Armen Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 (edited) Many years ago I visited their "Goetheanum" building in Basel, Germany. The building looks sort of like a huge skull from the outside - and a half-finished 1920s cinema from the inside. Inhabited by a bunch of weirdos with dead expressions. They had a big "idol" of some sort in the deepest, most central, part of the building. I don't remember what it looked like and photographing it was strictly forbidden (as was looking at it directly for too long if you weren't a believer). They all lived in little houses in the grounds. They painted the walls of their houses with layer after layer of paint, mostly orange - each a slightly different shade than the previous - it gave a strange and attractive sort of luminous effect. The Anthoposophical Society in Goetheanum is as much anthoposophical as the Pope is Christian. Goetheanum is a tourist attraction and no wonder those who live there seem wierdo sectants. As in any good theaching, anthroposophy is "followed" by lot of stupid and corrupt people. Edited June 5, 2004 by ArmenSarg Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted June 5, 2004 Report Share Posted June 5, 2004 I would like to know if Steiner has himself attained freedom. Sorry if that is already written on the website, I don't have time to read now. I don't know if he had attained freedom. I haven't read all of his books and articles yet. You want me to say that if you read him you'll find all the answers to eternal questions? Well, his way of thinking brings you to a point when you can explain the complexities of our life to yourself. Although you may not be able to explain them to others. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 You know, I don't want to jump in on this thread, but environmentalism is a serious cancer. We have to stop it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 You know, I don't want to jump in on this thread, but environmentalism is a serious cancer. We have to stop it! http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1853675.stm Seems that it is the other way around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/health/1853675.stm Seems that it is the other way around. I'm afraid I will disagree. Movies like "The Day After Tomorrow" are nothing but environmentalist propaganda aimed at painting a thorough illusion of the "global warming" nonsense and that somehow us humans, particularly those in America, are to blame for using SUVs, etc., etc. I'm sorry, some people perhaps watched that infernal movie and liked it for what it was ( due to their stupidity ), but to me, the insult and propaganda was blatant. I offer a George Carlin joke: You see, I'm not one of those people who worries about everything. Do you have people around you like that? The country's full of 'em now. People walkin' around all day, worried about everything. Worried about the air, the water, the soil, pesticides, food additives, carcinogens, radon, asbestos. Worried about saing endangered species. Lemme tell you about endangered species. Saving endangered species is just one more arrogant human attempt to control nature. That's what got us in trouble in the first place. Interfering with nature. Meddling. Doesn't anybody understand that? And as far as endangered species are concenred, it's a phony issue. Over 90 percent of all the species that ever lived on this planet are gone. They're extinct. We didn't kill them; they just disappeared. That's what species do: they appear, and they disappear. It's nature's way. Irrespective of our behavior, species vanish at the rate of twenty-five a day. Let them go gracefully. Stop interfering. Leave nature along. Haven't we done enough damage? We're so self-important. So arrogant. Everbody's going to save something now. Save the trees, save the bees, save the whales, save the snails. And the supreme arrogance? Save the planet! Are these poeple kidding? Save the planet? We don't know how to take care of ourselves; we haven't learned how to care for one another. We're gonna save the f*ckin' planet? I'm getting tired of that sh*t. I'm tired of f*ckin' Earth Day. I'm tired of these self-righteous environmentalist, white, bourgeois liberals who think the only thing wrong with this country is that there aren't enough bike paths. Tryin' to make the world safe for their repulsive Volvos. Besides, environmentalists don't give a shit about the planet anyway. Not really. Not in the abstract. You know what they're interested in? A clean place to live. Their own habitat. That's all. They're worried that sometime in the future they might personally be inconvenienced. Narrow, unenlightened self-interest doesn't impress me. And by the way, there's nothing wrong with the planet in the first place. The planet is fine The people are f*cked! Compared with the people, the planet is doin' great. It's been here over four billion years. did you ever think about that? The planet has been here four and a half billion years. And we've been here for what? A hundred thousand? And we've only been engaged in heavy industry for a little over two hundred years? Two hundred versus 4.5 billion! And we have the nerve, the conceit to think that somehow we're a threat? That somehow we're going to put this beautiful little blue-green ball in jeopardy? Believe me the planet has put up with much worse than us. It's been through earthquakes, volcanoes, plate tectonics, solar flares, snspots, magnetic storms, pole reversals, planetary floods, worldwide fires, tidal waves, wind and water erosion, cosmic rays, ice ages, and hundreds of thousands of years of bombardment by comets, asteroids, and meteors. And people think a few plastic bags and aluminum cans are going to make a difference? The planet isn't goin' anywhere, folks. We are! We're goin' away. Pack your sh*t, we're goin' away. And we won't leave much of a trace. Thank God for that. Nothing left. Maybe a little Styrofoam. The planet will be here and we'll be gone. Another failed mutation; another closed=end biological mistake. The planet will shake us off like a bad case of fleas. And it will heal itself, because taht's what the planet does; it's self-correcting system. The air and water and earth will recover and be renewed. And if plastic is really not degradable, well, most likely the planet will incorporate it into a new paradigm: The Earth Plus Plastic. Earth doesn't share our prejudice against plastic. Plastic came out of the earth. She probably sees it as one of her many children. In fact, it could be the reason the earth allowed us to be spawned in the first place; it wanted plastic and didn't know how to make it. It needed us. That could be the answer to our age-old question: "Why are we here?" "Plastic, as*holes!" And so, our job is done. The plastic is here, we can now be phased out. And I think that's already begun, don't you? I mean, to be fair, the planet probably sees us as a mild threat, something to be dealt with. And I'm sure it can defend itself in the manner of a large organism; the way a beehive or an ant colony woul dmuster a defense. I'm sure the planet will think something. What would you be thinking of you were the planet, trying to defend yourself against this pesky, troublesome species? "Let's see, what might I try? Hmmm! Viruses might be goodl; these humans seem vulnerable. And viruses are tricky, always mutating and developing new strains when new medicines or vaccines are introduced. And perhaps the first virus I try could be one that compromises their immune systems. A human immunodeficiency virus that makes them vulnerable to other infections that come along. And perhaps this virus could be spread sexually, making them reluctant to engage in the act of reproduction, further reducing their numbers." Well I guess it's a poetic notion, but it's a start. And I can dream, can't I? No folks, I don't worry about the little things. Bees, trees, whales, snails. I don't worry about them. I think we're part of a much greater wisdom. Greater than we will ever understand. A higher order. Call it what you like. I call it The Big Electron. The Big Electron. It doesn't punish, it doesn't reward, and it doesn't judge. It just is. ANd so are we. For a little while. See ya. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 More propaganda. http://hyeforum.com/index.php?showtopic=7929 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 Oh what does he do? He presents UN nonsense. This is tautological. Environmental wackoes are simply environmental wackos that seek to control and stick their nose in other peoples' business, such as declaring there is "No Smoking" in a bar, or what have you. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 Oh what does he do? He presents UN nonsense. This is tautological. Environmental wackoes are simply environmental wackos that seek to control and stick their nose in other peoples' business, such as declaring there is "No Smoking" in a bar, or what have you. The next time before answering read... I don't think those Nobel Prizes signing the peition are wackos. If you don't mind, I will rather believe a Nobel prize in Chimistry, Physic etc... than someone that is not in a scienitifc field. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 I totally disagree with Carlin up there. He is being very blind if he doesn't think man has the ability to totaly distroy this planet if not careful. And if he thinks man's actions are "nature's way" and it should just be without control, then he is an idiot. It's one thing for a species to disappear for various reasons ... its another for man to go spray it's environment with pesticides and actively kill it or haphazardly drive over it with 4x4 vehicles or level its habitat and build a golf course. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
THOTH Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 (edited) Yeah George Carlin - some expert to rely on for the future of our planet eh? OK - he is a funny guy - and very insightful at times...but here he is just wrong. I don't dispute that "the day after tommorow" is likely a sensationalist trash movie however... (but, haven't seen it...just don't have much hope for it or other similar Hollywood type ventures...) Edited June 8, 2004 by THOTH Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 8, 2004 Report Share Posted June 8, 2004 (edited) Day After Tomorrow ought to be for Amerikanskis and Amerikanski-wannabes (I hope my references to Amerikanskis aren't getting dreadfully old) and their consumption, just like Troy was. And mustn't forget this Carlin genius, whoever the crap he is. Isn't this era of mass communication amazing? Any jerk can go up and talk without reservation. Confidence - inherited or acquired? Wow, all the while the layperson "worries" about global warming and whether they are going to be able to keep driving their SUV's, blah blah blah, and ecologists "worry" about biodiversity loss, lawmakers try to come up with ways to criminalise eco-terror, economists try to draw up the "trends," among a whole host of professionals working on some good stuff, and you need one smart-arse to "debunk" all that. Light entertainment it is. And it had escaped me that it was environmentalists that have come up with smoking bans. If I had known there were armchair environmentalists involved, I would have opposed smoking bans. Quite a powerful lobby they must have. Any chance they could be part of the Jewish conspiracy, too? Like Sip suggests, it is a piece of cake for humans to screw the planet over at this point. Why, just last night, I was reading an article before bed, and there was so much said in there that I hadn't thought of or even heard of previously. Timothy Schofield, article name something like "The Environment as an Ideological Weapon: A Proposal to Criminalize Eco-Terror" or something like that. The title might seem "wacko," but it's got good stuff in there. Worth checking out to see what people out there work on, IMHO. With adequate references to the U.S., of course, and I wonder why (NOT), from the Boston College Environmental Affairs Law Review... And speaking of the U.N., the U.N. has some very good resources out there - not "the best" but very good nonetheless - certainly more than can be said of some losers. Edited June 8, 2004 by Stormig Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 The next time before answering read... I don't think those Nobel Prizes signing the peition are wackos. If you don't mind, I will rather believe a Nobel prize in Chimistry, Physic etc... than someone that is not in a scienitifc field. Anyone can come up with research to support their claims. The reason I am not engaging in this childish tautology is because it is precisely that, childish and unintellectual when silly people armed with their "credentials" try to push for some theory that they believe will happen and validation of this is solely on their "credentials" when there are scientists just as reputable that disagree with the global warming alarmists. In any event, you, not I, missed the essence of my post, that no matter what humans do driving SUVs, it pales next to the history of the earth itself. And Sip, just what should be "controlled"? I'm sure everyone knows that if nukes are used all of humanity will die. So what. That wasn't the issue. The issue is the environmental wackos that want to control and impose their views on everyone else. And despite all the hoopla and nonsense passed as 'evidence', environmentalism remains a pastime of lefty liberal Socialistic people who believe governmetn has to regulate everything and it's usually for a bunch of white people with too much time on their hands, and so for 20 years we constantly hear of this "global warming" threat, not different from the current "terrorist" threat, by the managerial elites who want to control your life down to your carburator and cigarettes. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the environmental wackos continue to repeat the same nonsense over and over, no different than millenial alarmists sweeping about "end of days". The fact that an ice age or increased warming can be triggered any time despite the few gallons of gas you burn on your SUVs doesn't sit well with the environmentalists. We can't predict anything about where the earth will go, no matter how much conjured evidence is parlayed into a nice thorough illusion. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DominO123 Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 (edited) Anyone can come up with research to support their claims. The reason I am not engaging in this childish tautology is because it is precisely that, childish and unintellectual when silly people armed with their "credentials" try to push for some theory that they believe will happen and validation of this is solely on their "credentials" when there are scientists just as reputable that disagree with the global warming alarmists. In any event, you, not I, missed the essence of my post, that no matter what humans do driving SUVs, it pales next to the history of the earth itself. And Sip, just what should be "controlled"? I'm sure everyone knows that if nukes are used all of humanity will die. So what. That wasn't the issue. The issue is the environmental wackos that want to control and impose their views on everyone else. And despite all the hoopla and nonsense passed as 'evidence', environmentalism remains a pastime of lefty liberal Socialistic people who believe governmetn has to regulate everything and it's usually for a bunch of white people with too much time on their hands, and so for 20 years we constantly hear of this "global warming" threat, not different from the current "terrorist" threat, by the managerial elites who want to control your life down to your carburator and cigarettes. Despite all the evidence to the contrary, the environmental wackos continue to repeat the same nonsense over and over, no different than millenial alarmists sweeping about "end of days". The fact that an ice age or increased warming can be triggered any time despite the few gallons of gas you burn on your SUVs doesn't sit well with the environmentalists. We can't predict anything about where the earth will go, no matter how much conjured evidence is parlayed into a nice thorough illusion. What a contradiction from your part, not so long ago, you wanted people to take as evidences statistics, where the differences measured were smaller than the margin of errors, while what we are speaking of is observable as we speak without even conducting any researchs. I guess the huge OBSERVABLE hole in the ozone layer is nonexistant, even if the observation is above 10,000 time the precision of the instruments. We were even able to measure the acceleration of an acceleration. Oh yeh, today was very hot in Montreal, and i must have hallucinated when I have seen this huge disgusting texture in the sky(Smog). The next time be more consistant with your own thoughts, since from one hand you build thousands of words of pseudo-arguments based on a statistical aberation, on the other hand you try t6 deny what anyone can see in a Westernised city in a hot day only by looking in the sky. Mind here that it is the same you that believe in UFOs and alien ubductions. Edited June 9, 2004 by Fadix Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 What a contradiction from your part, not so long ago, you wanted people to take as evidences statistics, where the differences measured were smaller than the margin of errors, while what we are speaking of is observable as we speak without even conducting any researchs. I guess the huge OBSERVABLE hole in the ozone layer is nonexistant, even if the observation is above 10,000 time the precision of the instruments. We were even able to measure the acceleration of an acceleration. Oh yeh, today was very hot in Montreal, and i must have hallucinated when I have seen this huge disgusting texture in the sky(Smog). Your "contradiction" that you are pointing out is out of context, and irrelevant to the discussion at hand. In fact, it only validates my point that research statistics can be pumped for either argument. Did you see anyone deny the hole in the ozone? Why do you make up a lie and try to pin it on me as if I am denying it. You apparently either intentionally or unintentionally ( perhaps to hide your own ignorance ) warped my views again. My whole point was the level affected by humans, and that in the grand scheme of things, humans haven't contributed much if anything to the "global warming end of days" worldview. You further citing irrelevant examples such as "it was very hot in Montreal" is a desperate attempt at trying to corroborate your own version of events to back up your position and is irrelevant to the essence of what I saying. But like all lefty environmentalists you stray off topic as usual. The next time be more consistant with your own thoughts, since from one hand you build thousands of words of pseudo-arguments based on a statistical aberation, on the other hand you try t6 deny what anyone can see in a Westernised city in a hot day only by looking in the sky. Mind here that it is the same you that believe in UFOs and alien ubductions. This is irrelevant nonsense aimed at smearing me, and as usual has nothing to do with the topic. Is it me or are you, Thoth, Stormtrooper in the same ideological camp? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anonymouse Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 (edited) The problem with left leaning ideologies is that they all too often rely on Statist intervention to somehow make way for what is "good". They believe that such abysmal failures like Kyoto is productive, and that the State, and the UN should interfere with the property rights of all individuals for the "greater good of all" in order to combat "global warming" and subdue the "evil capitalists" who are "out for greed" and are "ruining our planet". Of course environmentalist is simply a modern veneer for the failed ideology of Marxism. To quote George Reisman from his monumental work Capitalism: …it should not be surprising to see hordes of former Reds, or of those who otherwise would have become Reds, turning from Marxism and becoming the Greens of the ecology movement. It is the same fundamental philosophy in a different guise, ready as ever to wage war on the freedom and well-being of the individual. Dr. Richard S. Lindzen, a professor of meteorology at MIT, had this to say about global warming in a June 11, 2001 article in OpinionJournal.com (titled: "The Press Gets it Wrong: Our Report does not Support the Kyoto Treaty"). Dr. Lindzen served on the National Academy of Sciences panel on climate change and co-authored its report: Our primary conclusion was that despite some knowledge and agreement, the science is by no means settled. We are quite confident (1) that global mean temperature is about 0.5 degrees Celsius higher than a century ago; (2) that atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have risen over the past two centuries; and (3) that carbon dioxide is a greenhouse gas whose increase is likely to warm the earth (one of many, most important being water vapor and clouds). But – and I cannot stress this enough – we are not in a position to confidently attribute past climate change to carbon dioxide or to forecast what the climate will be in the future. That is to say, contrary to media impressions, agreement with the three basic statements tells us nothing relevant to policy discussions. One reason for this uncertainty is that, as the report states, the climate is always changing; change is the norm. Two centuries ago, much of the Northern Hemisphere was emerging from a little ice age. A millennium ago, during the Middle Ages, the same region was in a warm period. Thirty years ago, we were concerned about global cooling. Edited June 9, 2004 by Anonymouse Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
axel Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Any jerk can go up and talk without reservation even THOTH... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Is it me or are you, Thoth, Stormtrooper in the same ideological camp? It's you. I have more material to trash environmental fascists with, except it's not about consumption of fossil fuels and whether it is the culprit or not or whether it has no participatory role at all. A concerned person must take into account these "alarms," all in the understanding of the "precautionary principle" (guess how many environmentalists stop to think that way?), instead of acting out the part of a true Amerikanski brat... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 even THOTH... But, sweetie, I was thinking, "especially Axel"... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 All I know is that the air in Los Angeles has improved tremendously in the last decade. When we came here in the early 90's you could see and even chew the air some mornings with many "high smog" alerts ... now, the air seems a lot cleaner and I rarely hear of a "high smog" alert ... So what happened? Don't tell me strict car emission and other environmental controls didn't have anything to do with this ... Why does it have to be one extreme or the other? I.e. why is it either enviornmentalist waco or a George Carlin? I am myself pretty far from those tree hugging hippies screaming how cow farts and SUVs are destroying the Ozone layer but on the other hand, I strongly believe in recycling and not haphazardly polluting. As an example, I produce about 10x more recycleable trash at my home in Wisconsin than regular trash and whenever I change my car oil I'll take every drop of the old oil to the proper place that collects it as opposed to dumping it in the trash. That's what I call "controlled" as opposed to eh, it's nature ... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Way to go, Sip. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Actually, Sip, you shouldn't compare recyclable to non-recyclable, because this ratio doesn't mean anything as people in developed countries get more packaged stuff as opposed to those of the more traditional ones (who will for example peel their own potatoes, giving out natural garbage, instead of get them frozen in packages, giving out plastic recyclable material). Maybe what percentage of recyclable you do put out would be more informative. Just a thought. Sorry, I'm very smart-aleck today. Or should I say more so than usual? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sip Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 They are all empty ketchup bottles miss smarty pants But good point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Armen Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Hell, I don't get who against whom, and who is who's buddy in this thread. This is so confusing. I don't even understand why this thread got emotional. I some how may be one of the reason, so here is my position... "I'm not against SUVs and I refuse to recycle until Las Vegas is around". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Hmmmmmmm, whatcha thinka tryin' "sustainable ketchup consumption"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stormig Posted June 9, 2004 Report Share Posted June 9, 2004 Hell, I don't get who against whom, and who is who's buddy in this thread. This is so confusing. I don't even understand why this thread got emotional. I some how may be one of the reason, so here is my position... "I'm not against SUVs and I refuse to recycle until Las Vegas is around". Maybe it's a good thing there isn't just black and white, then? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.