Open Letter to Frank Thomas Smith
- Dear Frank,
Since You pulled the plug on your Anthroposophy-World Yahoo Group, I
wasn't able to comment on your reasons and attend a proper funeral.
However, with the lively discussion here between "Thrice White" (Lucas
Dreier) and "Rocky, Keeper-of-the-Perennial-Shrubbery" (Peter S.) as
well as wonderful "almond gallery," as it were, comments from "The
People's Henry" (Volker Heinz) and "Guiding Star," (Guida Stella) on
the Critics List, I realize that this is the best forum to engage you
in discussing the mordant, melodramatic and most petulant suicide of
your own Internet list.
As self-appointed cyber-shaman of the Western world, I diagnose that
you are merely suffering from the cognitive dissonance known as an
"irony deficiency," which is epidemic among latter-day
anthroposophists. However, it can only be remedied by injections of
potentized Michaelic irony, (unlike the actual iron that did in
astrosopher Paul Platt, but that's another story.)
Your stated reason for pulling the plug was your terminal annoyance
with the people you referred to as "anthroposophical right wing whack
jobs," specifically, Robert Mason and Carol Canning, as well as
But therein lies the "irony deficiency." You see, I kind of like you
and miss you now as a classic "anthroposophical left wing whack job"
what with your gushing deification of our Black-Irish President-elect
Barry O'Bama, among many other leftist, liberal whackeries, etc.
However, I really believe that your railing against Robert, Carol and
Michael Howell as "right wing whack jobs" is but a displacement from
your real target, who is Rudolf Steiner himself, or rather Rudolf
Steiner as he was himself up to his death in 1925.
Let me vividly illustrate my point with a story from my active duty
military days. Back in December 1972, I was in US Army Basic Training
at Fort Jackson, South Carolina. It was unseasonably freezing then and
I was on my belly in prone position getting ready to squeeze off my
very last shot with my trusty M-16 during the sharpshooter qualifying
When the sergeant gave the signal, I was ready. Up popped the green
silhouette target at 25 yards. What an easy shot! I squeezed it off
confidently and put a hole in the German's well, then Viet Cong heart.
The target flopped down as it was supposed to. But then, a split
second afterwards, all our jaws dropped as the target at 300 yards
also went down!!! I had shot two gooks (sorry, I mean two targets)
with one and the same bullet. The sergeant was incredulous, but he
said, "Outstanding shooting, Private! You get credit for two hits."
It turned out that the extra hit qualified me for Expert and as word
of the exploit got back to the barracks, I was known from then on as
"Deadeye Dick" (sometimes more formally and affectionately expressed
as "Deadeye Dickhead") which was a resonating reference to both my
sharpshooting ability/serendipity as well as my almost literal
"dead-eyeness," as I didn't have contacts then and wore these thick
coke-bottom glasses which identified me as the indigenous dork'n'nurd
that I was back then. (However, by now I've done enough eurythmy to
transform most of my innate nurdliness into fructifiable dorkitude.)
Anyway, here's the analogy Frank: Robert, Carol and Michael, your
targets at 25 yards, ARE ALL DIRECTLY IN LINE WITH Rudolf Steiner at
300 yards!!! So if you are going to shoot Robert, Carol and Michael,
then you are also shooting Rudolf Steiner. So why not cop to it?
After all, the buck stops at Steiner. All these anthros wann be just
like he was. So if there are so many right wing whack jobs in
anthroposophy today, then consider the source!!! They didn't arise in
a vacuum, Frank, it's more like they popped fully formed from the head
of Steiner, just like Athena did from Zeus.
Look, if the Rudolf Steiner fossil, frozen in the time-amber of 1925,
were to be thawed out today and connected to the Internet, he would be
scouring the same websites as Robert, Carol and Michael. (Like Jeff
Rense's great anti-Zionist site http://www.rense.com/
That ossified Steiner would be a classic anti-Zionist,
Holocaust-questioning, right-wing conspiracy whack job. You want
evidence? Check out this recent exchange between Peter S. And Volker
PETER: Instead Steiner advocates what amounts to an assimilationist
form of anti-Semitism.
VOLKER: Somewhat different from the assimilationist line, is when he
allowed Karl Heise to change a prior lecture series of his, into what
amounts to a Masonic-"Jewish" conspiracy theory.
PETER: Yes, I agree that Steiner's usual line on Jews (at this point
in his life) was importantly different from Heise's version of
antisemitism, which was much more visceral and aggressive, though even
Heise's work includes some assimilationist strands. But Heise went on
to collaborate with the Nazis, whereas as someone like Ernst Uehli,
for example, another prominent anthroposophical race theorist, did
not. (For the rest of our listmates, what Volker and I are talking
about in this section is a 1919 book by anthroposophist Karl Heise
blaming World War I on freemasons and Jews in Britain, France, Russia,
and America -- the war itself was an attack on Germany, in
anthroposophists' eyes --- a book that Steiner actively supported,
partly financed, and for which he wrote a foreword; Heise's book was
inspired by Steiner's own lectures on the war and on the ostensible
connections between Jewishness and nationalism, and Heise wrote it at
VOLKER: And as you pointed out, he even paid for the publication of
the book plus wrote an "anonymous" (maybe he didn't want to offend
Carl Unger or so) foreword.
PETER: That is a hypothesis worth considering, that Steiner kept his
foreword anonymous so as not to offend anthroposophists with Jewish
backgrounds such as Unger. It may also be the case that Steiner simply
didn't want to complicate his own efforts to 'uncover the truth' about
the war at that point.
And this Heise book was 1919, so no use trying to blame the
Theosophists of 1902 to excuse Steiner.
So I ask you Frank, how is this book of Heise's with Steiner's preface
written for it any different from all the stuff that Robert, Carol and
Michael Howell bring up today about the vast
Illuminati-Freemasonic-Zionist-British and American dark secret lodges
all plotting with the international Jewish bankers to bring in
Ahriman's New World Order, the neo-Nazi Fourth Reich (espousing
Ecofascism with "Al Duce" Gore) now with "good cop" Obama replacing
"Bad Cop" Bush as the latest puppet on the Zionist-Illuminati strings?
Is there a way out of your dilemma, Frank? Yes, there is. Rudolf
Steiner was clear that when people reincarnate, they should be nothing
like they were before, even to the extent of repudiating who they were
before. Case in point, Rudolf Steiner himself, if we accept one of his
past lives as Saint Thomas Aquinas. You yourself soundly repudiate the
Catholic Church, just as Steiner repudiated Holy mother Church. So
wouldn't it stand to reason, even to faith? That Rudolf Steiner today
might very well be a liberal, left wing whack job in America who even
voted for Obama. Sorry Pete K., but hell, the Steiner-entelechy might
even be Lady Diana Winters herself. Look how closely your agreement
with her was about the right wing whack jobs whom you blame for
infecting your list. Damn, you did a great job of exterminating that
"vermin," along the same lines as Uncle Adolph did in first
dehumanizing before exterminating what he called the kosher vermin of
So my point is, Frank, that the critics are where the action is in
anthropoposhy today. What they are doing is consuming the rotting
flesh of the corpse of Anthropopsohia. Even Tarjei had a picture of
them as maggots, but they are doing God's work Frank, even Lucas
Dreier, our "Thrice White" would tell you that the critics are not a
mistake but rather their lovely Ahrimanic ways are all in line with
the dicvine plan, just like your attacks on Robert, carol and Michael
were in line with your attacks on Rudolf Steiner, or rather should I
I leave you with the Persian legend of the rotting doggie corpse. You
know Christ and his disciples are walking along the road and they spot
the carrion, and some of the disciples run up to hide Christ's view.
But JC rebukes them quietly by noting what beautiful teeth the dog
has. Well, the being Anthroposophia is that rotting dog today. Once
the Critics finally get through with their blessed work of consuming
the rot, then we shall be able to gaze upon her most beautiful and
And you know Frank what Steiner's exercise was for perceiving the
etheric body. He said mediatte on the human corpse, especially the
skeleton, and that will guide you to perceive the eteheric body in its
Yours truly ironically,
Father Tom, Judas Priest
- What part of it is well said? The parts that don't actually
contradict each other, he contradicted later the same day.
--- In email@example.com, "Brad Martin"
> Well said. Generalizing is one of the main faults at WC. On
> I wonder if the culprits are aware they are doing it.conversations
> Diana: > > Why are there so many people who can't stand the
> conversation here,
> > > yet can't stay away? At least I actually *like* the
> > > here. How dysfunctional is it to stay in a place where youdon't
> > > want to talk about any of the topics or to any of the people?my
> > -------
> > I'm talking to you about this topic. The issue is you don't like
> > comments. Too bad, and that's your problem, not mine -- in thesame
> > way you try to make your problems with Waldorf, Waldorf'sproblem.
> > The fact is you're WC-generalizing, again. It's not
> > *anthroposophists*. It's *anthroposophical extremists*.
> > In any school, there are perhaps dozens of anthroposophists. Many
> > most are normal people who have a life outside of anthroposophy.
> > few -- sometimes two or three, sometimes more than that -- arehave
> > anthroposophical extremists, and basically can't function or
> > unless one is talking 'Steiner'. You and your WC friends would
> > people believe the opposite, but you're wrong, sorry. Waldorfand
> > teachers are mostly just normal folks with a love for teaching,
> > for holistic, spirit-filled living.American
> > Applying your WC-slanted perspectives, all Catholic priests are
> > abusers; all politicans solicit for sex in washrooms; all
> > presidents are lying, murdering sons of bitches. The
> > bashing is pretty silly when put in proper perspective like that,
> > huh? Ridiculous and juvenile, more like.
> > And so now lay on the psychoanalysis, sister! Tell me everything
> > that's wrong with me and how I bother you, lol.
> > And BTW: your saying you don't think Frank is an anthroposophical
> > extremist and fundamentalist is pure BS. You just refuse to agree
> > with me when you know I'm correct. And guess what? It's a
> > manipulative response, meaning you're not that different from
> > those 'anthroposophists' you so love to badmouth.
> > Bruce