My Little New-Year-Speech, sort of...
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 11:48 pm
Subject: my little new-year-speech, sort of...
My dear fellow subscribers,
I's 2004, and a century ago, Rudolf Steiner
was lecturing to those old German hippies at the Theosophical
Society. Yes, they were old 19th century German hippies, those
first students of Rudolf Steiner in the early years of his public
mission. Friedrich Rittelmeyer, a Protestant theologian of the
bourgeois kind, with a butterfly in his belly longing to be a
New Ager, struggled through Steiner's strange writings about
two-petalled and sixteen-petalled lotus-flowers until his head
was spinning. And then one day, pastor Rittelmeyer came to Steiner's
den to hear him in person. Check this out:
"When I went into the
room I was surprised at the atmosphere I found there. The audience,
for the most part, gave one the impression of strangeness. A
certain type of passive, sensation-mongering mentality troubled
me. Especially when I saw men with long hair, my impulse was
to run away."
This was in 1911. Passive, sensation-mongering
men with long hair! Help me out Germans, how did they say,
"Cool, man, the Doctor's comin', and
he gets us a lot higher than HPB ever did. After the lecture,
we can have a smoke over at my place and check out my new Ouija
Board."
"Yeah man, the Doctor. He's a cool dude,
man."
And pastor Rittelmeyer wanted to run home,
but as the years went by, he became the most enthusiastic New
Age friend Steiner ever had, although he didn't let his hair
grow and probably didn't smoke.
Now to something else. I'm sorry about rubbing
Diana the wrong way when she was our guest here - those things
about worms and gremlins and all that. And I'm sorry she left
so soon instead of sticking around to defend PLANS' honor. I
didn't mean to be mean to her, and I hope i wasn't. I was only
beating up on PLANS because they're constantly beating up on
Anthroposophy and Rudolf Steiner, dragging it into the dirt and
making it look so ugly. I spent a total of ten months on the
WC list, taking beating after beating. Can't they endure more
than a couple of days?
Listen folks, if I'm too nasty to guests like
that, please let me know. I have a tendency to make circus and
theater out of things like that, flaming for the sport of it
so to speak. And that's not very Michaelic. We should think about
how Christ looks with compassion uopn Ahriman - a compassion
he cannot bear to see. We should smother our opponents with love,
making love and not war. We shouldn't succumb to the Luciferic
temptation of having fun with flaming; that's cruel and mean
and nasty. So I confess I have sinned against PLANS, and I have
sinned against WC. I've been hurting their feelings. Shame on
me. Why didn't you guys say anything?
Now I've been throwing some stuff at you -
about Asuras and Ahriman and Lucifer and Islam. I've been trying
to create some pictures about these topics by posting excerpts
and commenting on them. Otherwise, we might as well just go to
our arm chairs and read our RS lectures in peace and get together
afterwards here online and share insights. But this spontaneous
shooting of ideas and impulses is so much more fun. Christine
is wild with her articles and links about conspiracies and government
corruptions and dark secrets and nasty plots. Wow, she makes
my head spin, and we so want to get a little high from some of
these posts here, don't we? A sort of natural spiritual-science-high?
And Bradford writes so ferociously when he gets going that he
must be the fastest typist around here. How do you do it? This
isn't just copy-and-paste; it's stuff you actually write, like
I'm doing now, and this is taking me an eternity it seems. so
how do you do it?
Dottie, how can we know what to expect from
you, especially when your posts are full of questions sometimes?
Well, now it's my turn to ask YOU questions. How do you manage
to write that strange word of yours - is it whew? It trips me
out every time. And what's that strange combo of things you're
doing in L.A. - are you still in the City of Angels? Putting
street kids in the movies so they go from rags to riches?
Well, there are many more of you out there,
but I've gotta go. I just thought I'd write a more personal post
for a change to shoot the breeze a little.
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 5:22 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] my little new-year-speech,
sort of...
Good Morning Tarjei and Everyone!
Quick shoot-back before heading off Ahriman's
domain. I would just like to clarify something in regard to Tarjei's
comments. I belong to several Yahoo groups, as you have figured
out by now. Native American Storytellers, House of Metaphysics,
Weisse Rose and Trippy Dippy Hippys. When I forward y'all something,
it is just because I see something sychronicitous (is that a
word?), something related to discussions we are having or common
ideas. Some of the stories posted on Native American Storytellers
have been amazing.
Bradford and others have also contributed
some "dark politics" as we might say and I don't see
anyone criticizing them for it. I feel sometimes like I am being
put down for having these questions and wanting to share them.
1. Rudolf Steiner is not around anymore. Did
every possibility of revelation end with his death? Can absolutely
nothing of value come through anymore now that he is gone? Was
every word of his sacred and infallible?
2. Can we examine ideas of beauty and love
in a spiritual sense without being mocked and dismissed as airy-fairy
just because we may be feeling some emotion? Do ideas of God
and the Spirit have to be divorced from emotion to be true?
3. Can we examine current and past political
events and see the dark side that exists without being labeled
fanatics or conspiracy-mongers? I think Bradford said something
about fighting this with love (sorry, I'll look this up later).
Well I sort of disagree. I think it has to be fought with TRUTH.
Personally, I am contributing these things
and saying "THIS IS TRUE - YOU GOTTA BELIEVE IT" I
am saying that I see threads of ideas and intentionality and
I was under the impression that other people
here do too. This recent link to the Golden Light Fleet was brand
new to me but I was amazed at the specific way that they referenced
Christ and the Archangel Michael and made specific recommendations
that no one BELIEVE all the stuff going around without testing
it for themselves. Whether or not you agree that there can be
a resistance test in the body, too, it is an interesting idea.
Most people do not believe that resistance tests are valid for
physical substances, either, or that homeopathic remedies work.
Tarjei, I wrote quite a bit in reference to
Diana's time here. You did not comment or support what I said.
Is it only between you two and no one else has anything of value
to say?
Sometimes I feel a male arrogance going on
around here like, "Aren't those ladies cute? Yeah, but really
wacky!" And I agree with your own self evaluation, Taz,
that fighting negativity by calling people names is not necessarily
the way to establish the truth of the matter in question. That
is why I applauded you yesterday when you researched those fabulous,
to the point and very explicit quotes by Steiner on matters of
race. THAT to me is the way the fight can be fought - "just
the facts, ma'am."
Christine
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Jan 5, 2004 8:56 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] my little new-year-speech,
sort of...
At 14:22 05.01.2004, Christine wrote:
Bradford and others have also contributed
some "dark politics" as we might say and I don't see
anyone criticizing them for it. I feel sometimes like I am being
put down for having these questions and wanting to share them.
To the best of my recollection, the only person
you had a little problem with was Frank.
Tarjei, I wrote quite a bit in reference
to Diana's time here. You did not comment or support what I said.
Is it only between you two and no one else has anything of value
to say?
The left-handedness you were writing about
had nothing to do with the section about left- and right-handed
occultism, i.e. black and white magic. That's what Diana had
totally misunderstood in a comical way. That's what deserved
no comment. Your post kept spinning on Diana's sidetrack from
black and white magic into right- and left-handedness, as if
you shared her confusion. That is not my field, so there was
nothing for me to comment beyond what I wrote in that thread.
Sometimes I feel a male arrogance going
on around here like, "Aren't those ladies cute? Yeah, but
really wacky!"
Diana's ideas about anthroposophy and race
are wacky. That doesn't mean she doesn't have redeeming personal
qualities.
And I agree with your own self evaluation,
Taz, that fighting negativity by calling people names is not
necessarily the way to establish the truth of the matter in question.
I didn't call Diana any names. Rudolf Steiner
said materialists are burrowing like worms, because they move
under the soil and never realize there's something above the
ground. Diana chose to identify herself with PLANS.
That is why I applauded you yesterday when
you researched those fabulous, to the point and very explicit
quotes by Steiner on matters of race.
Your applause is misplaced; you owe it to
Frank:
http://southerncrossreview.org/steiner-race.htm
My post was only a copy of Frank's page; a
fact I declared openly. Frank's research, not mine. I just linked,
copied and pasted ONE page from "Southern Cross Review."
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Click to subscribe to anthroposophy_tomorrow
January/February
2004
The Uncle
Taz "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" Files
Anthroposophy & Anarchism
Anthroposophy & Scientology
Anthroposophical
Morsels
Anthroposophy,
Critics, and Controversy
