WC Quote of the Day 2
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 4, 2004 5:36 pm
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
And I thought it was Anthroposophy
that was ultra-conservative.
- Dan Dugan, Nov 30, 2003
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Jan 7, 2004 10:26 pm
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
"I guess Waldorf Critics
are not the only people concerned about the concept of genocide
with a spiritual twist."
- Walden, Jan 05, 2004
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Wed Jan 7, 2004 11:20 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
It would indeed be a sad world if they were
the only ones.
Daniel
"I guess Waldorf Critics
are not the only people concerned about the concept of genocide
with a spiritual twist."
- Walden, Jan 05, 2004
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 12:37 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Daniel, you wrote:
It would indeed be a sad world if they
were the only ones.
My resaon for selecting this quote is that
it says Waldorf teachers and anthroposophists endorse genocide.
We are war criminals, mass murderers, and serial killers.
Tarjei
I guess Waldorf Critics
are not the only people concerned about the concept of genocide
with a spiritual twist."
- Walden, Jan 05, 2004
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 1:17 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
I should have mentioned it: This WC Quote
of the Day was fetched from a thread with this title:
Another anthroposophist approves
of genocide
Perhaps we should take poll to find out how
many anthroposophists on this list approve of genocide.
Tarjei
I guess Waldorf Critics
are not the only people concerned about the concept of genocide
with a spiritual twist."
- Walden, Jan 05, 2004
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Thu Jan 8, 2004 9:47 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
I'll get around to that allegation eventually...
Daniel
Daniel, you wrote:
It would indeed be a sad world if they
were the only ones.
My resaon for selecting this quote is that
it says Waldorf teachers and anthroposophists endorse genocide.
We are war criminals, mass murderers, and serial killers.
Tarjei
I guess Waldorf Critics
are not the only people concerned about the concept of genocide
with a spiritual twist.
- Walden, Jan 05, 2004
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 11:55 pm
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
So, if I understand you correctly,
there is marijuana grown by biodynamic techniques. This means
it must be being grown by those people who either practice or
are dedicated to Anthroposophy. The conclusion is that either
dope-growing, dope-smoking, Anthroposophical parents are personally
supplying their children (a serious possibility, I would say)
-- then there is a market for and commercial supplier of Anthroposophically-superior
dope.
- Michael Kopp, 21 Feb 1999
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:30 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
"The term "Aryan
race" did not become racist in Nazi ideology. It was already
racist for decades before the founding of the Nazi party."
- Peter Staudenmaier, 01 Oct 2003
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:47 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Staudenmaier is so subtle that he deserves
a comment: His statement below is a half-truth, which makes it
also a half-lie. Before the Nazi event, racists and non-racists
alike were using the term "Aryan race." After the Holocaust
had brought this expression into infamy, only racists were using
it.
Staudenmaier suggests that all those who spoke
about the Aryan race before the Holocaust were racists. This
is not only untrue, but it is used to justify labelling Rudolf
Steiner as a racist, and his outline of evolution as a racist
notional system.
Tarjei
At 14:30 11.01.2004, I wrote:
The term "Aryan race"
did not become racist in Nazi ideology. It was already racist
for decades before the founding of the Nazi party."
- Peter Staudenmaier, 01 Oct 2003
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 12:37 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
Steiner says there will be
a terrible apocalypse at the end of the 7th Epoch, do you know
what he predicted will happen? Anthro's are to be plantlike spirits
by that time, a homogenous being where sex will be no more and
man will give birth by speaking....why will there be a terrible
apocalypse? It doesn't make sense because I thought everything
would be hunky dory when nothing but an Anthro spirit was living
on this earth.
- Sharon, Sep 09, 2001
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Jan 14, 2004 11:37 pm
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
Dan reminds me of the days
when Men were Men! Go get your own board, Woeful One. Tell Sancho
Panza to go with you."
- Su, Sep 24, 2001
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:11 pm
Subject: Mick Jagger
At 01:10 30.12.2003, Bradford answered Diana
by quoting "Sympathy for the Devil" by The Rolling
Stones:
Please allow me to introduce
myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
I've been around for a long, long year
Stole many a man's soul and faith
And I was 'round when jesus christ
Had his moment of doubt and pain
Made damn sure that pilate
Washed his hands and sealed his fate
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game
I stuck around st. petersburg
When I saw it was a time for a change
Killed the czar and his ministers
Anastasia screamed in vain
I rode a tank
Held a general's rank
When the blitzkrieg raged
And the bodies stank
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guess my name, oh yeah
Ah, what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah
I watched with glee
While your kings and queens
Fought for ten decades
For the gods they made
I shouted out,
Who killed the kennedys?
When after all
It was you and me
Let me please introduce myself
I'm a man of wealth and taste
And I laid traps for troubadours
Who get killed before they reached bombay
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, oh yeah, get down, baby
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, oh yeah
But what's confusing you
Is just the nature of my game
Just as every cop is a criminal
And all the sinners saints
As heads is tails
Just call me lucifer
'cause I'm in need of some restraint
So if you meet me
Have some courtesy
Have some sympathy, and some taste
Use all your well-learned politesse
Or I'll lay your soul to waste, um yeah
Pleased to meet you
Hope you guessed my name, um yeah
But what's puzzling you
Is the nature of my game, um mean it, get down
Woo, who
Oh yeah, get on down
Oh yeah
Oh yeah!
Tell me baby, what's my name
Tell me honey, can ya guess my name
Tell me baby, what's my name
I tell you one time, you're to blame
I can't help myself: My favorite Mick Jagger
song of all times was done 30 years ago in the movie "Performance":
Memo From Turner (Jagger/Richards)
Didn't I see you down in San
Antone on a hot and dusty night?
We were eating eggs in Sammy's when the black man there drew
his knife
Aw, you drowned that Jew in Rampton as he washed his sleeveless
shirt
You know, that Spanish-speaking gentleman, that one we all called
Kurt
Come now, gentlemen, I know
there's some mistake
How forgetful I'm becoming, now you fixed your bus'ness straight
I remember you in Hemlock
Road in nineteen fifty-six
You're a faggy little leather boy with a smaller piece of stick
You're a lashing, smashing hunk of man
Your sweat shines sweet and strong
Your organ's working perfectly, but there's a part that's not
screwed on
Weren't you at the Coke convention
back in nineteen sixty-five
You're the misbread, grey executive I've seen heavily advertised
You're that great, gray man whose daughter licks policemen's
buttons clean
You're the man who squats behind the man who works the soft machine
Come now, gentlemen, your
love is all I crave
You'll still be in the circus when I'm laughing, laughing in
my grave
When the old men do the fighting
and the young men all look on
And the young girls eat their mother's meat from tubes of plasticon
Be wary of these my gentle friends of all theskins you breed
They have a tasty habit - they eat the hands that bleed
So remember who you say you
are and keep your noses clean
Boys will be boys and play with toys so be strong with your beast
Oh Rosie dear, doncha think it's queer, so stop me if you please
The baby is dead, my lady said, "You gentlemen, why you
all work for me?"
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 17, 2004 1:42 pm
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
I would not put Koresh in
the same category as Jim Jones, rather, I would say that Koresh
and Steiner were similar to each other. Both Steiner and Koresh
were true believers (of different religions), both preached apocalyptic
sermons, both were interested in indoctrinating children, both
had an entourage of female devotees, both promoted a healthy
diet, both opposed the outside world and both claimed they had
the truth."
- mysplum (Sharon?), Jan 14, 2003
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Sun Jan 18, 2004 3:09 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Nuts'mama is always pregnant!
In 1919 Max Siling, close friend of nazi Dietrich
Eckhart, wrote: "Steiner is a jew of Spainsh origin, who
gives himself to sexual magic" (!!!)
Ad majora,people
Andrea the Italian
----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Saturday, January 17, 2004 10:42 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
I would not put Koresh
in the same category as Jim Jones, rather, I would say that Koresh
and Steiner were similar to each other. Both Steiner and Koresh
were true believers (of different religions), both preached apocalyptic
sermons, both were interested in indoctrinating children, both
had an entourage of female devotees, both promoted a healthy
diet, both opposed the outside world and both claimed they had
the truth."
- mysplum (Sharon?), Jan 14, 2003
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 4:27 am
Subject: Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
At 12:09 18.01.2004, Andrea the Italian wrote:
In 1919 Max Siling, close friend of nazi
Dietrich Eckhart, wrote: "Steiner is a jew of Spainsh origin,
who gives himself to sexual magic" (!!!)
Thanks for reminding me. I'll prepare a post
about attacks against Rudolf Steiner that were widely circulated
in the 1920's and continued through the 1930's.
It's absolutely fascinating how Steiner can
be construed into a left-wing bolshevik Zionist Jew at one point
and a right-wing anti-Semitic fascist at another point
Tarjei Straume
http://www.uncletaz.com/anthrocritics.html
"The worst readers are those who proceed
like plundering soldiers: they pick up a few things they use,
soil and confuse the rest, and blaspheme the whole." - Friedrich
Nietzsche, Mixed Opinions and Maxims
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004
4:41 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
Typical Anthroposophical anarchy.
Your society would have no compassion for the weak. Let those
with strong wills rape and pillage. Karma, I suppose.
-Dan Dugan, Jun 06, 2001
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Mon Jan 19, 2004 10:27 pm
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Dugan's best friends.
From "Jesuitica Encyclopaedia "
(1916 Turin)
"The Doctrine of Karma must be judged
as heretical..........it also perverts the menaning of expiation"
Andrea the Italian
----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Monday, January 19, 2004 1:41 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Typical Anthroposophical
anarchy. Your society would have no compassion for the weak.
Let those with strong wills rape and pillage. Karma, I suppose.
-Dan Dugan, Jun 06, 2001
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Jan 20, 2004 1:59 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
-On Atlantis-? You're talking
like some kind of nut. Atlantis is a fantasy. Not being able
to distinguish fantasy from reality is insanity.
- Dan Dugan, June 06, 2001
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Thu Jan 22, 2004 5:04 pm
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
Also, I can't resist pointing
out that Tarjei's own grasp of the issues seems to be about as
sophisticated as these playground games.I recommend Tarjei start
up a reading group with the kids who have supposedly been bullying
Waldorf students; at the very least it might make him a bit less
confused. But just to give him a head start, here's a recap of
my argument: Steiner's anthroposophy includes a racist and nationalist
component which has made it attractive to right wingers for a
hundred years now.
-Peter Staudenmaier, May 15, 2001
Nobody says that Steiner himself
was a fascist.
- ibid
A huge proportion of anthroposophists
know amazingly little about their own doctrine; many of them
aren't even aware of Steiner's racial teachings. It is thus not
at all surprising that they continue to support a doctrine that
is indeed racist to the core without being conscious racists
themselves.
- ibid
I have yet to form an opinion
about your intelligence.
- ibid
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 24, 2004 9:27 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
Diana is the winner this time:
They've been very nice to
me, other than calling me a demon, follower of a dark god, Opposing
Power, parasite, pipsqueak, gremlin, troll, vampire, Wormtongue,
minions of Sauron and other Lord of the Rings-derived insults.
Today, I'm not sure but I think Bradford called me a hyena.
- Diana Winters, Jan 23, 2004
I can hear Sune snorting all
the way from Sweden.
- ibid
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Jan 31, 2004 4:12 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
Anthroposophy, in my opinion,
was a cult while Steiner was alive. Now it's a cult-like religious
sect. - Dan Dugan, Jan 30, 2004
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 1, 2004 11:41 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
DD quotes RS and recommends that you buy anthroposophical
books!
I can't resist quoting the
blurb for -Riddle of Humanity-:
Steiner brings new insights
to such topics as the evolution and development of our physical
body, our senses, and our relationship to the cosmos. His view
of the human being and the significance of aesthetic creativity
reveals the bankruptcy of conventional materialism."
Well, I'm glad that's settled!
I found it on Amazon.com.
It's unusually expensive at $30.00 in paper, but there were three
used copies for $6.00 so I just ordered one. I was a pushover
after Amazon told me the subtitle (strange that the AP didn't
print it) which is "The Spiritual Background of Human History."
-Dan Dugan, Jan 21, 2002
DD's Steiner collection may be bigger than
mine.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Daniel Hindes
Date: Sun, 1 Feb 2004 15:07:15 -0500
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
I would be very interested in hearing a point
by point discussion of the books contents by Dugan.
Daniel
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei
Straume
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 9:14 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
When I read Steiner, I hear
an authoritative, rather pompous man, with the right to give
commands, enforce obedience, make final decisions, having power
and influence over others. It's just the old Guru trick again,
make your devotees feel and think that they are free."
- Sharon, Sep 08, 2001
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: b m
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 10:58 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Bryan's Quote of the Day
When I read Peter S., I hear
an authoritative, rather pompous man, with the right to give
commands, enforce obedience, make final decisions, having power
and influence over others. It's just the old Guru trick again,
make your devotees feel and think that they are free."
Bryan, Feb. 02, 2004
Tarjei Straume wrote:
When I read Rudolf Steiner,
I hear an authoritative, rather pompous man, with the right to
give commands, enforce obedience, make final decisions, having
power and influence over others. It's just the old Guru trick
again, make your devotees feel and think that they are free."
- Sharon, Sep 08, 2001
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
Continued in another thread
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 3:37 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
What the hell is this woman READING??? I never
heard him sound like that!!! If anything, sometimes he almost
OVER stresses the fact that it is all incumbent upon those listening
to his lecture or reading his book that they find out the truth
of what he is saying for himself. When I "hear" his
voice in most lectures, I feel that he is probably far less pompous
than most of the college professors of his day, and certainly
of today! I mean, he was a PHD for god's sake!! If you take a
course in Calculus and the professor says "this is equation
so and so. and the solution is thus and so." and you are
expected to learn it, is he acting as a GURU?? Rudolf Steiner
always said (metaphorically speaking) "this is equation
so and so. and the solution is thus and so. But don't take my
word for it - work it out for yourself!!!"
I would really like her to provide an example!!!
Should he NEVER have said anything DEFINITE??
Should he NEVER have made any assertions about what a thing is
or is not, what the effects of a deed or thought are or are not?
Then they would all be screaming that he is incoherent and wishy-washy.
Jeez Louis! I mean, this kind of thing is
really getting twisted!
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 5:13 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Dear Christine,
Hold your horses; the purpose of "WC
Quote of the Day" is to give a picture of the PLANS-WC cult
by using the same method they have been using to "expose"
Waldorf, Steiner, and Anthroposophy: By quoting them.
I am very grateful to Bradford for his generous
follow-up after my comments about PS' WC post about me and my
anarchosophy message related to the Apocalypse. The 'I AM' is
indeed the holy of holies, and it doesn't matter if you call
it science, religion, art, philosophy, poetry, or just notions.
PS strikes hard against Anthroposophia from
the political left, spreading his venomous attacks on anarchist,
anti-fascist, and anti racist websites where he can find webmasters
and editors who are not too discriminating and critical, but
take his "brilliance" and "expertise" at
face value. These look like pre-emptive strikes designed to lay
mines against Michaelic anarchism in these circles, where Ahriman
has planted his Marxist dialectical materialism that he wants
to keep undisturbed.
PS' tactics include compulsive deliberate
lying, intellectual games, snotty arrogance and so on. DD, although
of the same persuasion as PS, is more of a gentleman, diplomat,
and crusader - reminiscent of a blend of GWB and senator Joseph
McCarthy.
Here is an interesting article in "Stereophile"
about DD from January, 1992 - twelve years ago - entitled "Audio
McCarthyism":
http://www.stereophile.com/asweseeit/107/
It's worth a peek. Before PLANS, DD was crusading
against supersensible concepts in connection with certain kinds
of speaker cables. Since starting PLANS, DD has been reading
Steiner furiously as his favorite hobby to the point of making
some people wonder if he is a closet anthroposophist. PS laughs
out loud and finds it terribly amusing that anthroposophists
think he is under the influence of Ahriman. I wouldn't accuse
him of trying to change our planetary orbits by manipulating
comets exactly, and he is not prolific enough to count as a vehicle
for Ahriman as author (like Nietzsche), but a strong influence
from that quarter on PS and his "sacreligious regards"
and "ahrimanic greetings" is difficult to leave unmentioned.
And then we have Sharon. You may recall a
post of mine from Jan 21 - http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy_tomorrow/message/1391
- where I mentioned that Sharon reminds me of Christina Stoddard
who wrote two books in the 1930's under the strange pseudonym
"Inquire Within": "Light-Bearers of Darkness"
(1932) and "The Trail of the Serpent" (1936). You may
also recall that I do have "The Trail of the Serpent"
on my shelf and I am preparing to post the entire chapter about
Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy. It is a wild tale with an angle
not dissimilar to Sharon's style, although it strikes from the
political extreme right wing.
A friend of mine, a former co-editor of the
Norwegian anarchist magazine I used to work with (Gateavisa),
who is not a theosophist, not an anthroposophist, and in fact
an anti-Christian, but interested in occultism nevertheless and
has studied these things - he told me once that Christina Stoddard
alias "Inquire Within" became insane and committed
suicide or something like that. This seems to be a danger among
certain channellers of Ahriman as author (Nietzsche) or people
who dabble in occultism in questionable ways and become entangled
in strange lies about the deepest aspects of human existence.
If anyone can corroborate what I heard about
the destiny of "Inquire Within," please share the info.
Cheers,
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
At 00:37 03.02.2004, Christine wrote:
What the hell is this woman READING???
I never heard him sound like that!!! If anything, sometimes he
almost OVER stresses the fact that it is all incumbent upon those
listening to his lecture or reading his book that they find out
the truth of what he is saying for himself. When I "hear"
his voice in most lectures, I feel that he is probably far less
pompous than most of the college professors of his day, and certainly
of today! I mean, he was a PHD for god's sake!! If you take a
course in Calculus and the professor says "this is equation
so and so. and the solution is thus and so." and you are
expected to learn it, is he acting as a GURU?? Rudolf Steiner
always said (metaphorically speaking) "this is equation
so and so. and the solution is thus and so. But don't take my
word for it - work it out for yourself!!!"
I would really like her to provide an example!!!
Should he NEVER have said anything DEFINITE?? Should he NEVER
have made any assertions about what a thing is or is not, what
the effects of a deed or thought are or are not? Then they would
all be screaming that he is incoherent and wishy-washy.
Jeez Louis! I mean, this kind of thing is really getting twisted!
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:11 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Hi Christine, If you really want to see how
twisted it can get, you should check out the archives. http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/archives.html
A word of caution though, I tend to get nauseas when I read this
stuff to much. Sharon was active on the list this time last year.
Truth and nausea
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:39 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
At 01:11 03.02.2004, Mike wrote:
Hi Christine, If you really want to see
how twisted it can get, you should check out the archives. http://www.waldorfcritics.org/active/archives.html
Before you do that, take a peek at some 1999
threads I participated in on the WC:
http://www.uncletaz.com/wc/wcthreads/
I also participated in 2001, but I haven't
gotten around to do those threads yet. You'll find these pages
so much more reader-friendly than those enormous WC documents
at the PLANS site, but there's a lot more more work behind them
too.
Because nobody else is doing it, I've started
up "The Uncle Taz 'Anthroposophy Tomorrow' Files" at
http://www.uncletaz.com/at/
Only one thread consisting of a singlular
post has been formatted and uploaded so far. The result will
be similar to "The Uncle Taz 'WC Posts'".
A word of caution though, I tend to get
nauseas when I read this stuff to much. Sharon was active on
the list this time last year.
For the purpose of the "WC Quote of the
Day," the more nauseating the better. Happy quote-hunting!
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 4:17 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
I really don't think my blood pressure can
handle it! But thanks for the info!
I mean, are these people on crack???
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Mon Feb 2, 2004 5:34 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Naw, Tarjei - you're just doing this to help
the pharmaceutical companies make more money on my blood pressure
medication. Right? : 0
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 12:24 pm
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
Fresh from the bakery:
The question, of course, remains:
in light of the strong antagonism toward science among anthroposophists
today, why do so many of them continue to insist that their worldview
constitutes a science of its own? I think this puzzle has less
to do with disagreements among contemporary anthroposophists
and more to do with Steiner's ambivalence on the topic of 'science'.
This original ambivalence seems to have left fans of anthroposophical
thinking in an interesting bind, simultaneously claiming scientific
status for their own beliefs while deprecating science as a hindrance
to true knowledge of the cosmos and a primary source of alienation.
Thus many of them still view critical inquiry as sacrilege, psychic
violence, or an instance of Ahrimanic deception. Another of the
difficulties in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
- Peter Staudenmaier, Feb 03, 2004
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: b m
Date: Tue Feb 3, 2004 1:57 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
I believe that many shared my surprise when
they first found out there was a group actually called Waldorf
Critics. Anybody with a little bit of sense of ridiculous would
have figured out the implications of having WC as its initials.
But, alas, a sense of ridiculous is only one of many things the
poor fellows lack. As a lover of harmony and balance, I notice
in me when reading PS's quotes this longing to see his name changed,
so that it would match WC in a more appropriate manner. I am
thinking specifically in terms of his first name, which I believe
should start with a B - something like Booboo Staudenmaier, Brudolfsteiner
Staudenmaier etc. This way we could refer to him or his words
simply as "BS from the WC".
Bryan
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 9:02 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Again and Again!
The only "point" I see here is the
game around the use of the concept of "science". At
last. If we do not give an adjective to the substantive, maybe
"reductionist" "neodarwinist" "goethian
" "spiritual" experimental" and so on, we
always go on and on in the realm of coinfusion and is just the
screenplay of PS,WC and their followers.
Needless to say: the "science" that
those guys like is the mainstream, reductionist, neodarwinist
faith that, in itself, is only a sum of preconceived sauce whose
"scientific dress" is, in itself again , only a mask
for an ideology.
But, most of all, if we discuss of science,
what is thinking , what is perception, what is a concept and
so on ?
So we are lead again and again at the core
of it all, aka the path beginning with "Goethian Gnoseology"
, flowering in POFand the inner schooling of KOHW and "Occult
Science Fifth Chapter till the Leading Thoughts and the Foundation
Stone Meditation Something that PS and his gang are totally unable
to grasp or, to say better, totally unwilling to grasp.
What else ?
Andrea the (choleric) Italian
----- Original Message -----
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 1:13 PM
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Peter has a point here. Also note that
he is careful not to include all anthropops in his criticism.
In any case, I invite anyone here to reply objectively.
Frank
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Fresh from the bakery:
The question, of course,
remains: in light of the strong antagonism toward science among
anthroposophists today, why do so many of them continue to insist
that their worldview constitutes a science of its own? I think
this puzzle has less to do with disagreements among contemporary
anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's ambivalence on
the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to have
left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs
while deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of
the cosmos and a primary source of alienation. Thus many of them
still view critical inquiry as sacrilege, psychic violence, or
an instance of Ahrimanic deception. Another of the difficulties
in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
- Peter Staudenmaier, Feb 03, 2004
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 9:40 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
The difference between an ordinary WC and
the PLANS' WC is that the former flushes waste down the drain,
while the latter flushes it up from the sewer and pollutes the
environment.
PS wrote to his fellow "critics":
The question, of course,
remains: in light of the strong antagonism toward science among
anthroposophists today,
I don't know which anthroposophists PS is
thinking about here, because I haven't seen any "strong
antagonism toward science among anthroposophists today."
He is probably bluffing about this, of course, unless he can
cite an instance of such "anthroposophical antagonism"
against science.
why do so many of them
continue to insist that their worldview constitutes a science
of its own?
Because it does constitute a science of its
own. And PS probably knows that too, because he has claimed familiarity
with Steiner's wearly work, which would include "Wahrheit
und Wissenschaft".
I think this puzzle has
less to do with disagreements among contemporary anthroposophists
and more to do with Steiner's ambivalence on the topic of 'science'.
First off, the "puzzle" PS describes
here is of his own making, based upon the myst that anthroposophists
harbor a strong antagonism against science. Without this false
premise, the puzzle evaporates.
This original ambivalence
seems to have left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting
bind, simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own
beliefs while deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge
of the cosmos and a primary source of alienation.
The key concept in a spiritual view of existence
is that the external physical world is maya, illusion, and that
the Kingdom of Christ, i.e. the spiritual cosmos within man,
is not of this world. The external world is however explorable
through science. There would be no spiritual science without
physical science. For that reason, anthroposophists are deeply
appreciative and grateful to science, but they are not uncriical
to all trends that is entailed by materialistic science.
Thus many of them still
view critical inquiry as sacrilege, psychic violence, or an instance
of Ahrimanic deception. Another of the difficulties in trying
to talk with anthroposophists.
Bullshit. What I have called sarcilege has
nothing to do with "critical inquiry," but with smear
campaigns, scoffing, ridicule, and arrogance. Psychic violence,
who has mentioned that? The Ahrimanic deception is indeed a deception
through the intellect, into intellectual error primarily in in
the moral sphere. In this deception, "critical inquiry"
can mean anything you choose. PS seems to choose the expression
here only because it looks good in the eyes of his uncritical
admirerers.
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 4:13 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Peter has a point here. Also note that he
is careful not to include all anthropops in his criticism. In
any case, I invite anyone here to reply objectively.
Frank
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Fresh from the bakery:
The question, of course,
remains: in light of the strong antagonism toward science among
anthroposophists today, why do so many of them continue to insist
that their worldview constitutes a science of its own? I think
this puzzle has less to do with disagreements among contemporary
anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's ambivalence on
the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to have
left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs
while deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of
the cosmos and a primary source of alienation. Thus many of them
still view critical inquiry as sacrilege, psychic violence, or
an instance of Ahrimanic deception. Another of the difficulties
in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
- Peter Staudenmaier, Feb 03, 2004
...................................................................................................................................
From: b m
Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 7:17 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
His "point" is to pretend he doesn't
understand that, in the light of Anthroposophy, anthroposophers
believe Science includes the scientific exploration of the spiritual
world, and therefore science which denies the importance, existence,
or even the possibility of a spiritual realm is not science in
the complete sense of the word and as such shouldn't be accepted
without questioning. There is nothing about this idea that is
complicated to understand, if one in good faith wants to understand
it.
Bryan
Frank Thomas Smith wrote:
Peter has a point here. Also note that
he is careful not to include all anthropops in his criticism.
In any case, I invite anyone here to reply objectively.
Frank
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Fresh from the bakery:
The question, of course,
remains: in light of the strong antagonism toward science among
anthroposophists today, why do so many of them continue to insist
that their worldview constitutes a science of its own? I think
this puzzle has less to do with disagreements among contemporary
anthroposophists and more to do with Steiner's ambivalence on
the topic of 'science'. This original ambivalence seems to have
left fans of anthroposophical thinking in an interesting bind,
simultaneously claiming scientific status for their own beliefs
while deprecating science as a hindrance to true knowledge of
the cosmos and a primary source of alienation. Thus many of them
still view critical inquiry as sacrilege, psychic violence, or
an instance of Ahrimanic deception. Another of the difficulties
in trying to talk with anthroposophists.
- Peter Staudenmaier, Feb 03, 2004
...................................................................................................................................
From: Mike Helsher
Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 8:14 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Frank writes:
Peter has a point here. Also note that he is careful not to
include all anthropops in his criticism. In any case, I invite
anyone here to reply objectively.
Frank.
Mike:
I agree. He always has a point. Unfortunately his "point"
in most cases, stems from his intellectually bias world view.
Which he implies in an intellectually bias way, to be the "correct"
view.
And yes, he is always careful. "Careful not to include all
anthropops in his criticism", but also he is careful (or
thoughtless IMO) to not give credit where credit is due.
I might be a little closer to his corner if he could prove to
me that he really understands what I mean when I use the word
"Empathy." Which for me is a concern for who people
are and where they are at; an identification of our shared humanity,
regardless of our personal intellectual bias's.
And yes I am a hypocrite in a since, in that I am not walking
my talk with him personally. But to imply that "Anthroposophy
is racist to the core" is such an outrageous statement,
and I think it needs to be addressed. And that cannot be done
in this case by "intellectual discourse" only. I have
to know *who* is saying these things and why. I think he says
these things because he believes them, and he believes them because
of who he is. And who he is, is the result of his personal biography.
But he tries to insist that his bias opinions are indeed more
than just that (his bias opinions).
I gotta get to work.
Truth and Love
Mike
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 1:04 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Ok, so Peter's "point" is that he
detects an antagonism to "science" among "anthroposophists"
(presumably all) today and he finds this ironic because "some"(anthroposophists)
claim that a anthroposophy is itself a science. So he is careful
to state that only some anthroposophists claim anthroposophy
is a science (probably because a few have told hime lately that
it is their religion), while, of course, all are hostile to it.
He then goes on to speculate on why this appearent paradox occurs.
He traces this to an ambivalence in Steiner on the same topic,
and then again decry's it's effects on the people he is trying
to talk at.
So Frank, which point of Peter's are you in agreement with?
1. All anthroposophists are hostile to science?
2. Only some anthroposophists claim anthroposophy itself is a
science?
3. Ambivalence towards science among anthroposophists is due
to Steiner?
4. "Fans of anthroposophical thinking... depracate science
as a hinderance to true knowledge of the cosmos?"
Further, do you have any other grounds beyond Staudenmaier's
claims for feeling that any of these points are valid?
Daniel
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 2:21 pm
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Well, Daniel, I *am* somewhat surprised to
find myself defending Peter S.s views, cause when I (rarely)
go to relieve myself at the WC the opposite happens. (cont. below)
Ok, so Peter's "point" is that
he detects an antagonism to "science" among "anthroposophists"
(presumably all) today and he finds this ironic because "some"(anthroposophists)
claim that a anthroposophy is itself a science. So he is careful
to state that only some anthroposophists claim anthroposophy
is a science (probably because a few have told hime lately that
it is their religion), while, of course, all are hostile to it.
He then goes on to speculate on why this appearent paradox occurs.
He traces this to an ambivalence in Steiner on the same topic,
and then again decry's it's effects on the people he is trying
to talk at.
So Frank, which point of Peter's are you in agreement with?
1. All anthroposophists are hostile to science?
*No, and P. doesn't say that either, i.e., he doesn't use the
word "all". However, in my experience many anthroposophist
are hostile to science. I think this has happened because Steiner
himself was not loathe to indulge in science bashing (as in the
quote you sent), though he softened it somewhat by admiring its
accomplishments.
2. Only some anthroposophists claim anthroposophy itself is
a science?
*No, most or almost all would say that it is _a_ science: spiritual
science.
3. Ambivalence towards science among anthroposophists is due
to Steiner?
*P. said that Steiner himself was ambivalent towards science,
ergo anthropops are. Although this is mistaken, it is easy to
see how someone can have this opinion. By ambivalent, P. probably
means that Steiner both attacked and praised science. If there
is an ambivalence by anthropops toward science, and I believe
there is, and I don't think that it's necessarily bad, then yes,
it would have much to do with Steiner. Though many non-anthroposophists
don't trust science either.
4. "Fans of anthroposophical thinking... depracate science
as a hinderance to true knowledge of the cosmos?"
*Often yes - because if science is materialistic, aa it mostly
is, then a belief in it would hinder spiritual development, which
is the only real path to knowledge.
Further, do you have any other grounds beyond Staudenmaier's
claims for feeling that any of these points are valid?
*We shouldn't forget that Steiner changed his vocabulary over
the years - with good reason. Spiritual science was originally
"occult" science. (geheim, in German = secret or occult).
Now if you say certain knowledge is occult, it implies that it
is either being kept secret or it is not accessible to normal
human investigation. Steiner imo meant both, but that he was
revealing what had hitherto been kept secret. As far as it not
being accessible to normal sense perception, he claimed it could
be accessible if one was willing and able to go through the difficult
stages of initiation. But modern science, which demands objective
proof, rejects this. Therefore, occult science cannot be a science.
It is, for example, impossible to "scientifically"
prove the previous stages of the earth's evolution as described
by Steiner. Or even reincarnation for that matter. One can satisfy
one's self of the reality of reincarnation by (normal, not iniciative)
intuition, but cannot prove it to another. Furthermore, the great
majority (99% ?) of anthroposophists do not *know* that there
were 3 previous incarnations of the Earth, though they may believe
that it's so. Therefore, it's not science. I'm not saying that
I personally agree with these arguments, only saying that they
are justified as arguments. Going back to the word occult, Steiner
never felt the necessity for changing the title of it, but in
the latest English translation of "Occult Science",
the title is waffled into "esoteric" science, and in
the introduction they say that there is no proper English translation
for the German "Geheim", so "esoteric" is
better. This may be better for sales, but is hardly accurate
- imo.
Frank
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Wed Feb 4, 2004 9:56 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
I have heard about this little
chamber of horrors. It's in the basement of the Gotheanum right
next to Steiner's wood carving of the Anthro Trinity - Jesus,
Lucifer and Ahriman. If anyone would like to see a photo of this
monstrosity, just send a note to me and I will email a copy to
you.
It is impressive in one regard.
I do not believe they had chain saws when Rudy did this work.
Although it severely lacks any artistic merit, it is big and
is intricate. Jesus has flames on his heart. Only an Anthro could
love it."
- Newpaul, Sep 06, 2001 (from a thread entitled
"Gotheanum Basement", where Sharon and others chime
in to describe its unspeakable horrors.)
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 3:50 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Frank,
So essentially, anyone who holds the view that science is useful
for a certain scope of problems that face human existance, and
not beyond, is hostile to science?
Does that mean anyone who holds that science has limits is ipso
facto hostile to science?
Daniel
...................................................................................................................................
From: Frank Thomas Smith
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:11 am
Subject: RE: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Daniel.
Let me know when you're through playing Socartes.
Frank
Frank,
So essentially, anyone who holds the view that science is useful
for a certain scope of problems that face human existance, and
not beyond, is hostile to science?
Does that mean anyone who holds that science has limits is ipso
facto hostile to science?
Daniel
...................................................................................................................................
From: VALENTINA BRUNETTI
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 5:13 am
Subject: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
According to some witness Hitler's Pigmalion,
Dietrich Eckart (the same guy used to call RS "Jew")
was terrified the same by such an "horror". Someon
else say that one of the aim of Goetheanum's arsion incident
was the destruction of this "wooden Lovecraftian monstruosity".
A.
----- Original Message -----
From: Tarjei Straume
Sent: Wednesday, February 04, 2004 6:56 PM
Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
I have heard about this
little chamber of horrors. It's in the basement of the Gotheanum
right next to Steiner's wood carving of the Anthro Trinity -
Jesus, Lucifer and Ahriman. If anyone would like to see a photo
of this monstrosity, just send a note to me and I will email
a copy to you.
It is impressive in one
regard. I do not believe they had chain saws when Rudy did this
work. Although it severely lacks any artistic merit, it is big
and is intricate. Jesus has flames on his heart. Only an Anthro
could love it."
- Newpaul, Sep 06, 2001 (from a thread
entitled "Gotheanum Basement", where Sharon and others
chime in to describe its unspeakable horrors.)
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Thu Feb 5, 2004 4:10 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Frank,
Socrates aimed to know, a goal I also hold. And I would like
to know exactly why you feel Steiner was "ambivalent"
towards science.
am·biv·a·lence,
n.
1. uncertainty or fluctuation, esp. when caused by inability
to make a choice or by a simultaneous desire to say or do two
opposite or conflicting things.
2. Psychol. the coexistence within an individual of positive
and negative feelings toward the same person, object, or action,
simultaneously drawing him or her in opposite directions.
Random House Webster's Unabridged Dictionary, 2003
Reading Steiner carefully, I find him continually
specifying the scope of validity of scientific endeavor (and
it's importance) while emphasizing the necessity of a complementary
(and not opposing) effort from another angle. In this I find
him to be neither uncertain and vacillating about nor harboring
negative feelings towards science. If you could send me some
examples of Steiner's "science bashing" of which he
was apparently so wont to indulge, I would like to examine them
more closely. I have reexamined the quotes I sent, and I do not
find the "science bashing" that you claim to have read
in them. That is why I am attempting to discover what constitutes
"science bashing" in your estimation. I am terribly
sorry that you resent this as "playing Socartes" (sic).
I genuinely desire to understand your reasoning, and hope you
will not be too put off by my boldness in asking so directly.
Daniel Hindes
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 11:07 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
I have decided that *intitiate*
best describes those DOF's of Steiner who believe his ridiculous
claims and ideas. And they believe it in the face of logic, reason,
medical facts, Christianity, the bible, and good old fashioned
common sense, and science. You can argue with an initiate, you
can show them the facts in a very logical argument, but they
will not see it. The only thing that makes sense to them is the
occult nonsense they have been initiated into. Even though they
cannot explain it or defend it in a consistent, logical, factually
relevant manner. Initiates to me are blind people who think they
can see what cannot be seen by anyone else. Their truth is relative,
they believe real knowledge comes from within, so they put their
kids in the Waldorf School and are oblivious to the consequences.
Some even maintain a presence on the Waldorf Critics List. They
are not disturbed by reports that Steiner's knowledge came from
the akasha or that many people have difficulty understanding
his writings.
- Newpaul, Sep 02, 2001
[DOF = Defender Of the Faith = Anthroposophist.
(From the WC-Speak Dictionary)]
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: b m
Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 1:25 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Pardon me, I am still chuckling at this fellow's
name. "Newpaul". What happened to the Oldpaul, I wonder.
Did he fall from a horse and broke his derriere and so a new
chap was ordered in?
No, no, I am not that naive. I can sniff a religious conversion
as well as the next guy. So there's a serious Bible lover in
the WC. How interesting. I bet the interaction between him and
the WC atheists is not exactly smooth, especially in such a small
and naturally smelly environment. However, they probably put
their deep differences aside for a while in order to join forces
and attack Anthroposophy. Ah the power of hatred, bringing people
together at the WC. WC'eers, feel free to use this catchy slogan
if you want. It fits you well.
Bryan
From Tarjei:
"WC quote of the day."
- Newpaul, Sep 02, 2001
[DOF = Defender Of the Faith = Anthroposophist.
(From the WC-Speak Dictionary)]
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: dottie zold
Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 2:30 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Bryan wrote:
I bet the interaction between him and the WC atheists is not
exactly smooth, especially in such a small and naturally smelly
environment. However, they probably put their deep differences
aside for a while in order to join forces and attack Anthroposophy.
Hi Bryan,
What happened is that Staudenmaier started
speaking about not only Anthroposophists being a cult but Christianity
as well and how both were racist to the core. All hell broke
loose and Dan Dugan had to get in the middle and say 'hey we
are talking about Anthroposophy lets keep it here'. Newpaul tried
a few more times but was kind of threatened if he continued he
wouldn't be able to stay on wc, and Peter wisely dropped the
subject real quick before anyone really got into his atheistic
hard left themes.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: b m
Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 5:24 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Dottie,
It was interesting to read what you wrote. A lot of stinky stuff
going on in the WC. Very appropriately so, I must add.
Bryan
dottie zold
about not only Anthroposophists being a cult but Christianity
as well and how both were racist to the core. All hell broke
loose and Dan Dugan had to get in the middle and say 'hey we
are talking about Anthroposophy lets keep it here'. Newpaul tried
a few more times but was kind of threatened if he continued he
wouldn't be able to stay on wc, and Peter wisely dropped the
subject real quick before anyone really got into his atheistic
hard left themes.
Dottie
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sat Feb 7, 2004 4:03 am
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
At 02:24 07.02.2004, Bryan wrote:
A lot of stinky stuff going on in the WC.
A little bowl cleaning and an air freshener
might help :)
Tarjei
...................................................................................................................................
From: golden3000997
Date: Fri Feb 6, 2004 4:08 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
You know, Taz, this just ISN'T doing my blood
pressure any good at all!!!
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 8, 2004 11:01 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
When I read Steiner, I read
every word and try to make sense out of it.
- Dan Dugan, Aug 30, 2001
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Mon Feb 9, 2004 2:20 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
Of course, Anthroposophists
want to sustain the myth that they were opposed to Naziism.
- Dan Dugan, May 13, 2001
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 7:27 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
I've got so much to tell you
all, about sex magic and heads of God etc, but not enough time
at the moment, although I had to pop in to let you know a fascinating
detail I just stumbled across - Steiner was buried in his OTO
regalia!
- Sharon, 04 Jun 2001
Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/
...................................................................................................................................
From: at
Date: Sun Feb 15, 2004 3:14 pm
Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] WC Quote of the Day
Steiner wasn't buried, he was cremated. I
wonder what she is reading?
...................................................................................................................................
From: Tarjei Straume
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:29 am
Subject: WC Quote of the Day
Seriously, Watchman Fellowship
is an recognized authority on cults and new religious movements
from the perspective of Protestant Christianity.
- John W. Morehead, 13 Jan 2000
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
