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

Open Letter to Frank Thomas Smith

Expand Messages
  • tmasthenes13
    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,
    Message 1 of 32 , Dec 8, 2008
      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
      Michael Howell.

      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
      Steiner's encouragement.)

      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
      his day.

      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
      say the

      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
      exquisite skeleton.

      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
    • winters_diana
      What part of it is well said? The parts that don t actually contradict each other, he contradicted later the same day. ... occasion ... conversations ... don t
      Message 32 of 32 , Dec 29, 2008
        What part of it is well said? The parts that don't actually
        contradict each other, he contradicted later the same day.

        --- In waldorf-critics@yahoogroups.com, "Brad Martin"
        <bradmartin@...> wrote:
        > Well said. Generalizing is one of the main faults at WC. On
        > I wonder if the culprits are aware they are doing it.
        > Brad
        > 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 you
        > > > want to talk about any of the topics or to any of the people?
        > >
        > > -------
        > >
        > Bruce:
        > > 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 the
        > > way you try to make your problems with Waldorf, Waldorf's
        > >
        > > 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
        > and
        > > most are normal people who have a life outside of anthroposophy.
        > > few -- sometimes two or three, sometimes more than that -- are
        > > anthroposophical extremists, and basically can't function or
        > dialogue
        > > unless one is talking 'Steiner'. You and your WC friends would
        > > people believe the opposite, but you're wrong, sorry. Waldorf
        > > teachers are mostly just normal folks with a love for teaching,
        > > for holistic, spirit-filled living.
        > >
        > > Applying your WC-slanted perspectives, all Catholic priests are
        > child
        > > abusers; all politicans solicit for sex in washrooms; all
        > > presidents are lying, murdering sons of bitches. The
        > anthroposophist-
        > > 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
        > dishonest,
        > > manipulative response, meaning you're not that different from
        > > those 'anthroposophists' you so love to badmouth.
        > >
        > >
        > > Bruce
        > >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.