. But even at my most
      sceptical, I was always enough of a sceptic to
      be sceptical about my own scepticism. I now
      think that even then, had I met Steiner, I would
      not have turned against him with in complete
      rejection and opposed him with much energy; I
      would have always allowed the slight possibility
      that he was right. Or so at least I would like
      to think now.

      It seems fairly obvious to me now that the WC
      people are not really *sceptics*; they are
      negative dogmatists, and very energetic ones at
      that. In physics *energy* is defined as *the
      capacity to do work*. And the WC people, rather
      obviously, do accomplish a lot of work, after
      their own fashion. The question must be asked:
      where does all that "energy" to do all that
      "work" come from? The given explanations, the
      ones given in the WC writings, do not suffice.
      If these people were really concerned about the
      educational well-being of children, then they
      would direct most of their energy to the place
      where most of the real damage is being done: in
      the USA, that's the public schools. If they
      were really serious about opposing so-called
      "racism", they wouldn't fight so hard against
      the very man (Steiner) who has probably done
      more than anyone since Jesus Christ to defeat
      so-called "racism" in a real way, not merely an
      ideological one. And so on. The given,
      superficial reasons just don't stand scrutiny.
      It is evident that *something else* is
      generating all that energy; this "something
      else" is hidden beneath the surface.

      I have to come to the recognition that these
      people are not like me. Well, in itself that's
      no big deal; most of the people in this world
      are not like me, and that's a good thing; this
      world would be a sorry, sorry place if everyone
      were like me. But there's more to it than just
      that; these WC people don't seem to be like
      *people*. I have a very hard time trying to
      imagine how a human being who knows
      Anthroposophy fairly thoroughly could oppose it
      with so much evident energy. Seems to me, there
      really is something inhuman about it all. A
      human being encountering Anthroposophy might get
      scared and run away; I could understand that
      somewhat. But I do have a hard time
      understanding how a human being encountering
      Anthroposophy could stay and fight so hard
      against it so actively. A human being
      encountering Anthroposophy would see the Truth
      in it, and sometimes "the truth hurts". Most
      people don't like pain, and so I could
      understand that some people would just run away.
      But I have a much harder time trying to
      understand how a human being in that situation
      would stay where that pain is, live with it, and
      spend so much time and energy fighting against
      evident Truth. It doesn't seem human.

      Years ago, after my only sojourn within the WC
      e-list, as I was leaving, I got a mental image
      of the situation. It seemed to me that I was
      seeing a nest of snakes, many snakes entangled
      with each other and writhing, with some snakes
      going out and showing their fangs threateningly.
      And it seemed to me that this was a true image:
      there really is something inhuman about the WC,
      something reptilian. But those people do, at
      least on the surface, seem to be human. It was
      very disconcerting. About all I could do was to
      stop wasting my time there, and then to gape in
      amazement and consternation, and sometimes with
      horror. But always also with fascination; I
      kept returning again and again to peek in, and
      to try to figure out what was really going on

      -- To anyone who has experience of the soul-
      healing and soul-warming that comes from
      Anthroposophy, such people as those in the WC
      must be seen as . . . what? In me, they
      sometimes have provoked anger, but not as much
      as have some of the occult charlatans. More,
      they provoked amazement and consternation. And
      sometimes apprehension, for what they represent
      and what they are trying to do could become
      dangerous. And in some ways they already are
      dangerous and do real harm: they mislead people
      and deny them what some people might otherwise
      come to: the soul-healing of Anthroposophy.
      And this denial applies not only to living
      people, but also to the dead, who, perhaps, need
      Anthroposophy even more than do the living. But
      now, to me, the WC people seem more pitiable
      than anything else; they must be very unhappy
      people. They try to make the rest of the world
      as unhappy as they are; in that they are
      dangerous. But they are still pitiable. I
      suppose that some of them are merely being
      honest according to their own lights. But some
      of them, it would seem, are not even trying to
      be honest; still, even those are pitiable.

      Here are some remarks that I posted some years
      ago in response to someone who questioned my
      extension of "compassion" to the WC people:

      "Having compassion, even showing compassion,
      does not necessarily entail being an

      "Having compassion for someone does not
      necessarily entail tolerating the 'mischief'
      he does in the world.

      "Compassion is firstly an internal state of
      soul; to express it outwardly in a *really*
      helpful way surely does not mean to go along
      with any and all destructive actions that
      anyone might commit.

      "In a therapeutic situation, having *real*
      compassion for someone often entails a
      'therapeutic confrontation' -- which is the
      opposite of angry, retaliatory abuse. Such a
      confrontation entails 'speaking the truth in
      love'; even, or especially, when (as the
      saying goes) 'the truth hurts'.

      "In other situations (such as law
      enforcement, for example) real compassion
      might sometimes entail physical violence
      against the one for whom the compassion is
      deserved. Granted, it is humanly very hard to
      *feel* much warmth toward someone who is
      kicking you in the teeth at the moment, but
      in calmer moments, when the adrenaline has
      subsided, one need not retain the anger or
      hatred; one might reflect that letting
      someone get away with murder would not really
      do *that* person any real good (not even
      considering the harm that would be done to
      others and society).

      "After all, as Steiner said (somewhere; I
      don't have the quote handy), karma -- even
      'bad' karma -- is a wise gift of the loving
      Gods. If the Gods were to let us get away
      with our mistakes and misdeeds forever, we
      would likely slide irredeemably into some
      cosmic abyss. The real, active, wise
      compassion of the Gods gives us painful
      consequences for our misdeeds so that we
      might learn and purify ourselves. That's
      cosmic 'tough love' -- and it is real,
      effective love.

      "The WC people might not accept Truth in the
      present incarnation. But it's not our job to
      'change' them; we don't have that power, ergo
      we don't have that responsibility. And it is
      good that we don't have that power; the
      development of free will is the greater good,
      especially in the present Consciousness Soul

      "We don't need to let them waste our time; we
      don't have to crack our skulls beating our
      heads against their brick wall. But neither
      do we have to let ourselves be consumed by
      anger and bitterness toward them."

      (Robert resumes now:)

      Robert may have reached the point where he
      has risen above anger, as it were, but he is
      still so amazed that he is freaked out by the
      opposition such as that in the WC e-list,
      probably more freaked out now than he was years
      ago. I guess that he needs to come to the
      realization that some people are just not like
      him, not like him at all in relation to thinking
      and to Truth. Again, it's a very good thing for
      the world that not everyone is like Robert; "it
      takes all kinds to make a world", and thank God
      for that. But still, yet, the kind of
      "unlikeness" that is manifested in those such as
      the core WC people seems to be more than a
      merely human difference; it is something utterly
      alien. The evident energy that manifests in the
      WC activity must come from somewhere; I can
      imagine that "somewhere" to be only, in human
      terms, to be something like "hatred". Of
      course, some in the WC would deny that they are
      motivated by hatred, but that seems to me to be
      a denial of the obvious. Again, if they were
      motivated by real concern for the healthy
      education of children or for the hurtful effects
      of so-called "racism", then they would direct
      most of that energy into activities that might
      really ameliorate those evils, not against
      Anthroposophy. There is something altogether
      unreal about their alleged motivations, as well
      as something unreal about their activities

      I suppose that it is this unreality that seems
      so alien to me. I crave Reality, and it is
      unimaginable to me that some people could choose
      to live in unreality. In a famous book evil
      people have been defined, essentially, as
      "people of the lie". Now, I can understand
      lying as, for instance, a means of avoiding pain
      that might be inflicted upon one for telling the
      truth. But systematic, deep, inner-directed
      lying is something much less comprehensible for
      me. There seems to be no obvious "payoff" in
      that kind of lying; it seems so self-defeating
      for the practitioner that it's just about
      impossible for me to imagine a motivation for
      it. But then, yet again, I must presume that
      Robert must somehow come to accept that some
      people are not like him, so much so that they
      are incomprehensible.

      I would allow that in the WC direct, flat lies
      are relatively rare; what is more common is an
      overall misdirection, an unspoken falseness of
      purpose and an avoidance of basic realities.
      And again, I am far from having read all of the
      many posts over there, but I think that I have
      read enough to see the general trend. The WC
      people seem to love details, and their game is
      to draw Anthros and honest people into endless
      discussions of details, while avoiding basic
      facts underlying the whole enterprise.

      I can observe the WC from the outside, and I can
      fairly well see what they are doing and where
      they are heading, but I still have a hard time
      understanding it from the inside. As the saying
      goes, "it never ceases to amaze me". No matter
      how long I have been watching it, no matter how
      much everything there "is only to be expected",
      I still gape in astonishment. -- So, as a
      further exercise in my practice of 7fold
      thinking, I resolved to take this phenomenon,
      the WC and suchlike opponents of Anthroposophy,
      as a problem to be solved by thinking 7foldedly.
      For me, this is a real problem; until now my
      thinking about it had been quite inadequate.

      I was aware that I had probably gotten about as
      far as I could with this problem through
      ordinary consciousness; I needed to take the
      next step, into higher consciousness. And I was
      aware that, according to Bondarev, the next step
      was that of "beholding", of a pictorialization
      of the underlying "idea". I had already, years
      ago, come to a kind of mental picture of the
      situation, the picture of the "snake nest" as
      mentioned above. Perhaps this was already the
      needed "beholding"? -- But that picture hadn't
      brought me much understanding; I was still
      puzzled. I wanted to go further, so I sought
      more "beholding", another picture.

      While considering the overall problem, I did
      "get" a mental picture the Archangel Micha-El
      standing over the Dragon, with Rudolf Steiner
      somehow in front of the Archangel; perhaps the
      Archangel was holding him forward? And the
      Dragon was craning his neck, reaching his head
      around to bite Steiner. Still the Dragon was
      under the "feet" of the Micha-El, but he was
      straining to reach his head around to bite at
      Rudolf Steiner. -- Again the "enemy" was seen as
      reptilian, perhaps as the archetypal, the
      ur-reptile. I had to ask myself: is the
      pictured reptilian nature of the opposition
      somehow explanatory? I looked up some of what
      Steiner had said about reptiles and the Dragon.

      Firstly, the "dragon" is a symbol of debased
      forces that were within Man himself at previous
      stages of world-evolution; not only within but
      actually forming the proto-Man. A colletion of
      extracts from some of Steiner's lectures:

      "But since the worst forces [during the
      Lemurian age] had remained as the ingredients
      of the water-earth, and since these forces
      were dreadful elements, man's vapor-portion
      was drawn ever further down, and out of the
      earlier plant-form a being gradually evolved
      that stood at the stage of the amphibian. In
      saga and myth this form, which stood far
      below later humanity, is described as the
      dragon, the human amphibian, the lindworm.
      Man's other part, which was a citizen of the
      realm of light, is presented as a being which
      cannot descend, which fights the lower
      nature; for example, as Michael, the dragon-
      slayer, or as Saint George combating the
      dragon. Even in the figure of Siegfried with
      the dragon, although transformed, we have
      pictures of man's rudiments in their primeval
      duality. Warmth penetrated into the upper
      part of the earth and into the upper part of
      physical man, and formed something like a
      fiery dragon. But above that rose the ether
      body, in which the sun's force was preserved.
      Thus we have a form that the Old Testament
      well describes as the tempting serpent, which
      is also an amphibian."

      "We know that the earth was a water-earth,
      and the formation in the water attained an
      ever lower stage during the time preceding
      the departure of the moon. When the moon
      withdrew, man's lower nature was at about the
      stage of a great amphibian. This is what the
      Bible calls the serpent, and what is
      elsewhere called the lindworm or dragon.
      During the time when the moon was
      withdrawing, more and more of the animal
      kingdom had worked itself into the lower
      human form. When the moon finally left, man
      had a hideous animal-like form in his lower
      parts, although above he still had the last
      remnants of a light-form into which the
      forces of the sun flowed from without. It was
      still possible for the light-beings to work
      into man. He moved about in the primal ocean,
      floating and swimming, with this remarkable
      light-form protruding out of the water-

      "Think of the pleasure of seeing a beautiful
      glittering fish, a shining water-animal, and
      then think of the antipathy one feels toward
      a frog, toad, or snake, although these stand
      higher than the fish. The forms of that time
      appear in their decadence as the present
      amphibians, but man once had such forms in
      his lower corporeality. As long as man had
      only a lower corporeality to the hips, he was
      a sort of dragon. It was only later, when the
      upper body assumed solid form, that by use of
      this he transformed the lower. We may say
      that the fish reflects the form that man
      possessed through the forces he received
      while the sun was still united with the
      earth. Until the sun departed, man stood at
      the level of the fish."

      "Many a man might be ready to make up his
      mind to be a bull, a lion or an eagle as a
      price for immortality. That is, however, only
      the upper man. The continuation down below is
      a wild, savage dragon. Here you have the
      source of all the numerous sagas and stories
      of the dragon. Traditional religious
      symbolism has always given man the four
      pictures, — Man, Lion, Bull, Eagle; but it
      has given no more than indications, as, e.g.,
      in the account of the Fall, that a wild
      Dragon also belongs to man. The dragon,
      however, has its place in the totality of
      man, it is to be found there; and man has to
      say to himself: Lucifer is indeed able to
      promise you immortality — it is a sure and
      well-founded promise — but only at the cost
      of your form and figure, so that you go on
      living in the form you have become under the
      influence of Lucifer. . . . The animal is,
      moreover, tripartite and does not belong to
      the 'higher' animals; rather is man debased
      to the animal stage that exists on the Earth
      in the picture of an amphibian."

      "Man took on the most diverse forms, and when
      he had developed upward to the hip-level he
      was at his ugliest in his physical form. The
      shape he then had is preserved in a decadent
      form in the snake. The time when man had
      reached the amphibian form, when the moon was
      still in the earth, is the time of shame and
      degeneracy in the evolution of mankind. Had
      the moon not then departed from the earth,
      the race of men would have succumbed to a
      horrible fate, failing increasingly into evil
      forms. Hence the feeling that the naive and
      unspoiled person has toward the snake, which
      retains the form that man had at his lowest
      point, is entirely justified. Precisely the
      unspoiled soul-attitude, which does not
      assert that there is nothing ugly in nature,
      feels a revulsion before the snake, because
      it is the document of human shame. This is
      not meant in a moral sense, but points to the
      lowest stage in human evolution."

      "But since the worst forces had remained as
      the ingredients of the water-earth, and since
      these forces were dreadful elements, man's
      vapor-portion was drawn ever further down,
      and out of the earlier plant-form a being
      gradually evolved that stood at the stage of
      the amphibian. In saga and myth this form,
      which stood far below later humanity, is
      described as the dragon, the human amphibian,
      the lindworm. Man's other part, which was a
      citizen of the realm of light, is presented
      as a being which cannot descend, which fights
      the lower nature; for example, as Michael,
      the dragon-slayer, or as Saint George
      combating the dragon."

      (Robert resumes now:)

      Not only was Man's form reptilian, but his
      soul was in disorder; this disorder was
      symbolized by the "dragon". It took a pre-
      Earthly intervention by Christ to bring this
      disorder into order:

      "Mankind has preserved some memory of how
      human passion and human thinking were
      harmonized at this period by forces that
      descended from supramundane worlds, but the
      sign of this memory is not rightly
      understood. St. George who conquers the
      dragon, or Michael who conquers the dragon,
      are symbols of the third Christ event, when
      Christ ensouled Himself in an archangel. It
      is the dragon, trodden under foot, that has
      brought thinking, feeling and willing into
      disorder. . . . So the Sun Spirit became the
      guardian of the wild, stormy passions when
      they, as it sometimes happened, gushed forth
      in the fumes that rise from within the earth
      and break through its surface. If a human
      being should expose himself to them and allow
      only these vapors to work upon him, then
      thought, feeling and will would rage madly
      within him."

      ". . . . the third Christ event when Christ
      took for the third time the soul of an
      archangel as an outer vehicle. Mankind has
      preserved some memory of how human passion
      and human thinking were harmonized at this
      period by forces that descended from
      supramundane worlds, but the sign of this
      memory is not rightly understood. St. George
      who conquers the dragon, or Michael who
      conquers the dragon, are symbols of the third
      Christ event, when Christ ensouled Himself in
      an archangel. It is the dragon, trodden under
      foot, that has brought thinking, feeling and
      willing into disorder. All who turn their
      gaze upon St. George or Michael with the
      dragon, or some similar episode, perceive, in
      reality, the third Christ event."

      (Robert resumes now:)

      But not only does the "dragon" belong to the
      past; he is very much active in the present. He
      is still part of the inner Man, and he works in
      outer culture:

      ". . . . Michael, who was formerly the bearer
      of the Jehovah-mission, is now the bearer of
      the Mission of the Christ. . . . . Michael
      did not fight this Dragon in the ages that
      are past, for then the Dragon which is now
      meant was not yet a Dragon; it will become a
      Dragon if those concepts and ideas which
      belong only to natural science were to be
      used to construct the world conception of the
      coming age. For the monster that will then
      rear its head amongst mankind will be rightly
      seen in the picture of the Dragon that must
      be vanquished by Michael, whose Age begins in
      our own time. That is an important
      Imagination, — Michael overcoming the Dragon.
      To receive the inflow of spiritual life into
      the sense world, — from now on, that is the
      service of Michael. We serve Michael by
      overcoming the Dragon that is trying to grow
      to his full height and strength in ideas
      which during the past epoch produced
      materialism and which now threaten to prolong
      their life on into the future. To defeat this
      means to stand in the service of Michael.
      That is the victory of Michael over the
      Dragon. It is the old picture over again,
      which for earlier times had another meaning
      and which must now acquire the right meaning
      for our age. When we are conscious of the
      part we have to play as men of a new age,
      then our task can stand before us in the
      picture of Michael conquering the Dragon."

      (Robert resumes now:)

      And *that* is the real meaning of the symbol
      of the "dragon" in the present: the Dragon is
      the materialism that permeates outer culture.
      And it is easy to understand why the Dragon
      "bites" Rudolf Steiner: Steiner was the
      foremost public representative of the new,
      profoundly Christian, cultural force that has
      the real power to overcome materialism. And it
      is easy to see why Micha-El "holds forth" Rudolf
      Steiner: Micha-El is the "countenance of
      Christ" in the spiritual worlds; on Earth Rudolf
      Steiner brought "Michaelic" culture in a
      powerful, intellectually rigorous way that is
      capable of Christianizing the culture through
      and through, to its roots. Of course the
      Dragon-spirits hate Rudolf Steiner and seek to
      destroy him and his works.

      Jesus Christ said: "Give not that which is holy
      unto the dogs, neither cast ye your pearls
      before swine, lest they trample them under their
      feet, and turn again and rend you." [Matthew
      7:6] Around the turn of the 20th Century an
      initiated, true occultist, Rudolf Steiner, with
      help from Above, read the signs of the times and
      decided that the time had come to cast some of
      the pearls before the swine. That is, he gave
      out Anthroposophy publicly. And some "swine"
      did indeed try to "rend" him. In his lifetime
      they tried to kill him, literally. Marie
      Steiner said, in her epitath for Rudolf:

      "How could he escape being hated with all the
      demonic power of which Hell is capable?

      "But he repaid with love the misunderstanding
      brought against him.

      "He died-a Sufferer, a Leader, an Achiever
      In such a world as trod him under foot
      Yet which to raise aloft his strength sufficed.
      He lifted men; they cast themselves before him,
      They hissed with hate and blocked his forward way.
      His work they shattered even as he wrought it.
      They raged with venom and with flame;
      And now with joy they brand his memory:- . . .

      "'We demons cannot suffer such a thing.
      We harry, hunt, pursue who dares such deeds
      With all those souls who give themselves to us,
      With all those forces which obey our will.'"

      (Robert resumes now:)

      The word which is translated here as *venom*
      is in German *Gift*, literally *poison*. Frau
      Steiner's epitath is a fairly clear reference to
      the Poisoning and to the Fire as deliberate acts
      of demonic opposition to Anthroposophy. Indeed,
      Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy were "hated
      with all the demonic power of which Hell is

      And still today they, the demons of Hell and
      their Earthly agents, try to "kill" Rudolf
      Steiner's ongoing works. This is all very
      understandable. So, what is Robert's problem in
      understanding all this? -- I suppose that my
      problem is that, while I can understand how and
      why non-human, supersensible spirits, in their
      totality symbolized by the Dragon, would fight
      against the Christ and His representatives on
      Earth, I still can't quite understand how human
      beings on Earth could join forces with the
      "Dragon" in this undertaking. It doesn't seem
      human; it's inhuman.

      Again, I suppose that, if Robert is to bring his
      thinking into accord with obvious facts, he
      must, finally, come to accept that not all
      people are like him; he must accept the fact of
      human free will and respect the choice that some
      people make: to do the apparently inhuman. In
      his sojourn in the WC e-list Robert made this
      attempt to explain the "opposition" he saw,
      writing to the prominent voices there:

      "I have to suspect that your ongoing, endless
      fight against Anthroposophy on this list is
      some kind of 'reaction formation' against the
      deep knowing in your hearts: deep down,
      Anthroposophy does "move" your hearts, and --
      for some reason, or perhaps better said, for
      some *cause* -- this 'movement' within your
      souls provokes fear, and then this fear
      manifests in your conscious lives as your
      obsessive fight against that which 'moves'

      "-- In down-to-earth terms, this 'reaction
      formation' might be partially explained by
      the concepts of 'bio-energetics' (or
      'orgonomics') originated by the late Wilhelm
      Reich: There is an intimate connection
      between our human emotions (feelings) and
      physical bodies (organisms). Painful feelings
      that are not expressed can get 'stored', as
      it were, in our bodies, especially in our
      system of musculature. The muscles (or
      perhaps other organs) hold these painful
      emotions in a rigidified, unconscious state,
      and they can be 'stored' for many years, even
      a lifetime. Reich calls this rigidified
      musculature *armor* (*Haltung*). But 'life
      energy' flows through the body; healthy
      energy flows and pulsates. If the energy
      does not flow and pulsate, it becomes stale
      and poisonous. The 'pain energy' that is
      trapped in 'armor' really does become
      poisonous. And when healthy life-energy is
      aroused, it pulsates and tries to flow though
      the body, through the muscles. But when this
      flowing energy hits against the rigid
      'armor', a conflict erupts. The flowing,
      healthy energy tries to loosen the rigidified
      armor, to break it up, but when the armor
      starts to come loose those old, stored
      painful feelings start to come to the
      surface. And one feels, rightly in a way,
      that one is being flooded with a poison,
      perhaps even that one's 'self' (the only self
      that one has consciously known perhaps for
      one's whole life) starts to break to pieces.
      One feels that one is coming to pieces and
      being flooded with a painful poison from
      within. And so one might react with fear,
      panic, anger, even hatred -- not so much
      against the old, stored pain, but against the
      flowing, healthy life-energy, and thus
      against whatever set that energy into motion.
      The paradox is that in order to feel the
      healthy, healing life-energy one must in the
      very process also feel the old, stored,
      poisonous pain. And many people cannot bear
      that paradox; they panic, 'clamp down',
      'freeze up' -- anything to avoid the
      upwelling pain, to maintain the old,
      'armored' body, the rigidified "character
      structure, and thus to stop the flowing of
      the life-energy. And they may turn in hatred
      against that which evokes the flow of life-
      energy within themselves, and try to push
      away that 'thing', that stimulus of life,
      perhaps even to destroy it, to kill it. The
      killing of that source of life becomes, in a
      sick but understandable way, a matter of
      survival for the one in panic. And there is a
      'logic' of sorts in this whole process; in
      order to feel healthy 'life', one must feel
      pain; but one naturally wants to avoid pain,
      so one must avoid healthy life -- but not
      only avoid it, for the existence of any
      potential stimulus of life-energy is a threat
      to oneself, and therefore any such potential
      must be fought, must be stamped out.

      "I really do suspect that this endless,
      obsessive fight against Anthroposophy derives
      from a deep, unconscious knowing within your
      hearts. Anthroposophy 'moves' you, but for
      some reason you cannot tolerate this
      movement, and so you shun Anthroposophy. But
      you can't just leave it alone; deep down you
      'know' that it touches your deepest longings,
      and so you are obsessed with it. Your
      obsession takes the conscious form of a fight
      against Anthroposophy, but this fight is at
      base your fight against your own 'inner
      movement'. The fight is only the flip side
      of the coin of your longing; but it's still
      the same coin."

      (Robert resumes now:)

      Of course this explanation met with no
      agreement on the WC list. I tried to explain
      the opposition in human terms: the "choice" to
      do the inhuman was really unconscious,
      unknowing, Even without reaching for spiritual-
      scientific concepts, I could see the ongoing
      fight against Anthroposophy as a panicky,
      subconscious fight against one's own internal
      pain. That's fairly comprehensible in human
      terms. -- But now, years later, this explanation
      doesn't seem quite so explanatory; I'm even more
      freaked out by the WC than I was then. The
      ongoing opposition is so deep, so tricky, so
      perverse, that I can't quite "see" it in human
      terms, as analogous to my own experience. I can
      "see" how a human being might panic and turn
      against Anthroposophy in fear and even hatred,
      but it's a lot harder for me to "see" how a
      human being could stay with that effort for
      years and years, going into endless details,
      with apparently unabated energy. It does seem
      that a human being at least would get tired of
      it all after a while. And I suppose that some
      of the WC people have gotten tired; some have
      disappeared, but the core group goes on and on.
      Mere panic or even merely human hatred doesn't
      seem to explain it.

      Maybe it isn't really human? -- We have no
      guarantee that every creature that outwardly
      resembles a human being is really human. Even
      ordinary psychology has the concept of the
      *psychopath*, of apparently human beings who are
      somehow fundamentally "alien", who have no
      apparent conscience and act in ways that
      seemingly no human being could. And spiritual
      science tells us of demons in human form;
      ordinary science can't quite come to that
      explanation but gropes toward the concept of the
      *psychopath*. -- Maybe some "people" in the
      opposition are not really people at all? That
      might well be, but I don't feel competent to
      make such a judgment in any particular case; I
      simply don't have the knowledge and
      understanding to do so. It is not given to one
      human being to judge the soul of another human
      being, even of a putative human being. Of
      course sometimes some people are forced by
      practical circumstances to make practical
      judgments, but I don't think that any ordinary
      human being, surely not one of my standing,
      could make such a judgment in an ultimate sense.
      Really, I must give the other fellow the benefit
      of the doubt; even if he behaves in apparently
      inhuman ways, I must go on the "working
      assumption" that he is a human being somehow
      caught up in inhuman activities. I must grant
      that this assumption might be wrong, but I can't
      claim to have enough knowledge to "write off" a
      possibly human being as being inhuman.

      But still, to me, their behavior does *seem*
      inhuman. At Steiner said (from sparse notes):
      "The rejection of spiritual wisdom is a sin
      against the Holy Spirit." That, as Jesus Christ
      said, is the one sin that cannot be forgiven:
      "But he that shall blaspheme against the Holy
      Ghost hath never forgiveness, but is in danger
      of eternal damnation." [Mark 3:29] The core WC
      people do seem to know the "spiritual wisdom" as
      expressed in Anthroposophy and they not only
      reject it, over and over and over, but they seem
      to be trying to get the whole world to reject it
      also. They are not only sinning against
      themselves; they are sinning against the whole
      world. This world, obviously, desperately needs
      help, and help has been given from above in the
      form of Anthroposophy. Not only this world of
      the living, but also the world of the dead needs
      the help of Anthroposophy. It is the utmost
      cruelty to try to deny such help to those who so
      desperately need it. And the WC people (at
      least the core group) do seem to know
      Anthroposophy; they have surely read a lot of
      it. They do not reject Anthroposophy from pure
      ignorance, but knowingly. And that is what
      seems so inhuman.

      But I do still have to wonder how "knowing"
      their rejection really is; I suspect that for
      many of them, maybe most of them, this rejection
      takes place mainly in the subconscious mind.
      Perhaps they don't quite know the true
      dimensions of their cruelty and perversity? -- I
      suspect that opponents exist who do really,
      consciously know, but I also suspect that
      *those* are far more secretive than the WC
      people. The WC people are "out there" in
      public, and yet I, somehow feel that I must give
      them the benefit of the doubt. I must hold it
      to be possible that the WC people have given
      themselves unconsciously to truly inhuman
      spirits of opposition, and that is why these
      people *seem* to be inhuman. I still must allow
      the possibility that some people might be so
      unlike Robert Mason that they could
      unconsciously or semiconsciously ally themselves
      with inhuman, evil spirits and do the inhumanly
      perverse, perhaps from overwhelming,
      subconscious fear and pain. Maybe.

      And yet . . . still . . . all this does not
      quite answer my questions. Even if this benefit
      of the doubt be warranted, then how, why do
      these truly inhuman spirits of opposition even
      exist? -- While researching Steiner-saids on
      this general topic, I ran across the following
      from the notes of his early lecture on "The

      "The deep and profound thought here [in the
      Temple Legend] contained is the following:
      the darkness must be overcome through the
      Kingdom of Light, through the mingling of the
      Good with the Evil, in order that the Evil
      may be redeemed, but not through punishment.
      The conception underlying this is also that
      of Theosophy, namely that Evil is only an
      untimely Good. . . . From the Kingdom of
      Light a spark is sent into the Kingdom of
      Darkness in order that through itself the
      Darkness may be redeemed, in order that Evil
      may be overcome through gentleness (Milde).
      We must explain the confluence of Life and
      Form out of the cooperation of Good and Evil.
      Life becomes form through finding opposition.
      . . . The Good of an earlier age unites with
      the Good of a newer age. That gives at the
      same time the possibility of material
      manifestation, the possibility of manifested
      existence. That is the doctrine of
      Manicheanism. . . . But Evil will also be
      there [in the Sixth Root Race] as a mood and
      a disposition (Gesinnung) without any
      covering, within a large number of human
      beings. They will extol Evil. Some inkling in
      regard to the Evil in the Sixth Root Race
      glimmers in many men of genius. (Nietzsche's
      Blond Beast is a portent of this Evil in the
      Sixth Root Race.) The task of the Sixth Root
      Race is to draw Evil again into itself
      through gentleness (Milde). . . . Peace,
      Love, and Non-resistance to Evil."

      (Robert resumes now:)

      What I get from this is that "Evil" must
      exist. This is an old, old thought, but one
      that is still always hard for me to grasp: evil
      exists for the sake of the greater good; the
      existence of evil is not a defect in the world,
      but something which is necessary for greater
      perfection to exist. From the same lecture:

      "Life becomes form through finding
      opposition. It does not all at once express
      itself in a form. Only consider how Life
      hurries from form to form. Life has fashioned
      the lily, then Life overcomes the Form and it
      passes over into the seed out of which a new
      form will be born. Life is formless it could
      (not?) live out its own nature in itself.
      Life is everywhere. The limited form is the
      hindrance. There would be no forms if Life
      were not obstructed and arrested in its
      forces which stream out in every direction.
      Form grows precisely out of that which at
      higher stages appears as fetters."

      (Robert resumes now:)

      And from an apparently later lecture:

      "To the Manicheans, however, Evil is an
      integral part of the cosmos, collaborating in
      its evolution, finally to be absorbed and
      transfigured by the Good."

      (Robert resumes now:)

      Again, what I get is that for even the forms
      that life takes on to exist, some kind of
      opposition ("evil") must also exist. If "evil"
      did not exist, then life would be formless; not
      even human forms could come into being. And if
      human forms could not exist, then neither could
      human evolution with its growth toward the
      possibility of Freedom and Love. -- So, it must
      be that "the Dragon" is in the world; the world
      would be incomplete and less good without him.
      If the WC people seem monstrous, then I have to
      allow that monsters must be in the world; this
      world would be incomplete without them. They
      might seem inhuman, and it might seem that it is
      impossible for them to exist, but that Robert's
      problem, a problem with Robert's cognition; it
      is not a problem with the world.

      So, what does all this add up to? -- I would
      guess that Robert just has to come to grips with
      the fact that opposition to Anthroposophy
      exists. This opposition might well be informed,
      clever, diligent, and energetic. It's here, and
      it's not going away easily. And it might get
      worse. It's already worse than I would have
      imagined; how much worse could it get? One
      thing that freaks me out about the WC is the
      apparent youth of some of the participants. I
      had thought that, with the advent of the "New
      Age" and all, opposition to spiritual endeavors
      and world-views had become mainly the work of
      ossified old fudds, and that such opposition
      would die out with them. But now I must admit
      that new generations of the "ossified" are
      growing up and working with youthful energy.
      This really surprises me, but I have to believe
      the evidence of my own eyes. And I must
      extrapolate into the future the onset of more
      energetic working of that kind. How far could
      this go?

      I would have to suppose that it could go as far
      as the direct, forceful, political police-state
      repression of Anthroposophy. The WC people now
      might deny that they favor any such thing;
      nevertheless they are preparing the ground for
      it. Anthroposophists might be in for a very
      rough ride in the not-too-distant future, and we
      had better get prepared for it, mentally and
      morally. Indeed, as Steiner said, Anthroposophy
      might have to survive for centuries "in the
      catacombs". Of course the allusion was to the
      early Christians meeting in the Roman catacombs,
      and of course they were not hiding there; the
      Roman authorities knew very well what was
      happening, but they did not molest the
      Christians there out of respect for the dead.
      For the Romans these early Christians were under
      the protection of the dead in the catacombs. In
      the future I would expect that the repressive
      political authorities would not be so
      superstitious, and that the Anthros would have
      to be more resourceful and imaginative to

      Could this really happen? -- It seems far-
      fetched in the USA [I live in the USA], but in
      Canada and some parts of Europe it's already
      almost happening. "Hate-speech" laws are in
      effect there, and people have actually been put
      in prison because of them. This is no joke; in
      the USA repression of free speech is mostly
      economic, but in much of the so-called "free
      world" it is already enforced by the state. And
      it isn't much of a stretch to see how "hate-
      speech" laws could be construed to apply to
      Anthroposophy. Already the chief accusation
      against Anthroposophy in the WC and suchlike
      circles is that it is "racist". Such
      accusations are now all over the Internet . . .
      and, no, it's not much of a stretch at all to
      imagine that some enterprising opponent might go
      to the authorities and try to get Anthros
      prosecuted under "hate-speech" laws.

      Here are some extracts from remarks that I
      posted online back in 2007:

      "We all know very well that Anthroposophy has
      always aroused fierce, even murderous,
      opposition: witness 'The Fire' and the (very
      probable) poisoning of Steiner himself. And
      those of us who are paying attention to
      current world events (at least those of us
      who are not blinded by prejudice against
      'conspiracy theories' etc.) have to be aware
      that deeply evil forces are working to gain
      world power, have already gained much, and
      are at the point of making a desperate gamble
      for total power. This is becoming so obvious
      that many observers, even non-occultists and
      non-Anthros such a Alex Jones, see that dark
      occultism is behind this power grab.

      "And we should be aware that the demonic
      beings who inspire these power occultists
      have a deep, abiding hatred for the Christ
      and for human freedom. It follows that these
      beings do have very unpleasant intentions
      toward real Christianity on Earth, and
      therefore especially toward Anthroposophy as
      the prime public, cultural manifestation of
      the Christ working toward true human freedom.
      If anyone might doubt just how unpleasant
      these intentions can be, one need only
      consider the mountains of human corpses piled
      up in the last century by political power.

      "And those of us who keep an eye on the
      Internet probably have some idea of how such
      hatred manifests in the campaign against
      Anthroposophy as being 'racist' etc. Many of
      us have had some experience with the 'Waldorf
      Critics', who (at least the most active among
      the regulars there) reveal this hatred
      relentlessly at work. Probably most of those
      WC people are not conscious of the forces
      that move them, or of where their efforts are
      ultimately leading, but the destructive,
      perverse energy is readily apparent there.
      And if one keeps an eye out over there, one
      might sometimes even run across some useful
      information, for instance:

      "(Yahoo waldorf-critics: Message #545:
      'Germany is considering to censor Steiner')

      ">>Alex Rühle reports that Germany is
      considering whether to censor two volumes
      from the collected works of Rudolf Steiner
      for racist content. A new study by historian
      Helmut Zander - ('Anthroposophie in
      Deutschland', Vandenhoeck & Ruprecht),
      examines the attitudes of this founder of the
      Waldorf Schools, and shows how he reflected
      the thinking of his day. In two lecture
      series, one from 1908 and the other from
      1910, Steiner 'investigated the various human
      races in terms of their skin colour and their
      standing in the development of humankind.' In
      short, says Zander, Steiner found 'blacks to
      be an imperfect, earlier model, whereas
      whites are the fulfilment of the goal of
      human evolution... He formulated an ethnology
      in which the terms 'degenerate,' or
      'backward,' or 'future' races was not
      accidental, but rather the result of a well
      planned evolution curriculum.'<<

      "Robert continues:

      "Of course the campaign of destructive
      distortion against Anthroposophy springs from
      causes far deeper than any putative concern
      about so-called 'racism', but in this charge
      of 'racism' the enemies of Anthroposophy have
      found a bludgeon that sometimes 'works' all
      too well in the current political-cultural
      climate. And this bludgeon can be more deadly
      in much of Europe now than in the USA. In
      much of Europe the traditions of 'freedom of
      speech' are much weaker than in the USA, and
      people who say the 'wrong' things can be, and
      are, put into prison on a regular basis. Here
      is an instructive recent example:

      *The Brussels Journal* 'Secularist Europe
      Silences Pro-Lifers and Creationists' From
      the desk of Paul Belien on Sat, 2007-06-23

      ">>Last week, a German court sentenced a 55-
      year old Lutheran pastor to one year in jail
      for 'Volksverhetzung' (incitement of the
      people) because he compared the killing of
      the unborn in contemporary Germany to the
      holocaust. . . . Without legalized abortion
      the number of German children would increase
      annually by at least 150,000 -- which is the
      number of legal abortions in birth dearth
      Germany. Pastor Johannes Lerle compared the
      killing of the unborn to the killing of the
      Jews in Auschwitz during the Second World
      War. On 14 June, a court in Erlangen ruled
      that, in doing so, the pastor had 'incited
      the people' because his statement was a
      denial of the holocaust of the Jews in Nazi-
      Germany. Hence, Herr Lerle was sentenced to
      one year in jail. Earlier, he had already
      spent eight months in jail for calling
      abortionists 'professional killers' -- an
      allegation which the court ruled to be
      slanderous because, according to the court,
      the unborn are not humans. Other German
      courts convicted pro-lifers for saying that
      'in abortion clinics, life unworthy of living
      is being killed,' because this terminology
      evoked Hitler's euthanasia program, which
      used the same language. In 2005, a German
      pro-lifer, Günter Annen, was sentenced to 50
      days in jail for saying 'Stop unjust
      [rechtswidrige] abortions in [medical]
      practice,' because, according to the court,
      the expression 'unjust' is understood by
      laymen as meaning illegal, which abortions
      are not. . . . <<

      "Robert continues:

      "The inmates have been running the asylum in
      Germany for a long time, but now they are
      apparently not even pretending to be sane.
      For many years anyone there who publicly
      expressed doubts about the official history
      of the 'Holocaust' has been liable to time in
      the slammer, but now even someone who
      expressed no such doubts at all but only
      likened the abortion plague to the putative
      'Holocaust' has been put in prison for . . .
      'denial of the holocaust'. . . .

      "It's not much of stretch to see that if
      criticism of abortion could be
      'Volksverhetzung', then promulgation of such
      Anthroposophical 'racism' as cited above
      could be just as well. If we don't think that
      the widespread campaign against Anthro
      'racism' isn't working toward such legal
      attacks, especially in Europe, then I think
      we are being naïve indeed. Again, maybe not
      all these 'critics' of Anthro 'racism' are
      conscious of this tendency, but nevertheless
      they are in fact preparing the ground.

      "To get a fuller view of the political
      climate in Europe, we can read more of the

      ">>In Germany, believing [sic] abortion to be
      as murderous as the holocaust is a crime, and
      educating your own children is a crime too.
      In France, saying that 'homosexual behaviour
      endangers the survival of humanity' is a
      crime, and so is the distribution of pork
      soup to the poor. In Belgium, speaking out
      against immigration is a crime. In the latest
      issue of the Dutch conservative magazine
      Bitter Lemon the Dutch author Erik van Goor
      writes that European courts are silencing
      conservative and orthodox citizens. <br/><br/>(Message over 64 KB, truncated)
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.