> In the Nag Hammadi Library there is a book called
> Mary. You shall find it there. As well it is quite
> interesting to read Philip and the Voice of Thunder.

Also The Gospel of Thomas, verse 114: Simon Peter said to them, "Make Mary
(Magdalene) leave us, for females don't deserve life."
Jesus said, "Look, I will guide her to make her male, so that she too can
become a living spirit resembling you males. For every femaile who makes
herself male will enter the kingdom of heaven."

But don't worry too much, the meaning is ambiguous and most unclear, to say
the least. It may have to do with being androgynous, or some kind of gnostic
code
Frank

----- Original Message -----

From: golden3000997@...

To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Saturday, November 08, 2003 9:21 AM

Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Anthroposophy, Nazism, and Scientology

Hello Taz et al,

That's pretty easy, dear uncle! Nazism is definitely Ahriman. Hitler was a
direct "descendant" in reverse of Ahriman (forerunner). He came to test the
waters, so to speak and to help those spiritual forces preparing for Ahriman's
incarnation to get a "preview of coming attractions" - to see the effects and
what might go wrong. There is an American company, which a relative of mine works
for, called Decisionquest. They set up mock trials for mega-corporation and
probably government interests when they are faced with lawsuits. They select
juries from the public and go through the whole procedure, then analyize and
evaluate the results and report to the company or entity who hired them, so they
can see how to adjust their approach at the real trial in order to win. To me,
that is what Hitler (or rather, the entity who occupied his body) was doing -
giving world domination a good trial run. I think what they will have learned
is to be a bit more subtle - more brutal, but more subtle. They have learned
in the interim how effective it is to commit atrocity while sounding
"politically correct." The masses today take far more umbrage against someone using the
wrong words than against what they actually do. People will hate more someone
who works to help "nigger children" in the inner cities than someone who
incarcerates "African-Americans."

Lucifer must adore Scientology. It must be one of his pet projects. It is all
about the "Me" versus the "I". I have read some of their literature, not a
lot, but that combined with information about the group and it's effects leads
me to believe that it is the ultimate cult of the "me" generation. It is not
about "we" as a whole, just a collection of "me"s getting their kicks in the
spiritual world. It is about pole vaulting to the spiritual world and by-passing
the path that leads to the spiritual world that has an objective reality. The
spiritual world found through Scientology is real, too, but only in a kind of
bubble, cut off from everyone else. Of course, reaching it permits the
individual to access many spiritual powers, heightened intellect and will, control of
emotions, etc. that reside already within each of us. But it specifically
cuts off any perception of a spiritual world accessible to all. Remember John
Travolta in "Phenomenon"? He is a fervent avowed Scientologist and that movie was
such a total revelation. Struck by lightning, his intellectual and psychic
powers increased exponentially. Everyone was amazed. He taught and healed. Then
he died of a brain tumor, leaving those around him and the movie going
wondering, "Were those psychic powers REAL, or just a fluke result of a brain tumor?"
" Are ANY psychic powers real or just an anomaly of some physical disease?"
"We wish they were real, but they probably aren't." Thus re-inforcing the idea
that real spiritual perception is beyond man's capacity if he is healthy.

It's fine that the world identifies "evil" so completely with Adolf Hitler
and the image of a ranting, roaring madman standing in front of masses looking
rather ridiculous. It will be so much easier to accept the real Ahriman when he
appears in Dockers and Reboks and speaks oh so gently and wisely. I just
watched a movie called "Blind Spot, Hitler's Secretary." It is nothing but a long
interview, spliced from several, of a woman who died shortly after the movie
came out in 2002. She was one of Hitler's personal secretaries, selected by him
as a young woman in her early 20's. After 50 years, she finally decided to
speak for the first time about her experiences. Among many things that affected
and impressed me what that when she first met him, he was so different from
the impressive figure (shall we say) that she had seen on the newsreels. And
even through living with him in the bunker up to the very end, he still remained
in that environment only a kind and considerate "normal" man. There were only
a few instances that she described seeing him turn cold or hot toward someone,
but mostly, those images were kept for the media.

Now, we "know" just what an evil man will look and sound like. And of course,
no one in America fits that description, surely! We "know" there are no
Hitlers here! Of course, Osama bin Laden and Suddam Hussein "could" be evil, they
certainly have a strange and fanatical "look" about them.

Rather successful "dry run", wouldn't you say?

:  ) Christine


To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

Hi Dottie!

Do you recognize my cheeky "from Iowa" dig? It's from the "Music Man" - line
about two Iowans standing nose to nose for a week and "never see eye to eye."
I was trying to make a funny! As Red Skelton (my personal saint) once or twice
said, "Don't take life too seriously - none of us are getting out of it
alive." :  )

We do need to lighten up a little bit now and then.

I have been madly researching in the Bible for that line by Mary Magdalene -
so it's in the Nag Hammadi??? I'll start looking there.

There are levels and levels to understanding all of this. Thank you for the
compliments, but your understanding is just fine. As someone said in another
post, on another Steiner group, it is so different to try to communicate through
this medium than to study something in person with a group. There is so much
communication that goes on at other levels. On the other hand, by having to
express ourselves in writing, we might make a few ideas more clear than we had
expressed before.

I totally agree that we need to act out of love always if we have the
strength to do so. One on one interaction involves the meeting of egos and that
is
far beyond group, religious or nationalistic identities. Communication is
essential and bridges must be built. But just as there are Angels and then
Archangels and Archai, so there are individuals and then larger groups and
movements
and then Spirits of the Time which can and do sweep up individuals in their
path. The trick I think, is to try to perceive these larger entities, the good
and
the bad and the truth about them.

What I was saying when I sounded so "fire and brimstone" about making choices
is that we, as individuals may find ourselves in the not very distant future
being called upon to make choices that align us with one or more of these
larger entities. What I meant was that, even if we find ourselves so caught up
that we must succumb to their demands (microchips, etc) that we need to still be
able to know inside who and what we are dealing with, not go into it all
blindly. We may not be able to resist physically, but we can resist spiritually.
Many have been put into prison in the past for telling the truth about a
government or religion and have remained free inside themselves. Yes, I believe
the
time is at hand when many lightworkers and truth tellers will go there again,
possibly to suffer and die. But they, including perhaps us, must stay free
inside. We must never surrender the truth. We must never give evil the name of
good.

And yes, Frank, if you are reading this - I mean the Waldorf movement, too.
The seeds of human freedom which it seeks to plant, nurture and guard in each
human child are very dangerous to the forces in the world today. As long as it
remains quiet and acquiescent to the state, it will be allowed to continue.
But the state, contrary to popular belief, is not stupid. They know very well
who we are. And now, the American movement has made the unbelievably stupid
mistake of getting into bed with the public (state) school system! Let's just go
ahead and marry the executioner, why don't we?? PLANS is absolutely right about
their position that Waldorf Education has no place in the public school
system and that Waldorf educators should be honest and upfront with all parents
about the Anthroposophy and Christianity that lives within it. I am not
concerned
with the forum that is running on it about whether or not RS was connected
with the Nazis, that's another subject entirely. But Waldorf education in state
schools has two things wrong with it - Waldorf teachers are inherently limited
in what they can say and do, even though they may have more freedom in the
classroom than other public school teachers and Waldorf education has been put
under the gaze of the power system at large. It's not that what we do in a
Waldorf classroom is or should be secret - far from it. But it should be done in
total freedom and independence from any other controlling factor. And only
those parents and families who understand it honestly and as fully as possible
should participate. Sometimes withholding truth can be as bad as a direct lie.
That's what I meant, Frank.

I have a manuscript which I will either type or try to scan that addresses
the revolutionary aspect of Waldorf Education. I intend to send it to you in
entirety. In the meantime, I will say that the bit about the Threefold Social
Order being on the table at Versailles was told to me and six other teacher
trainees in 1977-78 by Rene Querido. If it's not true, I want to know why he
told
us. The manuscript that I am working on supports it, but does not state it
exactly. I will keep researching. If you can, please tell me why you said that
it
never happened.

One more thing about public education, and that is money. I think many people
only consider it as one little neighborhood school with well intentioned
people doing the best they can for a city's children. That is true, of course,
but
there is much more to it. Public education means lots and lots of money for
those in power. You think there's not enough money for schools today? Children
are hard pressed to have the essentials? Last year, I think, here in Miami,
the head of the school board was fired for corruption and walked away with a
$2,000,000.00+ severance package!!! And in the States, many if not all states
run
a lottery that pulls in billions and billions. Here in Florida it was
packaged to the public as a means expressly to help improve the schools.
Promises
were made before the legislation was passed promising that it would be devoted
to
public education in addition to tax funding and not instead. Well, tax money
for education has been reduced and lottery money used instead. But there is
still no evidence of money being used in the quantities currently generated by
the lottery. I have never seen any accounting of where that money goes. I would
like to see it on a yearly basis, with a dollar by dollar breakdown. In fact,
I'm going to see if I can find it on the Net. Florida has a lousy report
card. 40 out of 50 ain't bad, I guess - but where does the money
go??????????????

States Ranked: Smartest to Dumbest
The smartest state in the union is Massachusetts.
The dumbest, for the second consecutive year, is New Mexico.
These are the findings of the Education State Rankings, a survey by Morgan
Quitno Press of the public school systems in all 50 states. States were graded
on a variety of factors based on how they compare to the national average.
These included such positive attributes as per-pupil expenditures, public high
school graduation rates, average class size, student reading and math
proficiency, and pupil-teacher ratios. States received negative points for high
drop-out
rates and physical violence.

How does YOUR state rank?
1. Massachusetts
2. Vermont
3. Connecticut
4. Montana
5. New Jersey
6. Maine
7. Pennsylvania
8. (tie) Wisconsin and Iowa
10. New York
11. Nebraska
12. Minnesota
13. Indiana
14. Wyoming
15. Kansas
16. Rhode Island
17. Virginia
18. Maryland
19. Delaware
20. Michigan
21. North Carolina
22. Ohio
23. Alaska
24. North Dakota
25. Utah
26. New Hampshire
27. Illinois
28. Missouri
29. West Virginia
30. Idaho
31. South Dakota
32. Oregon
33. Washington
34. Texas
35. Colorado
36. Georgia
37. Kentucky
38. Arkansas
39. Oklahoma
40. Florida
41. South Carolina
42. Tennessee
43. Hawaii
44. California
45. Arizona
46. Alabama
47. Louisiana
48. Mississippi
49. Nevada
50. New Mexico

--- golden3000997@... wrote:
> Dear Dottie,
>
> We are still not seeing eye to eye (one of us must
> be from Iowa!) but that's
> OK. However, I want to make a few things clear in
> the following segment of our
> discussion.
>


Dear Christine,

Yes we are. I just don't express my understandings
very well. They ALL line up with what you have found.

In the Nag Hammadi Library there is a book called
Mary. You shall find it there. As well it is quite
interesting to read Philip and the Voice of Thunder.

I have a few other thoughts I am working on, well not
right now, however they tend to freak people out or
whatever...anyway I think the fourth gospel is
inspired by Magdalene and I believe it was SHE who was
raised under the cover of Lazarus, which means the one
whom God helps.

You have such a greater way of expressin than I. I
don't know why I can not pull it down into the written
word. It stays within me and comes out pretty jumbled.
I remember another list mate who said that I am stuck
in one of the three levels that Dr. STeiner states we
come with in our soul. I seem not to be able, and
truly I think he was right, that there seems to be NO
WAY I can overcome this way of being. I have come to
see that my mind just does not connect things in an
intellectual manner. No matter how much study I think.
I would almost have to rewire my brain it seems.

You are right on Christine. Do you find many people
who agree with you? Also I am wondering if you can
share, because I think it is important to lay the
groundwork for others, how you came upon such a thing.
Unless it is too personal however, I have to say it is
really important just as Steiners work is for this to
throw a light on this path.

Love to you always,

Dottie



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Dear Richard and Friends,

I find my self perplexed when 'feeling' common ground
has been take on issues as important as the one state
below by Dr. Steiner.

My position is that we have overcome and that
definitely includes the Arabs and Muslim following
peoples. I can not have anyone, until the end of time,
tell me what a people will or will not do or succumb
to. My fight and I believe it is MichaelSophia's fight
is to inspire the kernal of Christ that exists in all
of us.

I find people tend to say 'well that is the way it is
told and that is the way it is going to be' human
laziness. The spirit cries out to see beyond what we
as humans can comprehend and it begs for warriors
willing to find love and expose it for the good.
Nurture it in righteousness for All. Allah is both
masculine and feminine principles. It is seen even in
the name.

I find Sophia in the beginnings of this story of
Muhammed. She is there whether anyone else can see her
or not. There is no way for her not to be there. They
have been lied to just as the Christic people have
been regarding Sophia. But that is okay because it
must have been the way this story unfolds because it
has already been told.

I think we will find if Dr. Steiner is right regarding
the Slavs that it will be through their close
affiliation with the Arab world that a true course
will succeed. The hearts of these two people match
entirely in my thoughts. Sophia reigns without being
seen. She is felt, though.

I as well consider that the outer minds of people
percieve Christianity, Judiasm as well as Muslim, as
Father relgions. Its pretty obvious when one truly
opens to ChristSophia they are not. People who follow
a spiritual path may not see it this way and that must
include Muslims.

I wish Catherine were here, she is well versed in the
feeling of the people even if we may come to different
conclusions.

Thanks Richard for digging up the post. That is pretty
interesting. Nothing like a little fire to rekindle
the path.

My Thoughts,

Dottie

Richard
>       The following was being distributed throughout
> other Anthroposophic e-groups. The material may be
> disturbing and quite controversial due to the recent
> developments in the last couple of years. It is
> compilation of various points that Steiner had given
> to the CC priests in September of 1924. The
> translation/edition is not exactly what I have in my
> edition at some points. I looked through my copy and
> found that the following is actually from two
> lectures and that these are points from Steiner's
> lectures that the individual had selected.
>
>       The lecture cycle is titled, "The Book of
> Revelation and the Work of the Priest." (18
> lectures). The two cited lectures are: 11 & 12
> September,1924; Dornach, Switzerland.
>
>
>
>       rick distasi
>
>
>
********************************************************************************\
********************
>
>       From one basic way of considering this matter,
> there are two
>       realms: the realm of NATURE â?" which is the
> realm of the Father
>       (the source of the created world both
> spiritually and physically) â?"
>       and the realm of the SPIRIT.
>       The Mohammedan teachings do not know the
> structure of the
>       world I have just been speaking about. They
> know â?" and can
>       ONLY know â?" the Father.
>       They know only the rigid doctrine: "There is
> one God, Allah, and
>       none beside him, and Mohammed is his Prophet."
>       From this angle, the teachings of Mohammed are
> the strongest
>       polarity to Christianity.
>       Indeed, resident in a hidden manner within the
> Islamic
>       worldview is the will to do away with all
> freedom forever, the will
>       to bring about a purely deterministic
> spiritual and social order
>       that would dominate every aspect of human
> life, for nothing else
>       is possible if you imagine the world solely in
> the sense of a
>       Father God alone.
>       A foreboding of this gave the
> apocalypse-writer (John) the
>       feeling: The human being cannot be found, or
> find himself, in
>       this. The human being cannot become filled
> through and
>       through with Christ if he remains connected
> with the doctrine of
>       the Father (alone).
>       Restricted to this, the human being cannot
> take hold of his own
>       humanness. He fails to become fully human if
> he is only able to
>       conceive the Father God.
>       In the end, the human being only becomes human
> by making
>       Christ alive within himself and thereby
> gaining protection from
>       the material conviction that spiritual
> realities are illusionary and
>       vaporous epi-phenomena of purely material
> causes.
>       Entertainment of the doctrine of the Father
> (alone) inescapably
>       arrives at a conceptual materialism such as
> represented, for
>       example, by Darwinism, the view that the human
> being arises
>       from purely material causes.
>       And if we regard Christianity primarily as
> that which accords with
>       the Sun forces spiritually speaking, and such
> as is reflected /
>       mirrored / mediated / manifested by the nine
> ranks of angelic
>       Hierarchies, then we may identify that which
> OPPOSES these
>       spiritual/sun forces as "anti-sun" forces or
> as  "sun demon."
>       This "sun demon" works COUNTER to the
> Christian principle in
>       such a way that â?" if a human being were to
> succumb to the lures
>       of the sun demon and his inspiration, then
> that same human
>       being would â?" by his own free choice â?"
> surrender all inward
>       connection to the divinity of Christ for an
> inward connection with
>       the sub-human spiritual realms.
>       The apocalyptist saw this. â?" He felt and saw
> the mighty (future)
>       counter-principle of Arabism bursting in on
> Christianity.
>       It was clear to him that, from this Arabism,
> everything arises that
>       brings the human being close to the purely
> animal nature, first of
>       all in his views, but gradually also in his
> combined impulses of
>       will and action.
>       And what the apocalyptist saw BEHIND the
> future scenes of the
>       looming Mohammdan historical impulse was the
> sun demon at
>       work, working against the sun forces, against
> the spiritual
>       sun-intelligence.
>       If asked, the apocalyptist would have called
> the representatives
>       of Arabism in Europe "human beings who have
> willingly
>       dedicated themselves to the sun demon in their
> souls' nature."
>       Dear friends, the number 666 represented both
> the NAME and
>       the TIME when Arabism would flow into
> Christianity in order to
>       impress the seal of materialism upon western
> culture.
>       The apocalyptist portrays everything that
> works as a
>       counter-principle to Christianity â?" such as
> Arabism and its
>       deterministic conceptual constructs â?" as
> direct outflow from the
>       counter-spirituality represented by the
> sun-demon Surat.
>       And, in the final analysis, everything flowing
> from Arabism was
>       directed ultimately against a spiritual
> Christian understanding of
>       transubstantiation. External facts certainly
> do not look as if this
>       were the case but â?" by allotting validity
> only to the Father principle
>       â?" to the natural world-order, the sun demon
> forces indeed
>       intended to sweep away from human view an
> immediate feeling
>       for that which is active in the very deepest
> way in a sacrament
>       such as transubstantiation.
>       (The great revolutions that came about in
> Europe as a result of
>       the Crusades belong under the sign of the
> SECOND occurrence
>       of the number 666â?¦.)
>       During the first 666, dear friends, Surat was
> still hidden but
>       actively at work within the external process
> of outward events; he
>       was not seen in clear outward manifestation.
>       Now before us [in 1924] lies the time of the
> third number 666:
>       1998 A.D.
>       At the end of this (the twentieth) century,
> the time will come when
>       Surat will ONCE AGAIN raise his head most
> strongly out of the
>       waves of history.
>       Only two-thirds of the 20th century will have
> still to run before
>       Surat/Sorat once again raises his head most
> mightily.
>       Before this (twentieth) century is out, he
> will show himself
>       through his appearance in many human beings as
> the one by
>       whom many are "possessed."
>       Human beings will appear of whom it will be
> impossible to
>       believe that they are really human beings.
>       These Surat-inspired human beings will be
> recognizable by their
>       external appearance; in a terrible way they
> will not only scoff at
>       everything, but will also oppose, and want to
> destroy, and to
>       push into the abyss anything that is
> spiritual.
>       Outwardly, they will have intense and strong
> dispositions, with
>       savage countenances, and with furious
> destructiveness in their
>       emotions.
>
=== message truncated ===


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Dear Dottie,

We are still not seeing eye to eye (one of us must be from Iowa!) but that's
OK. However, I want to make a few things clear in the following segment of our
discussion.


Christine
> Anyway, this to illustrate the male/female unity of
> God and the manifestation
> of God as male and female on the physical plane. Why
> then interpret the
> Trinity as God the Father, God the Son (Sun -
> shouldn't really be male in a strict
> sense, but another topic) and God the Holy Spirit
> and interpret this as a
> "He"? It is the Holy Spirit which INCARNATES the
> LOGOS or Sun of God, and through
> whom did He incarnate in the physical? And who was
> specifically present in the
> upper room at Pentecost with the disciples? I have
> some pictures somewhere
> around here of Mary in the middle of the circle as
> they receive the flame above
> their heads - most rosary pictures have it that way.
> Again, SHE brings it down
> into them. SHE IS the manifestation of the Divine
> Female. And not just ONE
> Mary - but THREE Marys.


Dottie

I am wondering if you see Magdalene sitting to the
left of Jesus at the last Supper? Do you see her in
the room? Have you ever seen the painting, don't know
whose it is, where the finger of God reaches out and
touches the finger of man? Up until this  year I
thought that was the whole painted picture. It is not.
Under the bridge of a place I drive past is a mural of
the whole picture or at least what I can feel is the
whole picture: God with his arms enfolding a woman and
a child. Incredible.

There is a book called Crone, don't recall the author
at the moment, that really allowed me to move further
on my search for the Marys' mystery. It was there that
I was able to connect the symbolism of the three
Marys. And they can be found throughout history of the
OT as well as Hindu/Buddist/Sumerian texts.

Christine
But I see Mary Magdalene as the third in the
> Female Trinity of God.


******** Please make note that I am not saying that MARY MAGDELENE is the
female element in the Trinity. I am saying that the Holy Spirit is in its
essence, the Divine Female and that it Manifests as a feminine trinity - Eva
Maria,
the soul force of the Heart - Maria Sophia, the soul force of the Head - Maria
Magdelena, the soul force of the Will. The MARY in the upper room, actually
was an incarnation of all three. The physical body of the EVA Maria was already
bearing the Ego of the Maria Sophia within her (see The Gospel of St. Luke -
Rudolf Steiner) Even though Mary Magdelene was in the body still, supposedly, I
personally feel that her Ego was somehow melded with the other two, although
I may not be able to justify this with something in writing. Through the power
of the MARY as TRINITY of the Female Divine, the Holy Spirit (The Comforter)
was incarnated in human kind for all eternity. I believe that Steiner did say
once that the mysteries of the feminine would be explored by someone who would
come after him, that it wasn't necessarily his task. I'll try to find that
reference.

Of course, there have been "pre-Christian" manifestations of the Female
Divine, just as there were "pre-Christian" manifestations of the Christ as Sun
God.
Please make clear note - I am saying MANIFESTATION - NOT INCARNATION!!! There
have never been and never will be any other INCARNATIONs of the Christ.

(sorry for the caps, I am not shouting, but when I "bold" or italic, it
doesn't come through and I want to emphasis. My browser does not support HTML
and I
can't write properly.


Dottie

I see her there as well. For me she is the Daughter
Voice of God. Never really thought of it being the
third but it makes sense if we look at mother father
child.

Christine
> She was the one who first saw the Risen Christ.
> There were three Marys
> accounted for at the foot of the cross, also.


ALSO - Dottie you said this:

But what does that really mean? See for me, my work is
leading me to find the Father and I think the Father
is the physical reality and that is why we are all
male and female. I think that is what Magdalene meant
when she said

'he is going to make males of us all'(
meaning Christ)...

to me that means they are all going
to become Suns or rayers of God. I believe the female
part of us is the spirit. Therefore we, as human
beings are all male and female.

Please tell me WHERE she says that!!! Is it in the BIBLE?? If so, Please give
me the chapter and verse - I really want to see it for myself. Doesn't ring a
bell at all. In fact, I don't recall any quotes of her at all except when she
meets The Risen Christ and asks him where he put her teacher (rabbi).

This is really, really important to me, so please find me that quote. Thank
you!

:  ) Christine

Hello Taz et al,

That's pretty easy, dear uncle! Nazism is definitely Ahriman. Hitler was a
direct "descendant" in reverse of Ahriman (forerunner). He came to test the
waters, so to speak and to help those spiritual forces preparing for Ahriman's
incarnation to get a "preview of coming attractions" - to see the effects and
what might go wrong. There is an American company, which a relative of mine
works
for, called Decisionquest. They set up mock trials for mega-corporation and
probably government interests when they are faced with lawsuits. They select
juries from the public and go through the whole procedure, then analyize and
evaluate the results and report to the company or entity who hired them, so they
can see how to adjust their approach at the real trial in order to win. To me,
that is what Hitler (or rather, the entity who occupied his body) was doing -
giving world domination a good trial run. I think what they will have learned
is to be a bit more subtle - more brutal, but more subtle. They have learned
in the interim how effective it is to commit atrocity while sounding
"politically correct." The masses today take far more umbrage against someone
using the
wrong words than against what they actually do. People will hate more someone
who works to help "nigger children" in the inner cities than someone who
incarcerates "African-Americans."

Lucifer must adore Scientology. It must be one of his pet projects. It is all
about the "Me" versus the "I". I have read some of their literature, not a
lot, but that combined with information about the group and it's effects leads
me to believe that it is the ultimate cult of the "me" generation. It is not
about "we" as a whole, just a collection of "me"s getting their kicks in the
spiritual world. It is about pole vaulting to the spiritual world and by-passing
the path that leads to the spiritual world that has an objective reality. The
spiritual world found through Scientology is real, too, but only in a kind of
bubble, cut off from everyone else. Of course, reaching it permits the
individual to access many spiritual powers, heightened intellect and will,
control of
emotions, etc. that reside already within each of us. But it specifically
cuts off any perception of a spiritual world accessible to all. Remember John
Travolta in "Phenomenon"? He is a fervent avowed Scientologist and that movie
was
such a total revelation. Struck by lightning, his intellectual and psychic
powers increased exponentially. Everyone was amazed. He taught and healed. Then
he died of a brain tumor, leaving those around him and the movie going
wondering, "Were those psychic powers REAL, or just a fluke result of a brain
tumor?"
" Are ANY psychic powers real or just an anomaly of some physical disease?"
"We wish they were real, but they probably aren't." Thus re-inforcing the idea
that real spiritual perception is beyond man's capacity if he is healthy.

It's fine that the world identifies "evil" so completely with Adolf Hitler
and the image of a ranting, roaring madman standing in front of masses looking
rather ridiculous. It will be so much easier to accept the real Ahriman when he
appears in Dockers and Reboks and speaks oh so gently and wisely. I just
watched a movie called "Blind Spot, Hitler's Secretary." It is nothing but a
long
interview, spliced from several, of a woman who died shortly after the movie
came out in 2002. She was one of Hitler's personal secretaries, selected by him
as a young woman in her early 20's. After 50 years, she finally decided to
speak for the first time about her experiences. Among many things that affected
and impressed me what that when she first met him, he was so different from
the impressive figure (shall we say) that she had seen on the newsreels. And
even through living with him in the bunker up to the very end, he still remained
in that environment only a kind and considerate "normal" man. There were only
a few instances that she described seeing him turn cold or hot toward someone,
but mostly, those images were kept for the media.

Now, we "know" just what an evil man will look and sound like. And of course,
no one in America fits that description, surely! We "know" there are no
Hitlers here! Of course, Osama bin Laden and Suddam Hussein "could" be evil,
they
certainly have a strange and fanatical "look" about them.

Rather successful "dry run", wouldn't you say?

:  ) Christine

----- Original Message -----

From: Tarjei Straume

To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com

Sent: Friday, November 07, 2003 11:36 PM

Subject: Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: occult lodges and islam

At 01:33 07.11.2003, Christine Natale wrote:

>I hear over and over again so many platitudes about Islam being a
>beautiful religion. Well, after 911 I decided to see for myself and
>downloaded most of the Koran and started to read it. I haven't read it
>through and I can't say 100% that it is what I think it is, but my
>impression so far is that it is a mish-mash of old testament stories
>combined with the kind of hell and brimstone stuff that would make a
>Southern Baptist pale in comparison. There is no forgiveness, no
>flexibility. Everything is totally black and white, us and them, heaven
>and hell. No possiblility of interpretation or redemption.

I end up with a feeling of ambivalence when I'm trying to decipher
Steiner's take on the Arabs. On the one hand, he says in a lecture
somewhere that we Westerners usually have no idea of the special
relationship an Arab has to the Christ. On the other hand, he also talks
about the Arabic-Islamic world as the one and only corner of the earth
where the culture has not been touched by the Christ Impulse, where they've
managed to dodge the Golgotha Mystery altogether. I still haven't figured
it out.

>And even if that were not enough, one must have a critical eye toward any
>religion in its practice as well as its theory. There is nothing of love
>or understanding or forgiveness in any of its practices, either. There is
>only power and oppression, and I mean particularly to its own people,
>especially women.

On the other hand, the distinction needs to be made between a religion like
that and its individual followers. When spiritual, social, and cultural
impulses and practices that may have been right for an earler age or epoch,
is preserved and continued beyond its rightful time, such streams become
hijacked by ahrimanic and even asuric beings and end up serving the
hindering gods. For this reason, all Old Age religions based upon faith in
old scriptures, supporting a mode of cognition that should have ended
completely around 1950, are becoming increasingly evil, and we're only
seeing the faint beginnings of this.

But remember the Good Samaritan, who today would translate into the Good
Muslim. Dottie seems to be talking about the spirituality of beautiful
souls who happen to be Muslims.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/ 




To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

OK folks, I'm going to throw something at you in this post.

Opponents and critics of Anthroposophy have accused the movement of being
linked to Nazism in terms of racism and fascism, and of being similar to
Scientology in terms of destructive, oppressive cultism. As it turns out,
it's a lot easier to publish such allegations and spread them around than
it is to refute them, which requires a lot more time and effort. But there
is another reason why these particular allegations easily get a life of
their own: They are based upon quarter-truths. The critics who use such
propaganda tactics are usually not themselves aware of where the
quarter-truth may be located; they just grab at it instinctively as it were.

I'll try to explain what I'm getting at by first telling you about a
historical view held by a friend of mine in Texas sixteen years ago, when I
was a member of the AS for a short time and participated in an
anthroposophical study group in Houston, focusing on the PoF. We were
talking about the outbreak of WW I in 1914 and how this prevented RS from
continuing his spiritual research into certain mysteries of the Gospels. My
friend held the view that Steiner's mission on German-speaking soil was so
important for the evolution of humanity that not only WW I, but also WW II,
were direct results of his activities.

This may be too much to swallow even for anthroposophists. Personally, I'm
still chewing on it, although I must admit I'm leaning in  my friend's
direction here. He also thought that one of the reasons why the Jews were
targeted for such unspeakable murderous cruelty under Hitler, was that the
archangel Michael was the folk spirit for the Hebrew people in the Old
Testament times, and in 1879 he had returned as the archai Michael, the
very countenance of Christ leading humanity into the New Age as Time
Spirit, Zeitgeist. So to get at Michael, Ahriman went for his children of
old, the Jews. And the person who made Christ-Michael such a threat to
Ahriman's ambitions to hijack the evolution of humanity through
ultra-rationalism was none other than Rudolf Steiner.

Of course there are objections to this scenario, that both world wars were
the results of, attacks against, Steiner's mission in German-speaking
countries. Well, the man was important, but not THAT important. Impossible.
Well, I have no further comment. As I said, I'm just throwing this out at you.

I am not going into Scientology in this post. I have treated this subject
extensively on private lists and have texts available if need be. As I
understand it, the Scientologists approach initiation, which they call
"clear," in such a way that they kill the Doppelgänger or sonehow knock the
double out, forcing down this hindrance to crossing the threshold
illegitimately. It goes without saying that such an approach will not only
result in a long list of suicides and psychoses among their "raw meat," but
also insanity.

And here we come to another riddle, not unlike the one I invented for fun
earler about the good cop, the bad cop, and the suspect. If the above is
true, the following would also make sense - something I picked up from
someone on the internet: When Anthroposophy was given to humanity through
Rudolf Steiner's works and lectures, it resulted in two reverse
counter-images so to speak (one doctor Jekyll and two mister Hydes if you
prefer): The first of these was Nazism; the second was Scientology. One of
the things the latter two have in common is a strong Jesuit element with
regard to their inner structure and discipline. One of the key differences
is that Nazism was fascist and Scientology is Communist. In addition to
Aleister Crowley, Beria (chief of the secret police under Stalin) also had
great influence upon Ron Hubbard's ideas and system.

But I'm not going further with this now, because I am going to present to
you this great riddle: If we're dealing with Ahriman, Lucifer, and Christ
here (as usual), we should be able to assign an ideology or system to each
of them here: Anthroposophy, Scientology, and Nazism. But which is which?
Anthroposophy is Christ, but what about the other two, Nazism and
Scientlogy? Which of these is Lucifer and which is Ahriman? Any ideas on
this folks?

Cheers,


Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

At 05:27 07.11.2003, Christine wrote:

>I am 48 years old and I was a Waldorf teacher for around 15 years. I have
>been away from it for a decade and would like to go back if I can find a
>school community that can handle my radicalism.

Whatever you do, Christine, don't go anywhere. Please stick around. You
"sound" anarchosophical.


Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

At 01:33 07.11.2003, Christine Natale wrote:

>I hear over and over again so many platitudes about Islam being a
>beautiful religion. Well, after 911 I decided to see for myself and
>downloaded most of the Koran and started to read it. I haven't read it
>through and I can't say 100% that it is what I think it is, but my
>impression so far is that it is a mish-mash of old testament stories
>combined with the kind of hell and brimstone stuff that would make a
>Southern Baptist pale in comparison. There is no forgiveness, no
>flexibility. Everything is totally black and white, us and them, heaven
>and hell. No possiblility of interpretation or redemption.

I end up with a feeling of ambivalence when I'm trying to decipher
Steiner's take on the Arabs. On the one hand, he says in a lecture
somewhere that we Westerners usually have no idea of the special
relationship an Arab has to the Christ. On the other hand, he also talks
about the Arabic-Islamic world as the one and only corner of the earth
where the culture has not been touched by the Christ Impulse, where they've
managed to dodge the Golgotha Mystery altogether. I still haven't figured
it out.

>And even if that were not enough, one must have a critical eye toward any
>religion in its practice as well as its theory. There is nothing of love
>or understanding or forgiveness in any of its practices, either. There is
>only power and oppression, and I mean particularly to its own people,
>especially women.

On the other hand, the distinction needs to be made between a religion like
that and its individual followers. When spiritual, social, and cultural
impulses and practices that may have been right for an earler age or epoch,
is preserved and continued beyond its rightful time, such streams become
hijacked by ahrimanic and even asuric beings and end up serving the
hindering gods. For this reason, all Old Age religions based upon faith in
old scriptures, supporting a mode of cognition that should have ended
completely around 1950, are becoming increasingly evil, and we're only
seeing the faint beginnings of this.

But remember the Good Samaritan, who today would translate into the Good
Muslim. Dottie seems to be talking about the spirituality of beautiful
souls who happen to be Muslims.

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

At 00:02 08.11.2003, Frank wrote:

>I would say that there are various reasons for *not* calling Philosophy of
>Freedom "the bible of anarchism". First of all, the word anarchism doesn't
>appear once in the book (a minor detail? Maybe not).

What the tenth chapter in PoF demonstrates is that a person who liberates
himself is no longer under the command of tyrants, exoteric and esoteric.

One of these tyrants is government. Government exists because the majority
prefers to surrender certain parts of their freedom - a sacrifice that
makes them feel safe and secure. For the rebels, government has a great
variety of threats, punishments, and methods of coercion to keep them in
line, or at least their might-be emulators.

>Also, by calling it that, you are redefining the definition of anarchism,
>to wit:" he principal of anarchy; a system of government based on the free
>agreement of individuals rather than on submission to law and authority."
>If you called it the bible of anarchosophism, I would have no objection -
>and I think that's what you mean.

You're right about one thing here: "Anarchosophy" is what I really mean in
the context at hand. But this word is brand new and has not reached the
dictionaries or officialdom yet. The person best suited to be called an
anarchosophist, is the legendary anthroposophist, author, Waldorf teacher,
poet, social critic, pornographer, alcoholic Jens Bjørneboe (1920-1976) -
http://home.att.net/~emurer/ - the fiercest of social critics who stood up
for the junkies, the prison inmates, the prostitutes, the outcasts, the
outlaws, etc. Throughout his licentious and self-destructive life,
Bjørneboe applied his sweet venom and his hilarious sarcasm against the
police, the prison wardens, the smugness and hypocrisy of the bourgeosie.
He depicted the poet and the prison warden as diametrically opposite types
of human beings. His main theme was man's inhumanity to man, not in distant
corners of the world, but right here at home, in Norway, in our police
stations, our back alleys, our prisons, our mental hospitals, our schools,
in the military, etc.

Ordinary, well-adjusted anthroposophists, i.e. bourgeois, middle and upper
class staid etheric dreamers, couldn't understand why Bjørneboe bothered to
take an active interest in such topics, about human rights for the
"untouchables" of society. And yet today, there isn't a Waldorf school in
Norway that doesn't have books by Bjørneboe on the shelves in the teachers'
room. In no way did Bjørneboe exemplify an esoteric path; on the contrary,
he drank himself to insanity and committed suicide, destroyed by the very
demons he had been busy exposing. (He is not the first among highly gifted
authors to go down this way; just think of Jack London and Ernest Hemingway
for starters.)

But Bjørneboe never used the word "anarchosophist" or "anarchosophy," and
neither did Rudolf Steiner, simply because it did not exist in their
lifetimes. Rudolf Steiner did however call himself an individualistic
anarchist:

"Until now, I have myself always avoided using the words 'individualistic'
or 'theoretical anarchism' to describe my world view. Because I care very
little for such labels. But if I, to the extent it is possible to determine
such things, should say if the word 'individualistic anarchist' can be
applied to me, I would have to answer with an unequivocal 'yes'."

(Gesammelte Aufsätze zur Kultur- und Zeitgeschichte 1887-1901, GA 31, p. 261)

>I knew something of anarchism before anthroposophy, in fact I considered
>myself somewhat of an anarchist.

So did Richard Milhous Nixon in his youth. Or at least, it looks like that.
He read Tolstoy furiously and wrote in his 1976 autobiography that he
almost became an "Tolstoyan."  (That was, of course, many years before he
turned to politics.) Nixon was also strongly influenced by his mother, who
was a Quaker. And quakers are, after all, very close indeed to being
Christian anarchists.

>However, "Basic Issues of the Social Question" (Toward Social Renewal,
>Kernpunkte) and Argentina, convinced me otherwise - that during the
>present time and the immediate future at least, the State is an
>unfortunate necessity, even when it's corrupt from top to bottom.

Even when it's corrupt from top to bottom? In that case, I have to echo the
words of Steiner's friend and hero Benjamin Tucker:

"The state is said by some to be a 'necessary evil;' it must be made
unnecessary. This century's battle, then, is with the State: the State,
that debases man; the State, that prostitutes woman; the State, that
corrupts children; the State, that trammels love; the State, that stifles
thought; the State, that monopolizes land; the State, that limits credit;
the State, that restricts exchange; the State, that gives idle capital the
power of increase, and, through interest, rent, profit, and taxes, robs
industrious labor of its products."

(Tucker, "Our Purpose," Liberty 1 (1881): 2.)

>(I'm referring to what we call democracy of course).

In a modern democracy, which is nothing but an oligarchy in disguise, the
power structure is less easy to detect than in less permissive societies.
Rudolf Steiner once pointed out that the democratic process, the ballot,
was so deceptive because it fools people into believing that they are
pulling the strings, not noticing that they are the puppets whose strings
(and legs) are being pulled by the powermongers behind the scenes, behind
whom stand occult forces.

>It's needed to make and enforce laws to protect citizens from criminals
>and from corporate greed (that it often does the contrary is beside the
>point; sometimes, in some places, it does carry out these functions, and
>always should). In other words, its needed to guarantee human rights. If I
>don't agree with certain laws, fine, I don't obey them (unless I'm forced
>to) or work to change them. I see that as the message of Philosophy of
>Freedom and Basic Issues.

My general problem with a theoretical apology for statism is that it always
represents the easy way out of complex problems. In other words, it's a
cop-out.

What follows is a quote by Morgan Edwards from the book "Benjamin R. Tucker
& the Champions of Liberty."

********************************************************************************\
*******

Anarchist movements worldwide generally declined after the turn of the
century, if not before; two world wars hastened the centralizing process to
the further detriment of action that was independent of the State. Only in
the 1960's did serious resistance to the State recommence; the rise of the
new independent groups - dissident students, professionals and
intellectuals on the one hand and a technical/entrepreneurial class on the
other - seems to be behind the resurgence of anarchistic and
quasi-anarchistic activity.

This resurgence leads us to the "bottom-line" question on Tucker's
strategy: did it fail? And, by extension, we may also ask, did anarchism
fail? The commonplace answer is yes; anarchism failed because it was out of
touch with historical progress - "progress" in this sense is always a
euphemism for centralization and authoritarianism. A more knowledgeable and
cautious answer is: not entirely, or not yet. this attitude at least
recognizes that twentieth century nation-states own no guarantees of
immortality not given to Ur or Babylon. Since States can and do crumble and
fail, the "question" of anarchism cannot ever be finally resolved.

This question of failure implies another about success, and what ideology
can claim success in the late twentieth century? True, the adherents of
socialism, fascism, liberalism, conservatism, social democracy, communism
and most of their variants, have at one time and place or another waxed
great in numbers and prestige and wealth, and ruled the State. Each group
ruled but briefly in the name of its ideology - then they ruled in the name
of the State only.

All of these ideologies had two things in common. Each promised to meet
certain goals once its supporters seized the State; each failed to deliver
the ideological goods, despite having unquestioned, or even unopposed,
control of some very powerful state-formations. In order to hold power to
meet their ultimate goals, each set of ideological rulers found themselves
forced to betray those same goals so as to meet the intermediate and
short-term requirements of political power. These betrayals have seen
cynicism, dishonesty, treachery aplenty; but these are more the effect of
betrayal than its cause. The true, great corruption of power is the loss of
one's aim.

The State today, particularly in America, is vastly more powerful than when
Tucker finally despaired of successfully confronting it directly. Today,
its lightest touch corrupts (in the sense that I use the term). All of the
State ideologies, from the most limited constitutional liberalism to
Marxist State Socialism, have failed, corrupted by the logic of power.
Against Nietzsche's warning, they gazed too long - and too longingly - into
the abyss and became one with it.

Every ideology that has sought to master and direct the State has instead
become its servant. the lesson for our time, if any would see it, is that
the State is not to be mastered. Like the Ruling Ring, in Tolkien's *The
Lord of the Rings,* the State allows
its "wearer" to enjoy for a time the illusion of control - and then asserts
its mastery.

Thus, triumph can be illusory; and determining the "success" or "failure"
of a movement like anarchism depends largely on what one means by those
terms. The usual standards require that one found a thousand-year empire or
at least possess adequate fluid assets; such considerations scarcely enable
us to judge the merits of anarchist strategies, which refuse altogether to
play the "Great Game."

The present generation of anarchists faces anew the question of liberty -
which is anarchism. We should know how our predecessors fought the same
battle; not in order to judge failure or success, but to know both how they
lived as anarchists and how they defended their anarchism - the two
complementaty halves of the struggle. We should not expect to gain from
these studies any certainty about our own course, however. Doubts about our
strategy must plague us, even as they have plagued Benjamin R. Tucker and
the remnants of his circle in later years. "I put the Anarchist case as a
goal that humanity moves towards. But the exact routes - ?? ah! it is not
so easy to map them!"
(Frederic J. Gould to Benjamin Tucker, quoted by Tucker in a letter to
Joseph Ishill Jan 24 1935)

********************************************************************************\
*******
("Neither Bombs Nor Ballots: Liberty & the Strategy of Anarchism" by Morgan
Edwards.)

What this means is that anarchism is a young impulse that is being actively
discussed all over the world. There are many internet newsgroups dedicated
to anarchism for interested parties. All I wish to say is this: Lovers of
freedom should think at least twice before they trash this new-born pearl.

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

Ho, Tarjei,
I would say that there are various reasons for *not* calling Philosophy of
Freedom "the bible of anarchism". First of all, the word anarchism doesn't
appear once in the book (a minor detail? Maybe not). Also, by calling it
that, you are redefining the definition of anarchism, to wit:" he principal
of anarchy; a system of government based on the free agreement of
individuals rather than on submission to law and authority." If you called
it the bible of anarchosophism, I would have no objection - and I think
that's what you mean.
I knew something of anarchism before anthroposophy, in fact I considered
myself somewhat of an anarchist. However, "Basic Issues of the Social
Question" (Toward Social Renewal, Kernpunkte) and Argentina, convinced me
otherwise - that during the present time and the immediate future at least,
the State is an unfortunate necessity, even when it's corrupt from top to
bottom. (I'm referring to what we call democracy of course). It's needed to
make and enforce laws to protect citizens from criminals and from corporate
greed (that it often does the contrary is beside the point; sometimes, in
some places, it does carry out these functions, and always should). In other
words, its needed to guarantee human rights. If I don't agree with certain
laws, fine, I don't obey them (unless I'm forced to) or work to change them.
I see that as the message of Philosophy of Freedom and Basic Issues.
Frank
>
> My fellow subscribers,
>
> In order to clarify some less frivolous aspects of an extremely delicate
> and difficult topic, let it be said that "Philosophy of Freedom"  can only
> be "the Bible of anarchism" as long as anarchism is thought of in its
> purest, most spiritualized form. In this spiritualized anarchism stand the
> cradles of two sisters, Anthroposophia and Anarchosophia:
>
> http://www.uncletaz.com/steinerbomb.html
>
> One of the noblest representatives for exoteric anarchism was Benjamin
> Tucker. He was a highly cultivated gentleman from New England who lived in
> New York, where he founded the best anarchist magazine that has ever
> existed: "Liberty." He translated an entire library of classical anarchist
> literature into English and became the most influential anarchist in the
> English-speaking world. After his life work was destroyed in a fire in
1908
> (he did not believe in capitalist insurance), he settled in France, where
> he practiced his anarchism until he died in 1939.
>
> Tucker did not speak French very well, but he read it with ease. German
was
> not unfamiliar to him either. He read Max Stirner thoroughly (which Rudolf
> Steiner also did), and in the 1890's he published a German edition of
> "Liberty." In 1899 he held a lecture in Berlin entitled "Der Staat in
> seiner Beziehung zum Individualism." At this time he met Rudolf Steiner
> through their mutual anarchist friend Henry Mackay. Steiner hailed Ben
> Tucker as "one of the greatest champions for freedom" and subsequently
> printed his lecture in "Magazin für Literatur," of which he was the
editor.
>
> Like most exoteric anarchists including the classics, Ben Tucker was an
> atheist. What is noteworthy is Rudolf Steiner's appreciation for the
> greatest and noblest achievements of atheist philosophers, because such
men
> arrived at their conclusions empowered by personal, self-dependent effort,
> and not by lazy thinking like religious people who just swallowed what had
> been handed down to them from old books and established traditions.
>
> Anarchosophy may be described as the point where exoteric and esoteric
> anarchism meet in the soul of Rudolf Steiner at the time when he wrote
> "Philosophy of Freedom," but this is only a vague picture. It is the union
> of anthroposophy and anarchism in the soul of the anarchosophist. This
> sounds perhaps awkward, but it brings us a little step closer to the
riddle
> of anarchosophy.
>
> Cheers,
>
>
> Tarjei
> http://uncletaz.com/
>
>
>
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> anthroposophy_tomorrow-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>

Christine
> I am 48 years old and I was a Waldorf teacher for
> around 15 years. I have
> been away from it for a decade and would like to go
> back if I can find a school
> community that can handle my radicalism.


Hi Chrstine,

What do you mean by your radicalism? What class did
you teach in Waldorf and what age group I am
wondering? What did you feel you were supposed to lie
about when you were there? How do you think Dr.
Steiners teachings are more in line with how you would
do things versus the way they are being done?

Christine
> I understand the heart impulse very well. My own
> heart is very deeply
> involved. But Anthroposophy per se requires a lot of
> "head" work, too!

Dottie

Well the way I see it the two must be married in a
sense. It seems to me they mostly work seperately and
the more enlightened we become the more chances are
that the mind is won over by the spirit.

Christine
> Just a few points:
> 1. You noticed the simplistic element in the Koran -
> that's what I meant by a
> mish mash re-telling of Old Testament stories - very
> popular all over the
> middle east at the time.

Dottie

Yes but the same thing happened with the stories of
the Bible as well as the Torah. These can be traced
back to the Buddist/Hindu Traditions as well. The
story has been told for thousands of years before
Christ came. We may have a different take on them but
most of their forms come from the ancient archtypes of
humanity itself. We just found another way to tell the
story imo.

Christine
> 2. I would never equate the "Deed of Christ" and
> man's choices in his actions
> at any level. This is really off the mark. What
> Christ chose to do and why is
> far, far beyond man's capacity of choice at any
> level.

Dottie

Well, I would have to disagree. I believe what Christ
did is what we all must do to know the Father. I don't
believe there is another way.

Christine
He was not a "man"
> though incarnated in the flesh. Men's choices are
> mundane in comparison, but this
> does not, to me, mean that mankind has to be so very
> stupid and greedy about
> them!

Dottie

Again, I disagree. It will take great Christ like
courage and Christ like will power to ward off all
that has been given to us in this physical
incarnation. We must reach up and touch the Heavens
with our hearts. No easy task. Christ reached down and
touched the Earth with His heart. And he did become
human in my mind. Christ chose the same path, albeit a
bit differently, that happens when we become human
from the spiritual world. imo. Christ got to become
man and to experience it just as our spirits
experience this physical reality. And the spirit of
Christ 'sank' down in man to know all that we as man
know and feel. I can't take that away from Christ.

Christine
> 3. I have worked through a lot of Christology in
> myself through reading and
> discussion. I won't claim any special revelation or
> vision, but I have had very
> strong experiences supported by my studies. What
> future ages may have the
> maturity to understand, once we grow past the
> patriarchal power structure of the
> past ? 5,000 years, is that "God" is not male! "God"
> (and I put this most
> carefully in quotes because it is so presumptuous in
> a way to say what God is or
> is not) is the Divine Oneness of the Universe from
> which all eminates, or has
> its being. I don't know if you have studied the
> Bible in the light of
> Anthroposophy yet, but there are many "open
> secrets". If you really do read it and take
> it word for word as truth, you really have to come
> to vastly different
> conclusions than any church I have encountered so
> far. Read Genesis and the line
> (mind you this is BEFORE Adam and Eve)
>

Dear Christine,

I have had confirmation on many of the things you
speak of above. This is my study for some reason. It
did not start out as that but I was guided to find
much of what you speak of regarding the Marys. And
most of it came through vision type of experiences or
at least guided type of experiences. And it was mostly
shocking although it was also instantaneously self
evident. But then I am a doubting Thomas in a sense
and my spirit has to work double for me to really
believe of a thing that has been shown or seen by me.

Christine
> Genesis 1:27 So God created humankind in his image,
> in the image of God he
> created them; male and female he created them."

Dottie

But what does that really mean? See for me, my work is
leading me to find the Father and I think the Father
is the physical reality and that is why we are all
male and female. I think that is what Magdalene meant
when she said 'he is going to make males of us all'(
meaning Christ)...to me that means they are all going
to become Suns or rayers of God. I believe the female
part of us is the spirit. Therefore we, as human
beings are all male and female. This thought is not
really confirmed in me but it is jostling around
looking for the Father. As well I recall Dr. Steiner
stating that the Father is asleep. Well, what does
that mean? Asleep?

Christine
> Anyway, this to illustrate the male/female unity of
> God and the manifestation
> of God as male and female on the physical plane. Why
> then interpret the
> Trinity as God the Father, God the Son (Sun -
> shouldn't really be male in a strict
> sense, but another topic) and God the Holy Spirit
> and interpret this as a
> "He"? It is the Holy Spirit which INCARNATES the
> LOGOS or Sun of God, and through
> whom did He incarnate in the physical? And who was
> specifically present in the
> upper room at Pentecost with the disciples? I have
> some pictures somewhere
> around here of Mary in the middle of the circle as
> they receive the flame above
> their heads - most rosary pictures have it that way.
> Again, SHE brings it down
> into them. SHE IS the manifestation of the Divine
> Female. And not just ONE
> Mary - but THREE Marys.


Dottie

I am wondering if you see Magdalene sitting to the
left of Jesus at the last Supper? Do you see her in
the room? Have you ever seen the painting, don't know
whose it is, where the finger of God reaches out and
touches the finger of man? Up until this  year I
thought that was the whole painted picture. It is not.
Under the bridge of a place I drive past is a mural of
the whole picture or at least what I can feel is the
whole picture: God with his arms enfolding a woman and
a child. Incredible.

There is a book called Crone, don't recall the author
at the moment, that really allowed me to move further
on my search for the Marys' mystery. It was there that
I was able to connect the symbolism of the three
Marys. And they can be found throughout history of the
OT as well as Hindu/Buddist/Sumerian texts.

Christine
But I see Mary Magdalene as the third in the
> Female Trinity of God.

Dottie

I see her there as well. For me she is the Daughter
Voice of God. Never really thought of it being the
third but it makes sense if we look at mother father
child.

Christine
> She was the one who first saw the Risen Christ.
> There were three Marys
> accounted for at the foot of the cross, also.

Dottie

I am wondering if you see her at the end of John on
the beach with Christ? Do you see her as the one Peter
takes issue with and Christ tells him to mind his own
business in a sense?

Christine
> Mind you, this is not a full answer, just pointing
> in the direction of one.
> Of course the Maria Sophia is of the past in terms
> of mankind's past. But her
> IMPULSE is of the future - it is the impulse of
> TRANSFORMATION. God = BEING
> Christ = CREATION Holy Spirit = TRANSFORMATION.

Dottie

When you say Transformation I think of creative. To me
She is the creative energy and it transcends any past
present or future ideals in my thoughts.

Christine
> Everything that is alive,
> physically or spiritually must transform, change,
> must dissolve and resurrect in a
> new form. Otherwise it stagnates, dies and decays or
> crystallizes. That is what
> Ahriman wants the world to do. Achieve "perfection"
> then crystallize and stay
> frozen for all eternity. Lucifer wants us to wallow
> in a spiritual mire -
> caught in our own spiritual cesspool of stagnant,
> individualized spirituality
> which has no relationship or connection with the
> true spiritual world.

Dottie

I see Lucifer as my lower self. I find Luci, the
feminine aspect of Lucifer is very seductive off our
own wants and desires. I watch her kick mans ass all
the time through artists and musicians particulary and
it makes me laugh so hard when it is my friends. She's
just waiting to be played with in a sense. And she
puts herself in front of all  hoping to tempt. But it
is us who are tempted. It is not her fault as far as I
can see.

Christine
Ahriman and
> Lucifer have their reality both internally and
> externally. But when man succumbs to them
unknowingly and
> allows them to take over
> his ego and limit or corrupt his progress, then they
> become "evil" on our plane
> of existence.

Dottie

I don't know about 'them' taking over mans ego. I am
thinking it is man who gives it over out of laziness
or lethargy, loss of hope due to interaction with
other humans who have lost hope and the spirit not
being put forth as the most important. And then we
blame them.

Christine
Read "Lucifer and Ahriman" by Steiner.
> It is not a question of
> hating either of them.

Dottie

The problem I have is people blaming them. Tarjie has
an amazing poem/story on his page of Christ and
Lucifer. I will see if I can find it.

Christine
> In regard to being "as a child" in heart-openess and
> a willingness to learn
> and to share with others, I think that it is a
> natural and good part of
> activating that love-force within you. However,
> there is a spiritual maturity that
> comes from thinking that can, for some people
> initate that heart force, for
> others, strengthen and support it.

Dottie

I am teaching my heart to think not my mind to feel.

Christine
  Again, it's late and I have to go work in the belly
> of the beast tomorrow, so
> I will say good night and promise to give more
> later, if you really want me
> to.

Christine, I love your thoughts and forwardness in
them. You are right about the Marys and there is so
much more to learn about the mystery. And its good and
I believe this is what the war is leading to: the
opening of the Feminine force within all of us on a
conscious level.

Good Work,

Dottie

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Hi Jens,

Anything in English about Steiner on this site? Or can
you share with me who you think Steiner is according
to this site you are referencing?

Thanks,
dottie

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Protect your identity with Yahoo! Mail AddressGuard
http://antispam.yahoo.com/whatsnewfree

Who is Rudolf Steiner?

http://www.nensch.de/story/2003/10/30/162830/50

-jrp.


Jens R. Prochnow

My fellow subscribers,

In order to clarify some less frivolous aspects of an extremely delicate
and difficult topic, let it be said that "Philosophy of Freedom"  can only
be "the Bible of anarchism" as long as anarchism is thought of in its
purest, most spiritualized form. In this spiritualized anarchism stand the
cradles of two sisters, Anthroposophia and Anarchosophia:

http://www.uncletaz.com/steinerbomb.html

One of the noblest representatives for exoteric anarchism was Benjamin
Tucker. He was a highly cultivated gentleman from New England who lived in
New York, where he founded the best anarchist magazine that has ever
existed: "Liberty." He translated an entire library of classical anarchist
literature into English and became the most influential anarchist in the
English-speaking world. After his life work was destroyed in a fire in 1908
(he did not believe in capitalist insurance), he settled in France, where
he practiced his anarchism until he died in 1939.

Tucker did not speak French very well, but he read it with ease. German was
not unfamiliar to him either. He read Max Stirner thoroughly (which Rudolf
Steiner also did), and in the 1890's he published a German edition of
"Liberty." In 1899 he held a lecture in Berlin entitled "Der Staat in
seiner Beziehung zum Individualism." At this time he met Rudolf Steiner
through their mutual anarchist friend Henry Mackay. Steiner hailed Ben
Tucker as "one of the greatest champions for freedom" and subsequently
printed his lecture in "Magazin für Literatur," of which he was the editor.

Like most exoteric anarchists including the classics, Ben Tucker was an
atheist. What is noteworthy is Rudolf Steiner's appreciation for the
greatest and noblest achievements of atheist philosophers, because such men
arrived at their conclusions empowered by personal, self-dependent effort,
and not by lazy thinking like religious people who just swallowed what had
been handed down to them from old books and established traditions.

Anarchosophy may be described as the point where exoteric and esoteric
anarchism meet in the soul of Rudolf Steiner at the time when he wrote
"Philosophy of Freedom," but this is only a vague picture. It is the union
of anthroposophy and anarchism in the soul of the anarchosophist. This
sounds perhaps awkward, but it brings us a little step closer to the riddle
of anarchosophy.

Cheers,


Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

Dear Dottie,

Thank you for your response to my posting. I must admit, I was afraid of
worse! I will try to do justice to your questions, although a lot of the things
I
brought up are big topics. It's getting late, so I will have to work on it
this weekend, probably.

I am 48 years old and I was a Waldorf teacher for around 15 years. I have
been away from it for a decade and would like to go back if I can find a school
community that can handle my radicalism.

I understand the heart impulse very well. My own heart is very deeply
involved. But Anthroposophy per se requires a lot of "head" work, too! We have
to
really understand what is going on around us on sense-perceptible and
super-sensible planes.

Just a few points:
1. You noticed the simplistic element in the Koran - that's what I meant by a
mish mash re-telling of Old Testament stories - very popular all over the
middle east at the time.

2. I would never equate the "Deed of Christ" and man's choices in his actions
at any level. This is really off the mark. What Christ chose to do and why is
far, far beyond man's capacity of choice at any level. He was not a "man"
though incarnated in the flesh. Men's choices are mundane in comparison, but
this
does not, to me, mean that mankind has to be so very stupid and greedy about
them!

3. I have worked through a lot of Christology in myself through reading and
discussion. I won't claim any special revelation or vision, but I have had very
strong experiences supported by my studies. What future ages may have the
maturity to understand, once we grow past the patriarchal power structure of the
past ? 5,000 years, is that "God" is not male! "God" (and I put this most
carefully in quotes because it is so presumptuous in a way to say what God is or
is not) is the Divine Oneness of the Universe from which all eminates, or has
its being. I don't know if you have studied the Bible in the light of
Anthroposophy yet, but there are many "open secrets". If you really do read it
and take
it word for word as truth, you really have to come to vastly different
conclusions than any church I have encountered so far. Read Genesis and the line
(mind you this is BEFORE Adam and Eve)

Genesis 1:27 So God created humankind in his image, in the image of God he
created them; male and female he created them."

New revised standard version, but the same words "male & female he created
them" in all versions I have read so far. Only later comes the Adam & Eve story.
Read Steiner's "Occult Science" for the explanation.

Anyway, this to illustrate the male/female unity of God and the manifestation
of God as male and female on the physical plane. Why then interpret the
Trinity as God the Father, God the Son (Sun - shouldn't really be male in a
strict
sense, but another topic) and God the Holy Spirit and interpret this as a
"He"? It is the Holy Spirit which INCARNATES the LOGOS or Sun of God, and
through
whom did He incarnate in the physical? And who was specifically present in the
upper room at Pentecost with the disciples? I have some pictures somewhere
around here of Mary in the middle of the circle as they receive the flame above
their heads - most rosary pictures have it that way. Again, SHE brings it down
into them. SHE IS the manifestation of the Divine Female. And not just ONE
Mary - but THREE Marys. You need to read The Gospel of St. Luke by Steiner for a
really good explanation of the two Mother Marys - the Eva Maria and the Maria
Sophia. But I see Mary Magdalene as the third in the Female Trinity of God.
She was the one who first saw the Risen Christ. There were three Marys
accounted for at the foot of the cross, also.

Mind you, this is not a full answer, just pointing in the direction of one.
Of course the Maria Sophia is of the past in terms of mankind's past. But her
IMPULSE is of the future - it is the impulse of TRANSFORMATION. God = BEING
Christ = CREATION Holy Spirit = TRANSFORMATION. Everything that is alive,
physically or spiritually must transform, change, must dissolve and resurrect in
a
new form. Otherwise it stagnates, dies and decays or crystallizes. That is what
Ahriman wants the world to do. Achieve "perfection" then crystallize and stay
frozen for all eternity. Lucifer wants us to wallow in a spiritual mire -
caught in our own spiritual cesspool of stagnant, individualized spirituality
which has no relationship or connection with the true spiritual world. Ahriman
and
Lucifer have their reality both internally and externally. They also have
their rightful place in which their works are not "evil", in fact necessary and
good. But when man succumbs to them unknowingly and allows them to take over
his ego and limit or corrupt his progress, then they become "evil" on our plane
of existence. Read "Lucifer and Ahriman" by Steiner. It is not a question of
hating either of them. The peach window of the Goetheanum is wonderful where it
depicts The Christ loosening Ahriman from his chains. But it is the Christ in
us that must do this work. It is the I AM in us that must learn to fact
reality and to deal with it in a transformative way.

If you want to look at the question of war with your heart - read Mark
Twain's "The War Prayer." Pretty much sums it up, I think.

In regard to being "as a child" in heart-openess and a willingness to learn
and to share with others, I think that it is a natural and good part of
activating that love-force within you. However, there is a spiritual maturity
that
comes from thinking that can, for some people initate that heart force, for
others, strengthen and support it.  From "A Wind at the Door" by Madeline
L'Engle,
there is a passage about love that really defines it for me. It is not an
emotion - love is what you do!!!!

Again, it's late and I have to go work in the belly of the beast tomorrow, so
I will say good night and promise to give more later, if you really want me
to.

Blessings,
Christine

(snip)
> Rudolf Steiner was a revolutionary. He was a political revolutionary who
put
> together the most radical approach to social order that exists yet on this
> planet. And he placed it on the table in front of Winston Churchill and
Woodrow
> Wilson at the Treaty of Versailles.

Just in case you're not speaking metaphorically, that never happened.

  Then he brought forward Waldorf Education
> as a revolutionary act, a subversive act - it has the express intention of
> making at least a homeopathic element of society ready for the Threefold
Social
> Order. To say otherwise is a lie. Many Waldorf schools, teachers and
promoters
> are liars and I will say that to their faces. The time for politely hiding
the
> truth from the parents and even teachers who come to them and to deny that
> what they are doing may be very dangerous in the future is a real crime.

I taught at a Waldorf school, and still teach a course at the Teachers
Training Seminar in Buenos Aires. Maybe I'm not one of your liars, maybe I
am. I could judge that if you would tell me what the hell you're talking
about. You sound like one of those creeps at Plans.

>
> Does that mean that Waldorf schools shouldn't exist? Of course not - they
> must exist as long as the powers of this earth decide to allow it (which
may not
> be much longer). But the work should be done in the clear light of day.
> Everyone should understand the real WAR that is raging around us as we sit
in our
> comfortable houses with food on our tables. By the time we go to stand in
line
> for our chips and bar codes that will allow us to keep paying our mortgage
and
> buying  our groceries, we should be prepared to recognize it as just the
> sense-perceptible result of the supersensible battle going on right now.
>
> YOU may not believe that you are personally affected yet. But people all
> around you are being rounded up and killed right now in the name of the
"holy" the
> "good" the "American way of life." YOU will be next. You will succumb or
die,
> one way or another. You can succumb to the truth and die physically, or
can
> succumb to the powers of this earth and die spiritually. You have the
choice to
> make. It is the ONLY choice that you will have to make in the days to
come.

My God, fire and brimstone.

>
> I apologize for the ranting, but ...(snip) Why apologize, when you're not
sorry?

(snip)
> Wake up sleepers, awake! The time is at hand and we cannot rest in dreams.
> Follow the trail of truth on the internet while it is still there to see.
I will
> post links to important sites. We can not stop Ahriman's incarnation - it
has
> already happened. But we can look him in the eye just before we die and
say
> "I KNOW who you are - you cannot fool me! At least one human being knows
who
> you really are." It's not much, but it is on this that the world hangs in
the
> balance.

Who?

Frank

Hi Christine,

I am just beginning to read the Koran and Sufi works and books on
Muhammeds life. The first thing that struck me is how it was not
sharing a thing it was telling me a thing. And it appears to me that
the mysteries, at least of the version I have been reading, have been
been depleted to such an extent I find my self reading a book six and
seven year old readers can read. It reminds me of how I feel about
the 'new Bibles' appearing on the  market today. And again, what is
most disturbing is that the mystery is disappearing from the written
word. In a sense we are making God in mans image, imo.

I want to share a poem from a book I am reading called Women of
Sufism.

I am a fountain, You are my water.
I flow from You to You.

I am an eye, You are my light,
I look from You to You.

You are neither my right nor my left,.
You are my foot and my arm as well.

I am a traveler, You are my road.
I go from You to You.

Zeynep Hatun

The mystic/spirit followers of the Koran and of the Torah as well as
our Christian bible all seem to have a thing in common. How can they
not, this goes back at least 6000 years.

In regards to Sophia being the Future She is also the past in my
understanding. I can trace her to Magdalene, Shekinah, to Bet Kol,
and Quan Yin. She is found from the earliest times. I am not sure
what you mean that Her archtype can not be found in the past. Why
would that be if it were true?

Christine
> And even if that were not enough, one must have a critical eye
toward any
> religion in its practice as well as its theory. There is nothing of
love or
> understanding or forgiveness in any of its practices, either. There
is only power
> and oppression, and I mean particularly to its own people,
especially women.


Dottie

I am wondering what you read that states these kinds of things in
such a factual way? Or is this your personal experience with this
group of people? I must say I am having the exact opposite experience
personal as well in my reading selection.

My personal experience is that I have never found a people who love
God more and I can feel it from their heart like from no other
peoples as a whole. My friend Makram is shocked about the things we
are discovering by questioning 'what' the words mean. Most of these
things have to do with the Feminine Aspect because that is mostly
where my search for answers took me. I could find certain things
pertaining to Sophia in the Bible, Torah but I had not even hoped
that they would also be in the Koran. But there they are with the
same names applied to Muhammeds wife and daughters.

Christine
> I disagree wholeheartedly with the lady who called Sophia of the
past and the
> Christ of the Future. It is God the Father who is of the eternal
past, the
> ground of being from which all eminates. Christ is of the now. He
lives in every
> breath and every heartbeat. The Sophia is the Holy Spirit,
the "female" of
> the Trinity - she is the force of transformation, an impulse which
can only come
> from the future. There can be no change without an archetype of
that change
> coming from the future.

Dottie

Why do you think this? What leads you to this understanding? (of all
three things I am thinking) How do you know that Sophia is the Holy
Spirit? I concurr but 'how' did you find Her?

My other question would be what is the Father? I have been in a
search for the Mother and when I found her the Father walked right
off the page. So, now I am in a search for the Father and what that
really means to me. I can go to the place of 'of course the Father is
here' and so forth but that does not mean that I, Dottie, found Him.

Christine
  After His Death and Resurrection, the "I AM" was fully incarnated
into
> the individual human being through the transformative power of Mary
at the
> first Pentecost. It was through Her incarnation of the Holy Spirit
that the true
> "I AM" came into the people in the upper room (Men & Women) and
from there
> began to spread to all of humanity.

Dottie

Christine, how do you know this? And I am wondering what Mary you are
speaking of and what books you may have read that speak of this?


Christine
Mohammed just adapted it to fit the sons of
> Ishmael.

Dottie

How do you know this?

Christine
>
> This "war" is not about Christianity and Islam or Judaism and Islam
or
> Christianity and Judaism or any other combination. They are all the
same in their
> manifestation as power structures. And the true powers of this
earth reside in
> none of them. The true powers of the earth just use them as
emotional tools to
> gather masses of humanity and enslave them to their purpose.

Dottie

I disagree. I can see how it looks like this but it is through these
religions along with Steiners work that I have been able to make
sense of a thing. See, I came with a different makeup from most on
this list. I am a peasant in a sense. I get it totally from the
heart. I have to learn to get it to the mind. Because I needed both
to experience Christ in the etheric. So, although they have been
corrupted I believe it is still a way Christ can be found. There's
just a lot more red tape to go through:)

Christine
> To hear Anthroposophists back General Boykin (?) is just as bad as
saying
> that the Crusades were "holy wars". Of course they were not holy.
Nothing
> associated with fear is holy. Spiritually necessary? I don't think
so. Although an
> initiate may look back on any event (even the incarnation of
Hitler) and see
> some positive long range spiritual energies set in motion as sort
of a back lash
> effect, one has to take a moment and say "But did it REALLY have to
be that
> way?" "Could mankind have done it differently and achieved the same
or even a
> better effect?"

Dottie

The same could be said about the Christ incarnation and crucifiction
as well. Did it have to happen? Was there another way? Christ says to
Peter, 'get back Satan', after Peter wishes to take away his future
betrayal. I am at times conflicted on this issue of whether it had to
have happened. Yet, it is said it did. Don't know it for my self yet.

Christine
> What would this country be like today if we had met the native
populations in
> the same spirit that they, for the most part, met us? What if
European man
> had come only searching for freedom and new experiences of life,
rather than
> gold and slaves (Columbus' expressed intentions and no other!) I
refuse to
> believe that Columbus was an initiate, and if he really was, then I
do not want to
> be associated with any initiate!

Dottie

I guess what I find, even today with Mr. Bush, is that there is a
rhyme and reason and a place our spirits takes us that we would not
willingly agree to go. I can see the downsides of what Bush is doing
and I am slowly beginning to see the upsides. Don't like it much
however we are human and there is a place we are all heading to
unawares. It seems with every great tragedy there is a great
outpouring of Love and goodwill. Why is that I have to ask. I
recently read, oh maybe it was from Tarjei, that God/Lord  gave
Ahriman and Lucifer powers to further the human/cosmic cause. Don't
knwo that for my self though but I understand it.

Christine
>To say otherwise is a lie. Many Waldorf schools, teachers and
promoters
> are liars and I will say that to their faces. The time for politely
hiding the
> truth from the parents and even teachers who come to them and to
deny that
> what they are doing may be very dangerous in the future is a real
crime.

Dottie

What did you feel they were or are lying about? What is your
experience with Waldorf?

Christine
> I apologize for the ranting, but this talk of "little words
in "soft voices"
> so that we can all see how lovely each other's religions are makes
me sick.
> Dottie, please don't take this personally -

Dear Christine,

I was a wee bit worried you might take my email as an afront when
actually I am looking to learn. And I hope to till the day I die. My
eyesight is already going:))) (I am sorry I get excited to experience
what happens when one begins to age) and 41 is not nearly as exciting
as 40:) I just want to get to fifty:)

My voice is really not soft, what I meant to convey, which I see you
want to kick the door down, and that is fine and good, is
being 'sincere' in my questioning and my answering. I have found that
when I am sincere with all my heart, bridges are built. I find you to
be sincere as well in your feelings.  So, I want to build the bridge.
I have not given up.

I am not looking to find how lovely other peoples religions are I am
looking to find the lovelyness of everyones spirit. For me the mind
is what controls most people and they are unaware of it so when I
speak to their spirit I find they speak back to me from the spirit.
Not right away but I choose to continue to not speak to the lower
part of themselves nor allow my lower self to speak to them. The seat
I work from is the heart. And I believe in that more than I believe
in the mind or anything I can physically see.

Christine
YOU don't make me sick - I know that
> you are well intentioned and desiring above all else to work for
love and
> make a difference and this is completely valid on a one to one,
interpersonal
> basis. But it won't do in the larger arena.

Dottie

I find it is the ONLY thing that works from the larger arena. There
is nothing else but this: Love. imo.

Christine
"Love" will heal us but it won't
> shield us. We must have Truth also. "Love" didn't keep Christ off
the cross - it
> put Him there!

Dottie

So, you think it could have ended another way? And in one part of me
that believes this was the only way I find that Love sacrificed for
us. I just remembered the third daughters name; Aminah: Truth.

Christine
> Understand this. We must see "face to face" and not "as children"
as Paul
> said (sorry for the truncation).

Dottie

Sharon, I have to say I disagree. It is from the child like way of
loving and trusting that I experience Christ. You and I are face to
face and we are fine(at least I hope we are)and digging it. To me I
have or at least am trying to get rid of the things I have learned up
until throughout my adult hood. I have learned not to trust people, I
have learned how to be afraid, I have learned that I must follow what
others say, I have learned I am a female and therefore the lessor
kind, I have learned that I am not able to defend my self. All of
these things I had to unlearn. And now I am like a child who is not
afraid to be face to face.

Christine
We can not stop Ahriman's incarnation - it has
> already happened. But we can look him in the eye just before we die
and say
> "I KNOW who you are - you cannot fool me! At least one human being
knows who
> you really are." It's not much, but it is on this that the world
hangs in the
> balance.

Dottie

I have issues with this Ahriman understanding of things I think. I
find Ahriman to come from the outside. It reminds me of my new found
thoughts on Evil. I don't hold Lucifer as evil nor did I really think
evil existed. However lately I find my self contemplating that evil
comes from the outside in a way that I experience Ahriman. I don't
think evil comes from within the spirit but from without.

Your words or rather thoughts fit right in with the book I am reading
called Thus Spake Zarathustra by, oh jeez I am gonna forget this mans
name....Nietzche!

Thanks,
Dottie


>
> With love and hope,
> Christine
>
> To Walk on Water
>
> I want to learn, in time, to walk on water.
> My faith, constantly being put to the test
> Fails me most often, tossed on the waves
> Of our reasonable and unholy age.
>
> It is not true that we are never given
> More than our souls can grasp
> Or rise above. We often sink beneath
> The thunderous waves of unforeseen misfortunes.
>
> The broken masts wash ashore each day
> And wreckage is a common sight along
> These beaches; yet in the silence of grey
> Morning fog, I stalwartly lift my sail again.
>
> I cannot swim well, and fear the creatures
> Of the deep, unknown and hideous companions
> Who are with me always, even unto the end of time,
> And for whom I am responsible.
>
> White mountains on a farther shore are calling me.
> The day is clear but windy, cold and rough.
> I'll try again to reach the distant courses
> Where hope and faith fail not in winter's measures.
>
> For thought I sink and break upon the waters-
> Denied  the saving angel's last minute solace;
> Life has not yet overturned for me the truth
> That someday we shall learn to walk on water.
>
> Christine Natale 2000 all rights reserved
>
> New World Center
>
> How deep the grave to hold
> Our world which has grown old
> With countless lives untold
>
> Earth, cloven to the core
> Reveals the precious ore
> Those gone forevermore
>
> So fill the grave with tears
> Our hopes, our dreams, our fears
> The memories of lost years
>
> Let living waters rise
> And fill the void inside
> Renewing hope and pride
>
> And from the water's deep
> Arising from death's sleep
> All those for whom we weep
>
> Together we will see
> What we are meant to be
> When all the world is free
>
> A new world shining bright
> Alive with freedom's might
> True love and wisdom's light
>
> Christine Natale 2000 all rights reserved

PS - Uncle Taz in response to this from you:

It would be nice if you are right about it. Frankly, I hope so, but
I'm not convinced. I find it difficult to discern any Islamic
movement that is not spellbound by the ethos and outlook of the Old
Testament on the one hand, and blind obedience on the other. A very
destructive combination. I have never heard a believing Muslim
speaking on behalf of his/her religion utter a single self-
dependent, autonomous idea about spiritual matters. It's always what
the Koran says and what it doesn't say. Whatever you think _must_ be
supported by some verse from that book. Look how destructive this
kind of "scriptural" fundamentalism has become in the West. All the
unspeakable miscief from the CIA and the Pentagon is being fuelled
by the fears and vindictiveness that lives and thrives in the
Religious Right, the Christian Coalition and so on. If it were up to
me, I would send all the Christian fundies and the nutty Muslims out
to an island where they could slug it out among themselves. They
deserve each other. They're of the same ilk.

They ARE on an island, slugging it out - The ISLAND is EARTH. The unfortunate
thing is that we happen to be on the island with them!!! :  0

:  ) Christine

Hello Everyone,

I tried to send a (somewhat lengthy) introduction when I signed up for this
group, but it disappeared when I hit the send button. At some point, I will try
again. In the meantime, I would like to jump into this discussion about
Islam. I hear over and over again so many platitudes about Islam being a
beautiful
religion. Well, after 911 I decided to see for myself and I downloaded most of
the Koran and started to read it. I haven't read it through and I can't say
100% that it is what I think it is, but my impression so far is that it is a
mish-mash of old testament stories combined with the kind of hell and brimstone
stuff that would make a Southern Baptist pale in comparison. There is no
forgiveness, no flexibility. Everything is totally black and white, us and them,
heaven and hell. No possiblility of interpretation or redemption.

And even if that were not enough, one must have a critical eye toward any
religion in its practice as well as its theory. There is nothing of love or
understanding or forgiveness in any of its practices, either. There is only
power
and oppression, and I mean particularly to its own people, especially women.

Of course, the same can certainly  be said about Christianity in practice
throughout the ages. I am embarrassed to consider myself any kind of Christian,
even though I am, because it puts me on such a wicked team. No one was right in
the Crusades. Everyone was out for power. And all power ploys involve gaining
the support of the masses through emotional indoctrination.

I disagree wholeheartedly with the lady who called Sophia of the past and the
Christ of the Future. It is God the Father who is of the eternal past, the
ground of being from which all eminates. Christ is of the now. He lives in every
breath and every heartbeat. The Sophia is the Holy Spirit, the "female" of
the Trinity - she is the force of transformation, an impulse which can only come
from the future. There can be no change without an archetype of that change
coming from the future.

I am as afraid of the "Christians" as I am of the "Moslems" and the "Jews". I
am afraid of any people who identify themselves with a religious belief
system that comes with laws and a singular path to God. When Christ said "I AM
the
Way and the Truth and the Light, no one comes to the Father except through
Me." He was referring to the "I AM" of which he was at the time a physical
embodiment. After His Death and Resurrection, the "I AM" was fully incarnated
into
the individual human being through the transformative power of Mary at the
first Pentecost. It was through Her incarnation of the Holy Spirit that the true
"I AM" came into the people in the upper room (Men & Women) and from there
began to spread to all of humanity. This spreading was not through the
proselytizing, preaching and converting that the disciples did, but rather, as a
homeopathic remedy, from their mere presence in the human community.

Just as Christ's blood flowed from the cross into the Earth body, acting as a
homeopathic remedy for the fatal illness the Earth was infected with (see the
Fifth Gospel), the presence of human beings carrying the flame of the Holy
Spirit was enough to heal the body, soul and spirit of all who they touched.
These people then went out and healed all who they had contact with.

The process which then began to manifest itself as a "church" after the fall
of the Temple of Jerusalem was an early Arhimanic imitation of  this healing
process. Come to us and we will absolve your sins and fit you for heaven became
a slogan for the power elite. Mohammed just adapted it to fit the sons of
Ishmael. Both of these power structures are in place and thriving and both seek
to keep individual human beings from experiencing the reality of the Etheric
Christ who manifests in every moment, in every heartbeat.

This "war" is not about Christianity and Islam or Judaism and Islam or
Christianity and Judaism or any other combination. They are all the same in
their
manifestation as power structures. And the true powers of this earth reside in
none of them. The true powers of the earth just use them as emotional tools to
gather masses of humanity and enslave them to their purpose. The conflict
itself is of that purpose. To believe anyone right or wrong in what you see and
hear over the media is a fool's game. There are sources of the truth still,
although for how long, we have to wonder.

To hear Anthroposophists back General Boykin (?) is just as bad as saying
that the Crusades were "holy wars". Of course they were not holy. Nothing
associated with fear is holy. Spiritually necessary? I don't think so. Although
an
initiate may look back on any event (even the incarnation of Hitler) and see
some positive long range spiritual energies set in motion as sort of a back lash
effect, one has to take a moment and say "But did it REALLY have to be that
way?" "Could mankind have done it differently and achieved the same or even a
better effect?"

What would this country be like today if we had met the native populations in
the same spirit that they, for the most part, met us? What if European man
had come only searching for freedom and new experiences of life, rather than
gold and slaves (Columbus' expressed intentions and no other!) I refuse to
believe that Columbus was an initiate, and if he really was, then I do not want
to
be associated with any initiate!

What WOULD this country today be like if we hadn't committed unimaginable
terrorism on millions of unsuspecting human beings, if the very ground beneath
our feet was not still running with psychic blood? What kind of "New World"
would we have found?? Utopia? Maybe not, but something far better than what we
live with now.

Rudolf Steiner was a revolutionary. He was a political revolutionary who put
together the most radical approach to social order that exists yet on this
planet. And he placed it on the table in front of Winston Churchill and Woodrow
Wilson at the Treaty of Versailles. And he stated afterward that the fact that
it was not adopted as the right solution to the world's conflicts of 1918/
1919 was proof that mankind was not spiritually, mentally and even physically
ready for the Threefold Social Order. Then he brought forward Waldorf Education
as a revolutionary act, a subversive act - it has the express intention of
making at least a homeopathic element of society ready for the Threefold Social
Order. To say otherwise is a lie. Many Waldorf schools, teachers and promoters
are liars and I will say that to their faces. The time for politely hiding the
truth from the parents and even teachers who come to them and to deny that
what they are doing may be very dangerous in the future is a real crime.

Does that mean that Waldorf schools shouldn't exist? Of course not - they
must exist as long as the powers of this earth decide to allow it (which may not
be much longer). But the work should be done in the clear light of day.
Everyone should understand the real WAR that is raging around us as we sit in
our
comfortable houses with food on our tables. By the time we go to stand in line
for our chips and bar codes that will allow us to keep paying our mortgage and
buying  our groceries, we should be prepared to recognize it as just the
sense-perceptible result of the supersensible battle going on right now.

YOU may not believe that you are personally affected yet. But people all
around you are being rounded up and killed right now in the name of the "holy"
the
"good" the "American way of life." YOU will be next. You will succumb or die,
one way or another. You can succumb to the truth and die physically, or can
succumb to the powers of this earth and die spiritually. You have the choice to
make. It is the ONLY choice that you will have to make in the days to come.

I apologize for the ranting, but this talk of "little words in "soft voices"
so that we can all see how lovely each other's religions are makes me sick.
Dottie, please don't take this personally - YOU don't make me sick - I know that
you are well intentioned and desiring above all else to work for love and
make a difference and this is completely valid on a one to one, interpersonal
basis. But it won't do in the larger arena. "Love" will heal us but it won't
shield us. We must have Truth also. "Love" didn't keep Christ off the cross - it
put Him there!

Understand this. We must see "face to face" and not "as children" as Paul
said (sorry for the truncation). Humanity is no longer in its infancy, when it
was expected to follow its leaders unquestioning as a young child does its
parents, right or wrong. It is no longer in its childhood or teens. We have come
far along the way toward being able to discover ourselves as individuals. I
believe that we have reached 21 and we must understand that from here on out we
will be expected to act out of our Egos and to bear the full weight of
responsibility for each and every one of our thoughts, words and deeds. We can
no more
take refuge in ignorance or common habit. We can't say "Well, he did it
first." We will be punished for breaking the spiritual laws just as surely as we
will be arrested for killing someone while driving drunk. But "God" won't punish
us - "Allah" won't punish us - "Yaweh" won't punish us - we will punish
ourselves. We will just find the instant karma come boomeranging back on us and
know
that we were the ones who threw the stick in the first place.

Wake up sleepers, awake! The time is at hand and we cannot rest in dreams.
Follow the trail of truth on the internet while it is still there to see. I will
post links to important sites. We can not stop Ahriman's incarnation - it has
already happened. But we can look him in the eye just before we die and say
"I KNOW who you are - you cannot fool me! At least one human being knows who
you really are." It's not much, but it is on this that the world hangs in the
balance.

With love and hope,
Christine

To Walk on Water

I want to learn, in time, to walk on water.
My faith, constantly being put to the test
Fails me most often, tossed on the waves
Of our reasonable and unholy age.

It is not true that we are never given
More than our souls can grasp
Or rise above. We often sink beneath
The thunderous waves of unforeseen misfortunes.

The broken masts wash ashore each day
And wreckage is a common sight along
These beaches; yet in the silence of grey
Morning fog, I stalwartly lift my sail again.

I cannot swim well, and fear the creatures
Of the deep, unknown and hideous companions
Who are with me always, even unto the end of time,
And for whom I am responsible.

White mountains on a farther shore are calling me.
The day is clear but windy, cold and rough.
I'll try again to reach the distant courses
Where hope and faith fail not in winter's measures.

For thought I sink and break upon the waters-
Denied  the saving angel's last minute solace;
Life has not yet overturned for me the truth
That someday we shall learn to walk on water.

Christine Natale 2000 all rights reserved

New World Center

How deep the grave to hold
Our world which has grown old
With countless lives untold

Earth, cloven to the core
Reveals the precious ore
Those gone forevermore

So fill the grave with tears
Our hopes, our dreams, our fears
The memories of lost years

Let living waters rise
And fill the void inside
Renewing hope and pride

And from the water's deep
Arising from death's sleep
All those for whom we weep

Together we will see
What we are meant to be
When all the world is free

A new world shining bright
Alive with freedom's might
True love and wisdom's light

Christine Natale 2000 all rights reserved

At 05:03 06.11.2003, Dottie wrote:

>Dear Tarjei,
>
>I believe what we are facing in Iraq is a bringing/melting together
>of the Christic principles for the future of Cosmic/Human Evolution.

I thought that would be the case of the Slavic peoples, the Russians.

>I believe it is the spiritual worlds push for religious peoples of
>the world to look past Jesus and Mohammed, to the Godhead of whence
>we came whither we go.

The way I see it, St. Michael, or Christ-Michael (the archai leading
humanity since he replaced Gabriel in 1879) is pushing for religious
peoples to abandon Old Age religions altogether. Such religions belong to a
bygone era, which means that they are being taken over by ahrimanic forces.
Religion based primarily or exclusively upon revelations of old and upon
old scriptures about such, pursue the principle of unconditional surrender
to an external authority, which is antithetical to the principle of
self-dependence and the autonomy of the individual found in the PoF. RS
said somewhere that the PoF is Christ's message to humanity today: The
message of individual freedom.

<snip>

>In my opinion it is Islam that truly validates Jesus' message of Love
>through, in and of, Sophia. I believe this is what the message of
>Mohammed really proclaims for those who have eyes to see and ears to
>hear.

Frankly, I must disagree with this rather strongly. Muslims are threatened
with execution or assassination for the "crime" of converting to another
religion (like Christianity or Buddhism, or atheism for that matter).
Mohammed was a highway robber and a very violent man with plenty of blood
on his hands. According to RS, his revelation was genuine, but remember it
came from Gabriel, and following a violent religion from the age of Gabriel
with such tenacity and mass conformity in our day and age is not healthy.
None of this reminds me of Jesus' message of Love, and especially not of
what the spiritual world wishes to communicate to humanity today.

<snip>

>It seems to me that mostly people look at the message of the Prophet
>as a literal one. It is not. And if there were truly any Christians
>who wish to pierce the veil to bridge the gap of understanding, they
>would look to the Qoran (sp). Just as Christianity has most of its
>messages veiled so does Islam.

The Sufi tradition perhaps. Are you familiar with it?

<snip>

>Islam is beautiful and will be empowered even further I believe
>through this interaction with the West. I believe Christians will be
>humbled. Almost as if there is a pact for the spirit to win the mind
>versus the mind winning the spirit.

It would be nice if you are right about it. Frankly, I hope so, but I'm not
convinced. I find it difficult to discern any Islamic movement that is not
spellbound by the ethos and outlook of the Old Testament on the one hand,
and blind obedience on the other. A very destructive combination. I have
never heard a believing Muslim speaking on behalf of his/her religion utter
a single self-dependent, autonomous idea about spiritual matters. It's
always what the Koran says and what it doesn't say. Whatever you think
_must_ be supported by some verse from that book. Look how destructive this
kind of "scriptural" fundamentalism has become in the West. All the
unspeakable miscief from the CIA and the Pentagon is being fuelled by the
fears and vindictiveness that lives and thrives in the Religious Right, the
Christian Coalition and so on. If it were up to me, I would send all the
Christian fundies and the nutty Muslims out to an island where they could
slug it out among themselves. They deserve each other. They're of the same ilk.

Here's an appropriate RS lecture: "Specters of the Old Testament in the
Nationalism of the Present" - Dornach December 7, 1918 (Die Soziale
Grundforderung unserer Zeit, GA 186).


Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

At 13:26 06.11.2003, Dag wrote:

>---  Tarjei Straume <anthrouncle@c...> wrote:
>
> >>
> > Who is the suspect?
>
>Each one of us.

Not bad at all. Each one of us, however, carries the good cop and the bad
cop as well. So they're in all each one of us in a sense. The answer I had
in mind for the anarchosophical riddle is: Christ. There are three of them
in the interrogation chamber, right? One (the good cop) is Ahriman, the
other (the bad cop) is Lucifer, so the third one (the suspect) has to be
Christ. And if we remind ourselves of the scene where Christ stands before
Pilate in the very role of the suspect, and that he was actually given the
option of getting off the hook by defending himself against the charges,
the analogy becomes a little clearer.

This is something to be kept in mind by anyone involved in a judicial
process like jury duty. There is an exceøøent article by Michael E.
Coughlin about this, entitled "The Jury: Defender Or Oppressor"

http://www.uncletaz.com/liberty/jury.html

Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

---  Tarjei Straume <anthrouncle@c...> wrote:

>>
> Who is the suspect?

Each one of us. Living here on earth is - in a way being a suspect.
I have to prove I am doing "the right thing". IMHO the right thing
is do do what I- for myself - see that I should do. The Good Book
says something like: the only sin there is no forgivness for is the
sin against the Holy Spirit. The HS being what I percieve as being
the right thing to do. In not doing this I take upon me somthing I
must carry - forever?
The good and the bad cop is there to teach me that there is only one
way in life and that is to find out for you self.

Dag Horntvedt

Dear Tarjei,

I believe what we are facing in Iraq is a bringing/melting together
of the Christic principles for the future of Cosmic/Human Evolution.
I believe it is the spiritual worlds push for religious peoples of
the world to look past Jesus and Mohammed, to the Godhead of whence
we came whither we go.

Islamists are being pummelled with relevant questions regarding their
man made laws according to what they percieve as the 'real' message
of the Prophet. (especially because they believe that theirs does
stray from the original interpretation and Christianity's many
interpretations do and therefore it's man inspired not God inspired)
These conversations were not happening on the level that it is now.
People may have been converting or what have you but the question
of 'what do these words mean' did not occur to the Islamist community
as a whole.

Christians are being forced to look on a people who are not afraid to
die. We have to question, why is that? They know why we don't want to
die but we really don't have an answer for the question of why they
aren't afraid. And I am not just talking about terrorists here, we're
talking about a whole population. They have a sweet tooth for God in
a way that we Westerners do not.

We, the so called Christic community, I believe, are actually the
ones teaching them the culture of destruction. Almost as if the
craving for dying as you state is brought down upon their heads by
the people who are fighting to live. Funny way we serve each other
isn't it?

In my opinion it is Islam that truly validates Jesus' message of Love
through, in and of, Sophia. I believe this is what the message of
Mohammed really proclaims for those who have eyes to see and ears to
hear. I think we were finding ourselves completely stuck in
Patriarchy at this point, and a turning one in that, which is to me
what Jesus proclaimed would happen: paps that can not be sucked and
wombs that could not bear would claim themselves as the All and the
sole intercessors.( the idea of treating the Bishops word as if it
was Gods Himself comments from early church leaders)Can you imagine,
as if God Himself:(

It seems to me that mostly people look at the message of the Prophet
as a literal one. It is not. And if there were truly any Christians
who wish to pierce the veil to bridge the gap of understanding, they
would look to the Qoran (sp). Just as Christianity has most of its
messages veiled so does Islam.

Do you know the names of Mohammed's wife or those of his two
daughters. The wifes name corresponds with the same name given to
Magdalene the Magificent:) and of course early Egyptian, and Buddist
female spiritual leaders/beings: Holy One,. The names of the two
daughters who also facilitated his ascent to the seven Heavens are
Faith, and unfortunately I can not remember the other at this moment.
However my point is that it was these three women who nurtured his
journey and it was through them he was able to ascend. It was his
daughter Fatima who opened the door to the Angel Gabriel. And it was
in a similar manner for Jesus although different circumstances.

Just as in Christianity the women have been downplayed, so has it
been so for Islam. But a re-emergence is happening. And I believe it
is through these two groups of people that the world will propel
itself to a higher spiritual understanding. And then we shall partake
of Manna / Sophia (my personal understanding)

In conversations with my Muslim co-worker we seem to be finding an
underlining feminine aspect to Islam that neither of us suspected.
We forget to go further to the spiritual aspect of what these two men
were pointing to: Godhead/Unity/Allah/One and who is the one who is
ever present: ChristSophia. Reminds me of a thought I had: Sophia of
the past, Christ of the Future: One and the same, Alpha y Omega...

My friend Makram asked me to speak before a group of his friends. We
kind of talk the same kind of heart language with a will to
know/invite God. We both stand in a bit of awe of how we will be
percieved within all of our human limitations/sins and so forth
before Allah. Yet we both tremble with a want and fear to move
forward. Standing at attention while trembling, knowing that we have
faltered many times and may many times more is excruciating. He fears
that even with my little words and soft way of saying them will be
met with arrows but we are going to try and have a discussion group
at our local coffee shop.

Islam is beautiful and will be empowered even further I believe
through this interaction with the West. I believe Christians will be
humbled. Almost as if there is a pact for the spirit to win the mind
versus the mind winning the spirit.

My thoughts on Islam,

Dottie

Dear subscribers,

I once subscribed to a list where a dispute arose about what was on-topic
and what wasn't. During the turmoil, a fellow subscriber asked me if we
should play "the good cop, bad cop" routine from his favorite TV shows. I
declined after the following consideration:

The good cop offers the suspect a cup of coffee and says he'll talk the bad
cop out of beating him up if he 'cooperates' by turning traitor on his
trusting friends. He even offers him reduced charges and maybe to give back
to him some of the dope. So the good cop must be Ahriman with the Faustian
bargain and the bad cop Lucifer with a hot temper, right?

If you're with me so far in identifying the bad cop as Lucifer and the good
cop as Ahriman, I would like to present to you an anarchosophical riddle:

Who is the suspect?

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

I've made a clumsy shot at writing a little bit about Islam and the occult
lodges of the West:
http://www.uncletaz.com/seclodg.html

My knowledge of Islam itself is very limited; I am trying to follow the
public debates. We're talking about a billion Muslims, and a religion I'm
beginning to consider with an apprehension not dissimilar to what I
associate with scientology, although the systems don't have much in common
theologically or philosophically (except, perhaps, a common denominator in
the Jesuit order, also found in Nazism - the key concepts being blind
obedience and unconditional surrender). But what is very interesting is
that the warriors, or terrorists, who may be sitting at the restaurant
table next to you in any European city and you wouldn't have a clue,
explain that the difference between "us" and "them" is that "we" love life,
but "they" love death, and their highest goal is to die for Allah and thus
get into his Paradise. So we have Christians, Agnostics, Buddhists,
Atheists etc., i.e. non-Muslims, on the one side, who love life, and the
true believers of Islam on the other, who love death and plan to die in
battle against the infidels: The world for Islam.

When I wrote this about six months ago, Al Qaida had just announced Norway
as a target along with the United States, the United Kingdom, and
Australia, with attacks soon-to-come. What is interesting is that Norway
was the only non-English-speaking nation thus targeted, probably because of
its close ties to the United States. According to Rudolf Steiner, the
connection between Norway and the Western hemisphere was established as
early as the third or fourth century AD - anyway, long before Leiv
Eriksson's famous arrival in the year 1000.

Anyway, the article related to Islam is very brief. The other article,
which is about the Western lodges, is something I wrote in 1996 or '97,
based upon "The Challenge of the Times", lecture III: "The Mechanistic,
Eugenic, and Hygienic Aspects of the Future" (December 1, 1918, GA 186).
When translating these articles, that were first written in Norwegian, into
English, I blended them into one article at the URL above.

The link between this lecture and current events is apparent from a quote
that I'll give you below. In the lecture at hand, Steiner describes how the
secret lodges of the English-speaking polulations of the West strive to
manipulate the occult evolution of humanity by stealing the latent
capacities of the Eastern peoples and at the same time by making sure that
such occult capacities among Eastern peoples are thwarted. There is little
doubt, if we take Steiner's words about initiates and secret lodges in
earnest, that such lodges and their initiates are involved in the present
explosive drama between Islam and the West, with Israel in the middle. And
I have considered the idea that Eastern lodges may be invloved, thus
launching an assault against the dominant position of the Western powers.
But on the other hand, this doesn't make sense, because antipathy and
hatred against the West among the Eastern peoples acts as a hindrance for
their evolution, and the Eastern lodges would logically be striving for the
opposite: the hindrance of Western occult progress to the benefit of the
East. For this reason, it is most probably the Western lodges that are the
architects of Islamic hatred and extremism. I believe this is sensed
subconsciously by the Eastern peoples, which is why they blame Israel and
the West even for the WTC attack, although Eastern Muslims were sitting in
the very cockpits! They sense that the West is to blame for it all, but the
West doesn't know about their very own secret lodges.

And now for the real fire, from RS himself:

********************************************************************************\
********
For example, in the case of the people of the Central countries and the
Eastern lands it is an important hindrance to the evolution of these
capacities, especially their evolution in a knowing way, when strong
antipathies against the people of the Western countries are active within
them. Then these things cannot be viewed objectively. This is a hindrance
in the evolution of these capacities. But the potentiality of developing
another occult capacity is also even strenghtened in a certain way if it is
developed out of a certain instinct of hatred. This is a strange
phenomenon. We often ask ourselves, and we are dealing here with something
that must be considered quite objectively, why such senseless abuse has
been practiced in the Western countries. This also comes out of the
instinct leading toward these capacities. For what constitutes the
profoundest impelling forces in Western occultism is fostered by nothing
more powerfully than by the development of feelings that are untrue but are
sensed as in some way holy, and that can represent the people of the East
and especially those of the Central countries as barbarians. the
potentialities of material occultism, for example, are fostered by the
attitude of mine constituting the so-called crusading temperament in
America. This consists in the feeling that America is called to spread over
the whole earth freedom and justice and I know not what other beautiful
things. Of course, the people there believe that. What I am saying here has
nothing to do with fault finding. The people believe that they are engaged
in a crusade, but this belief in something false constitutes a support
working in a certain direction. If a person should consciously make an
untrue statement, he would not have this support. For this reason, what is
now happening is tremendously helpful on the one side and a hindrance on
the other in the development of those capacities that we must assert to be
still latent at the present time in the case of most individuals who bear
within themselves the will toward evolution in the future and are destined
to influence profoundly the social structure of humanity.

********************************************************************************\
**********
Although this was said more than eighty years ago, it is not outdated if we
take into consideration that we're talking about a kind of occult
conspiracy whose aims and purposes reach 1500 to 2000 years into the future.

I have received some very healthy and informative criticism with regard to
the article in question. The Steiner-quotes do get longer and longer, and
eventually the author (myself) essentially disappear. It may easily be felt
that when these words by RS are quoted almost a hundred years later, they
cannot stand for themselves. If Steiner is talking about something real, it
must in some way be corroboratable.

So there's a question of where we can find literature that corroborates
Steiner's claims about such occult lodges of the West.

So here are two books:

Quigley, Carroll. The Anglo-American Establishment. New York: Books in
Focus, 1981. 354 pages. Carroll Quigley (1910-1977) taught history at
Georgetown's School of Foreign Service since 1941. This book was written in
1949 and covers the Rhodes-Milner Round Table Groups, a secret
Oxford-related cabal that had tremendous influence in British foreign
policy from the time that Cecil Rhodes began funding it at the turn of the
century. In 1919 the Council on Foreign Relations became the American
branch of the Round Table. Quigley is better known for "Tragedy and Hope"
(1966), which reaffirms his earlier suspicions (he says he had access to
the Round Table's secret archives), but lacks the rich detail of the
earlier work. Quigley basically agreed with the goals of these high-minded
internationalists, but disliked their inherited wealth and power, their
methods, and particularly their secrecy. Quigley became a darling of the
anti-internationalist Right in the U.S., from Cleon Skousen (The Naked
Capitalist, 1970) through Pat Robertson (The New World Order, 1991). Then
to top it off, Bill Clinton mentioned Quigley as his mentor in his
nomination acceptance speech on July 16, 1992. Clinton studied under
Quigley at Georgetown in the middle 1960s, and then became a Rhodes Scholar
at Oxford. Now he's a member of CFR, Trilateral Commission, and Bilderberg,
and many of his appointees are from the same Rhodes-CFR-Trilateral circles.
We don't know what this means, if anything. ISBN 0-916728-50-1 (from
http://www.namebase.org/sources/TA.html)

Here is a synopsis of the book:
http://users.cyberone.com.au/myers/quigley.html

Then there are the books by Sutton:
http://skull-and-bones-books.com/americas_secret_establishment/about_the_book.ht\
ml

(The  link to Membership of Yale's Skull and Bones Society does not work,
the correct link is
http://www.angelfire.com/az2/TruthPage/boneslist.html).

Sutton is a weird guy.  He hates Hegel and the rest of German idealistic
philosophy, for example.  He comes close to being an anarchist ("The state
is a fiction sanctified by Hegel and his followers to CONTROL the individual"
http://www.freedomdomain.com/secretsocieties/suttoninterview.html). He once
wrote a book for the Hoover Institute.  Not exactly a neutral historian!
But he published a lot of interesting documents and asked a lot of
interesting and tabu questions (like why the US financed the Soviet Union
.. and Hitler).

The subject is difficult, because there is almost no real historical
scholarship except for a few weird outsiders. In that sense they have
remained secret!  We have to piece it together ourselves.

It is not being claimed that the ilk of Cecil Rhodes and his cohorts may
have been initiates. But who inspires such circles?  These are the circles
that truly wield the power.  Behind them stand spiritual forces (and other
circles) that work directly into these circles.

Some of this stuff appears reminiscient of the background for the movie
"Skulls", but both part 1 and part 2 miss the main point.

George Bush Sr. was a member of such a group in his youth, and so were many
other former presidents, who had similar affiliations. They get to them
when their young and malleable. That's why it starts there.  Remember the
"new world order"?  This is not something invented by Bush.

Incidentally, someone just sent me a link to a webpage that may deserve a
closer look:

http://www.serendipity.li/wtc.htm


Cheers,

Tarjei
http://uncletaz.com/

Dear subscribers,

We hereby declare the new email group "Anthroposophy Tomorrow" opened.

Yours,

Sophia (moderator)