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

Re: [anthroposophy] Re: Get this new book...

Expand Messages
  • Br. Ron
    A master poet, my dear friend Bradford At Home in the etheric height. As Icarus with self made wings Aiming for Solar light. Learning not from history. Where
    Message 1 of 5 , Mar 31, 2004
    • 0 Attachment

      A master poet, my dear friend Bradford

      At Home in the etheric height.

      As Icarus with self made wings

      Aiming for Solar light.

       

      Learning not from history.

      Where boundary-less-ness hath failed.

      Diving toward Earth

      Like a kite with no tail.

       

      “Universal Love,” the Mantra of the Left

      (Forgoing what’s near for what’s afar)

      Abandoning country and loved ones bereft

      Enabling tyrants from yonder dark star.

       

      But we love him anywho …

       

      Despite the European style appeasement,

      Despite the distain for karmic law,

      There is only one way to deal with a

      lily livered, sidewinding, claim jumper……..

       

      Hit that dusty street and DRAW!  

       

      Yeeeeeehaw!

       

       

      Br. Ron

       

       

       

       

      ----- Original Message -----
      Sent: Tuesday, March 30, 2004 7:31 PM
      Subject: [anthroposophy] Re: Get this new book...

      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "lightsearcher1"

      What to my wondering eyes should appear
      But a miniature brain with eight taliban beards
      Suddenly from the house there arose such a muffle,
      It must be Light Searcher with his usual shuffle.

      Clinging to Santa, Rush Limbaugh the addict
      Watching Bush fizzle like rug clinging static
      Hating the Spanish, the French and the Germans
      LightSearcher charges his usual gremlins.

      He rides a good saddle when it comes to the Grail
      But mention dumb Bush and watch him wail.
      Backing an Idiot a Priest or a Fundie God,
      Bush holds office because the 'big man' gave him the nod.

      Stiff and unbending LightSearcher defends,
      Our freedoms stolen, but Big Ron kneels with Amens!
      Oh, ya, it's tough when you pick on helpless Iraqi's
      And all Our money goes to Haliburton lackies.

      But somewhere inside Ron just dialed a wrong number
      The answer was Wake Up! But Ron thought it said slumber.
      Ron's vision is an Old Testament God with wrath and thunder
      But Neocons are liars and their policies, blunders.






      http://groups.yahoo.com/group/anthroposophy
      Unsubscribe:
      anthroposophy-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com 
      List owner:  anthroposophy-owner@yahoogroups.com 


    • minnie_hah
      AhHAH! Ye ole Brad-aka-Nails holderin666 wannabee espouses once more amid dribbles of venom for Lightsearcher1 et al, we view with glee... Yea, what to our
      Message 2 of 5 , Apr 1 9:28 AM
      • 0 Attachment
        AhHAH! Ye ole Brad-aka-Nails "holderin666" wannabee espouses once more amid dribbles
        of venom for Lightsearcher1 et al, we view with glee...

        Yea, what to our wondering eyes should appear
        But a cranial vacuumitis with shorted out neurons
        Suddenly from the 8th Sphere arising he comes
        Why, who but "holderlin666", as we choke down the Tums!

        Clutching his Koran with John Kerry the Fraud
        T'is clear he's swallowed the Beyond Left Wing Liberals' baud
        Retaining at all costs his "666" ocular scales
        We find "holderlin666" melding with his whining anti-Bush wails.

        Yea, as we walk inside the shadow of Sorath, "holderlin666" slashes the True
        As he stumbles blindly amid his miasmic gaze of unconscious haze of the Clue
        Blind to actuality and truth, none of which he grasps
        While shaming mightily the Steinerite Foundation he so readily rasps.

        Decrepit and unknowing in blindness severe, our HERO, laughs Sorat et al,
        Gleeful with joy from his love of the lie implanted deeply into "holderlin666"'s caul
        Yet darkness descends thickly upon brad/holderlin at the peril of his soul
        Spreading hate-filled verbeage attuned to untruth, having swallowed the Haliburton
        untruth.

        Where Angels weep, yet go we, though not in glee
        Foreseeing the fate "holderlin666" et al attempt to flee
        Yet could Hope ensue with Truth the reality that this Blessed Season
        Of Easter, the Resurrection of The Christ, descend upon "holderlin666"'s absent reason?

        Minnie_Hah


        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "holderlin66" <holderlin66@h...> wrote:
        > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "lightsearcher1"
        >
        > What to my wondering eyes should appear
        > But a miniature brain with eight taliban beards
        > Suddenly from the house there arose such a muffle,
        > It must be Light Searcher with his usual shuffle.
        >
        > Clinging to Santa, Rush Limbaugh the addict
        > Watching Bush fizzle like rug clinging static
        > Hating the Spanish, the French and the Germans
        > LightSearcher charges his usual gremlins.
        >
        > He rides a good saddle when it comes to the Grail
        > But mention dumb Bush and watch him wail.
        > Backing an Idiot a Priest or a Fundie God,
        > Bush holds office because the 'big man' gave him the nod.
        >
        > Stiff and unbending LightSearcher defends,
        > Our freedoms stolen, but Big Ron kneels with Amens!
        > Oh, ya, it's tough when you pick on helpless Iraqi's
        > And all Our money goes to Haliburton lackies.
        >
        > But somewhere inside Ron just dialed a wrong number
        > The answer was Wake Up! But Ron thought it said slumber.
        > Ron's vision is an Old Testament God with wrath and thunder
        > But Neocons are liars and their policies, blunders.
      • holderlin66
        Thinking Unthinkable Thoughts Theologian Charges White House Complicity in 9/11 Attack by Nick Welsh http://independent.com/news/news906.htm A respected
        Message 3 of 5 , Apr 8 3:08 PM
        • 0 Attachment
          Thinking Unthinkable Thoughts
          Theologian Charges White House
          Complicity in 9/11 Attack
          by Nick Welsh

          http://independent.com/news/news906.htm

          A respected philosopher of religion at the Claremont School of
          Theology since the 1970s and longtime Santa Barbara resident,
          Griffin is now raising questions that even President Bush's harshest
          critics are afraid to think, let alone ask aloud.

          In his latest book, The New Pearl Harbor — released just two weeks
          ago — Griffin all but accuses the Bush administration of taking a
          dive on September 11 and giving Al Qaeda terrorists an unobstructed
          shot at the World Trade Center. According to Griffin, a case can be
          made that the Bush administration arranged the attack, or allowed it
          to happen. He is aware that he may be dismissed as a conspiracy nut,
          but given the "transcendent importance" of the issue, Griffin is
          willing to assume that risk and has taken to repeating Michael
          Moore's line on the subject: "Personally, I'm not into conspiracy
          theories except those that are true." I met with Griffin over coffee
          to discuss his book and the September 11 investigation. The
          following is an edited account of their conversation.

          NICK WELSH:
          Is there a smoking gun that shows the Bush administration knew 9/11
          was likely to happen and did nothing about it?

          DAVID RAY GRIFFIN: I think there are four. One is the fact that
          standard operating procedures for dealing with possibly hijacked
          airplanes were not followed on 9/11. Those procedures call for
          fighter jets to be sent out immediately upon any sign that a plane
          may have been hijacked. These jets typically get to the plane within
          no later than 15 minutes anywhere in the United States. And on that
          day, there were four airplanes that went for a half-hour or more
          after they were hijacked without jets intercepting them.

          What's the official explanation of that?

          I'm afraid the press has not done its job. They have not forced
          government officials to explain why standard operating procedures
          were not followed that day, nor have they pressed the FAA (Federal
          Aviation Administration) to explain why they didn't report these
          hijackings as they were supposed to. The official story is that [the
          fighter jets] were very late.

          And the other smoking guns?

          The second strongest piece of evidence I would say is the crash at
          the Pentagon. The physical evidence contradicts so violently the
          official account, that the Pentagon was hit by a Boeing 757 — Flight
          77, that is. The physical evidence, photographs, and eyewitness
          testimony say that the Pentagon was hit by something that caused a
          hole no larger than 18 feet in diameter. The story the Pentagon put
          out, and was published by the Washington Post, was that the hole in
          the Pentagon was five stories high and 200 feet wide. If you look at
          the photographs taken by Tom Horan of the Associated Press — that's
          just not the size of the hole.

          But if the hole was only 18 feet wide, it had to have been created
          by something other than a Boeing. Whatever went into the Pentagon
          pierced six reinforced walls. This was the west wing, the part of
          the Pentagon being refurbished and reinforced. These walls were
          extra strong, and yet whatever it was went through six walls
          creating a hole about seven feet in diameter in the sixth wall. This
          had to have been something with a very powerful head on it. A Boeing
          757 has a very fragile nose, and would not have pierced through all
          those walls; it would have been crushed by hitting the Pentagon. And
          given that it only penetrated these three rings, the rest of the
          aircraft would have been sitting outside on the yard. And yet the
          photographs taken just as the fire trucks got there — very shortly
          after the crash — show no plane whatsoever.

          What do they show?

          They show no aircraft whatsoever. And everyone agrees on this. The
          official story is that the whole aircraft went inside the Pentagon.
          The problem with that — the firefighters in there would have seen
          the airplane. They would have seen the engines, they would have seen
          the aluminum fuselage, but they reported nothing. Ed Plower, the
          fire chief, when asked what he saw, said, "I didn't see any big
          pieces, no fuselage, no engines, no nothing." But about a month
          later, when asked he said, "Oh yes, I saw all that." His memory had
          had time to be refreshed.

          If what you're saying is accurate — that it was a missile — then
          what happened to the plane and all the people on it?
          That's why I stress I'm not trying to give an account of what really
          happened. I have no idea what happened to Flight 77.

          President Bush has also been criticized for behaving somewhat
          bizarrely that day.

          As he and the Secret Service got word that a second plane had
          crashed into the World Trade Center and that three planes had been
          hijacked, there could have been no possible doubt in their mind that
          the United States was under terrorist attack . . . The most
          horrendous attack the United States had ever suffered. And they
          would have had to assume that one or more of them were heading
          toward President Bush himself. And so upon learning about this, the
          Secret Service surely would have whisked him away immediately. In
          fact, one Secret Service agent on the scene said, "We're out of
          here." But obviously he got overruled because President Bush stayed
          there. After Andrew Card reported the second crash on the World
          Trade Center, the president just nodded as if he understood and
          said, "We're going to go ahead with the reading lesson." And he sat
          there another 15 minutes listening to the children read a story
          about a pet goat. This was a photo op and when it was over he
          lingered around talking to the children and talking to the teacher.
          Bill Sammon, of the Washington Times, wrote a very pro-Bush book,
          yet he comments how casual and relaxed the president was given the
          fact he'd just learned the country was under attack. He said Bush
          took his own sweet time and in fact called him "Our Dawdler in
          Chief." And then the president went on national TV, going forward
          with an interview that had been planned and announced in
          advance . . . then they took their regularly scheduled motorcade
          back to the airport. In other words, [Bush and the Secret Service]
          showed no fear whatsoever that they would be targeted for attack,
          which strongly suggests they knew how many aircraft were being
          hijacked and what their targets were.

          Couldn't it have been that he was trying to project calm in the eye
          of the storm, that this was Bush projecting Churchillian resolve in
          the face of calamity?

          People who want to believe such things can, of course, imagine such
          scenarios. But the president in a situation like that does not make
          the decisions; the Secret Service team makes the decisions. And the
          guys in the Secret Service are trained to be ready for a catastrophe
          like this where they make snap decisions and whisk the president to
          safety immediately. They would have had an escape route planned;
          they would have had contingencies planned — they always do. It is at
          least not very plausible to think they would have remained there and
          endangered the lives of all the children and teachers at that school
          in order to exude that Churchillian confidence.

          What about the plane thatcrashed down?

          We know that on Flight 93, which crashed over Pennsylvania, the
          passengers were trying to get control of the aircraft. They had
          decided the hijackers did not have bombs and probably didn't even
          have guns. And because their plane didn't take off until a half-hour
          after the others, they knew that the others had crashed into the
          World Trade Center — so they knew they were going to die anyway,
          even if they didn't do anything. So as one of the passengers is
          saying, "They're doing it, they're forcing their way into the cabin,
          they're going to make it." As soon as that happened, with the FBI
          listening in, the plane went down. There was a whoosh, then the
          sound of wind. And people on the ground reported hearing what
          Vietnam veterans said sounded like a missile. Furthermore, there was
          debris from the plan eight miles from the crash site, suggesting the
          plane had been hit and stuff started falling out. And one of the
          engines was found over a mile from the crash site. Of course, if it
          had been a missile that downed the plane, it most likely would have
          been a heat-seeking missile that would have found the engine and
          knocked it off.

          Why would the government have an interest in doing this?
          So the hijackers couldn't speak to anyone?

          That would be a very good reason. If it were a conspiracy and the
          hijackers knew about it, it would have been very threatening to
          those who made the plan to have anybody left alive. Again, I don't
          pretend to know, but that's at least a plausible scenario. There
          were many rumors that day that the plane was shot down, but the
          government denied it.

          You suggest that the World Trade Center buildings must have been
          detonated with explosives to account for the heat generated and the
          speed the structures collapsed on themselves. That sounds extreme.
          What's the evidence?

          The evidence is cumulative — several things that point to controlled
          demolition. First, a steel-framed building, according to all the
          reading I've done, has never collapsed solely because of fire. They
          will bend and buckle in a very large all-consuming fire that lasts
          for a very long time. But they have never collapsed.

          But it was not just fire — it was fire and impact at the same time.
          The twin towers were very large buildings and extremely well built
          with a lot of redundancy. Even people who believe the official
          theory say that the crash of the plane into the towers should have
          been insignificant, that the shock would have been immediate, but it
          was over very soon and that the buildings were extremely solid and
          stable and not moving. In the south tower, much of the fuel from it
          spilled outside as it collided into the corner. So there was a giant
          firebomb which looked very impressive, but what that means is that
          most of the fuel was burned up within a minute, so there was not
          much fuel inside. Therefore, the fire in the south tower had almost
          gone out in less than an hour. And that brings us to another strange
          fact about the towers. If the official story were correct, that the
          combination of the crash and the fire brought the buildings down, we
          would expect the north tower to have come down first, because it was
          hit first. And yet the south tower collapsed first. It collapsed in
          less than an hour. That makes perfect sense if you're willing to
          accept that it was caused by controlled demolition, meaning the
          building was wired with explosives. And if the official story has it
          that the buildings were brought down by fire, you'd want the
          buildings to go down before the fire had completely gone out.

          What you're suggesting sounds like something from. X-Files. But on X-
          Files, you always had agents Scully and Mulder trying to get the
          truth out. Here we don't have any Scullys and Mulders. You'd think
          this whole new unilateral expression of military supremacy might
          have opponents within the administration coming unglued and that
          they'd be leaking info damaging to Bush, but we don't hear those
          voices. Why not?

          Members of the FBI, the CIA, and other intelligence agencies have
          taken oaths to not reveal things they've been told not to
          reveal . . . and if they violate this oath, repercussions may occur.
          You have a wife and children, and somebody says to you, "If you go
          public with that I cannot guarantee the safety of your family."
          Would you go public with that? You have to choose between your
          family's welfare and the welfare of the nation, and your story might
          not do that much good. You might just be denounced as a conspiracy
          kook. The press would ignore you, belittle you. People might look
          into your past and find that you had done some things you're not so
          proud of. People would learn very quickly to keep their mouths shut.

          Let's say there has been this complicity. To what end?
          There were several benefits that could have been anticipated from
          9/11. One was the so-called Patriot Act. It did appear that the
          Patriot Act, given how fast it was rushed into Congress, voting had
          already been prepared. The Patriot Act is so large that it's
          inconceivable it could have been written after 9/11. Rushing it
          through Congress when most members had not even read a small portion
          of it was clearly one benefit, giving the government increased
          powers.

          Also, there was the desire to wage war in Afghanistan to force out
          the Taliban and put an American-friendly government in place because
          of the desire of Unical and other gas companies to build an oil
          pipeline, which they felt was too dangerous with the Taliban in
          power. There was a meeting in Berlin in July 2001, a final effort to
          get an agreement between the Taliban and the United States that
          would allow a sort of joint government, where the Taliban would
          share power with more American-friendly leaders. The Taliban
          refused, at which point they were told, "If you don't take our
          carpet of gold, we'll bury you under a carpet of bombs." The
          Pakistani representative at this meeting said the Americans told him
          that the war would start before the snows came that October. And
          after 9/11 happened, there was exactly the right amount of time for
          the U.S. forces to get organized to begin the war, and the war began
          on October 7.

          Another benefit is that many senior members of the Bush
          administration had for a long time wanted to attack Iraq. Getting
          control of the oil there was one motive; the more general motive was
          to secure a military presence in that part of the world.

          Don't you think it's a good thing that Saddam Hussein was taken out,
          and don't you think Bush had a moral obligation to do so because it
          was his father who was responsible for building up Hussein in the
          first place?

          Certainly you can say there were some benefits to the people of
          Iraq. But if we had an obligation to take out Saddam Hussein then we
          have obligations to take out many other nefarious leaders around the
          world, many of whom are far worse, believe it or not, than Saddam
          Hussein. And the sorry history is that we have in fact supported
          such leaders and that Saddam Hussein was in power only because of
          American support. He remained in power after gassing the Kurds
          became common knowledge. Donald Rumsfeld himself visited Saddam at
          that period. Actually our aid to Saddam went up after we knew that
          he had done this.

          So you think this is mostly about oil.
          It is to a significant extent about oil, given the projections that
          the world is beginning to run out of oil. The United States wants to
          get control of it because our way of life, which is so dependent
          upon oil, is nonnegotiable. And also because military dominance
          itself runs to great extent on oil. But it's not just about oil.
          It's about geopolitical dominance. And this brings up the U.S. Space
          command. In the document "Rebuilding America's Defenses," published
          in 2000 by the Project for the New American Century — an
          organization founded by people such as [Richard] Perle and [Paul]
          Wolfowitz and [Dick] Cheney and Rumsfeld — there is a statement in
          there that says we need to move forward with this revolution in
          military affairs.

          The central feature of this is the augmentation of the U.S. Space
          Command through which the United States would have what's called now
          Full Spectrum Dominance. In addition to having dominance over land,
          air, and sea, we would have dominance in space. But building the
          space stations and the satellites for the weaponization of space
          will be an extremely expensive undertaking. One projection has the
          first stage of it being about a trillion dollars. So an enormous
          amount of money has to be shifted from the American taxpayers and
          other parts of the economy to the military and the space command.
          The document states that such a revolution in military affairs will
          probably proceed very slowly absent some catastrophic and catalyzing
          event such as a new Pearl Harbor.

          Hence the title of your book . . . You've complained the American
          media has been asleep at the switch on this. How do you account for
          this?

          It is very difficult for Americans to face the possibility that
          their own government may have caused or deliberately allowed such a
          heinous event. Secondly, one can understand that insofar as the
          media is owned by companies like General Electric, which is one of
          the largest makers of weapons, stations like NBC that are owned by
          GE would not wish to publicize these connections. And finally, 9/11
          was immediately treated not only as a matter of patriotism but
          almost as a religious event. Bush declared his war on terrorism from
          the national cathedral. And so from then on, any questioning of the
          official account could be and was criticized as being undemocratic
          and almost sacrilegious.

          I at least hope that if we can begin to get a public discussion of
          9/11 and of the many, many discrepancies between the official story
          and what at least appear to be the facts, that some of those people
          might be emboldened to step forward.

          How has researching and writing this book affected you personally?I
          fear that our democracy is in much worse shape than I had imagined,
          and that even the appearance of democracy we now have might be
          quickly swept aside.
        Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.