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

Re: Masons-Steiner

Expand Messages
  • DoctorStarman@aol.com
    Message 1 of 1 , Aug 6, 2000
      < I agree that the Founding Fathers of the U.S. had roots in the
      Freemasons. I mean, its pretty well known as fact that Thomas Jefferson,
      George Washington, Franklin, et al were Freemasons --and also pretty
      commonly suggested that Lincoln practiced occult activities. But then, I'm
      no fan of Thomas Jefferson and the Founding Fathers. (John Massengale and
      others may feel quite differently about this...) I will give TJ his due. He
      had a brilliant mind and was creative in many ways, and the Declaration of
      Independence is quite a piece of work ("inalienable rights to life, liberty,
      and the pursuit of happiness" and all that...very lofty...). But he also did
      not live up to his own lofty ideals. There's plenty of evidence that he
      fathering children by a fourteen-seventeen year old slave girl. In any case,
      he kept slaves (in spite of himself), so "life, liberty, and the pursuit of
      happiness" did not apply to them, nor to women, if you read his treatise on
      how women should behave.--And all that is not to mention the attitude toward
      the native people's (who, by the way, were the ones Ben Franklin and the
      others learned so much from--much about forming a democracy, because the
      Hodenosaunee--aka, Iroquois--had a confederacy that was a great model of
      peace and of democratic/consensus making living at its highest). But the
      native people's were also not included in TJ's Declaration where "all men
      are created equal and are endowed by their creator with certain inalienable
      rights..." "All men" was very exclusive.

      As for Steiner and the Masonic Initiation, yes, I said "hmmmm...", and i do
      find it weird and curious. I am seeking/struggling to keep an open-mind, and
      yet at this point I don't find the Mason's trustworthy(i don't refer here to
      the original Temple Masons of Solomonic times, but to the later, apparently
      decadent, versions). There is suggestion that the "New World Order" of the
      global powers that be (mostly big corporate families, the so-called
      Bilderberg Group, Rotchschilds, Windsors, Bush's, Microsoft Bill Gates,
      Wal-Mart's, etc, who own most of the world's capital, are quite a bunch of
      in-breeders with degenerate brains and degenerate sense of human
      relationship (retarded soul development, etc.), even though they are very
      clever in business matters, military matters, etc. There is evidence that
      many of these few high level people running the world (behind the European
      Union, a multinational army, NAFTA and all the ills of the World Bank and
      the International Monetary Fund)--many of these are, reportedly, 33rd Degree
      Masons. So, I am suspicous of the Masons, to say the least.

      I think they might confuse Christ and anti-Christ, and who knows if the
      Anti-Christ isn't among their ranks? If i border on slander here, then
      someone please show me the light...>>

      *******One can try, even if not being a source, by reflecting some...

      First, I think the Masons, as a secret organization, fought for and won
      freedom here in America against the forces of regression like the Catholic
      Church, which was a repressive theocracy in Europe and then later supporter
      of repressive monarchies. The Masons opposed the forces of tyranny not out of
      some altruism but because they wanted to practice their activities without
      control by ignorant Christian governments (Benjamin Disraeli, British Prime
      Minister, said in the mid-1800s that the whole course of world history would
      be settled by who won the duel between the Churches and the Secret
      Societies). Their activities are forms of initiation (albeit diluted
      sometimes to empty ritual) stretching back to the Graeco-Roman 'mysteries'.
      So in short, we have a lot of freedoms in America because this group waged a
      long war for freedom against the forces of repression (the lovely
      Christians). Hence Jefferson was proudest of his authorship of the Virginia
      Statute of Religious Tolerance, not the Declaration.

      As for the man Jefferson himself, let's try to remember that a schoolkid
      two centuries from now may call US all barbarians for not all being VEGANS!!!
      People should not be judged too harshly by the standards of a later era, for
      they seldom can rise above their time, first of all, and second, using those
      standards, there's always something to criticize, and it's the first step on
      the KHW path to stop doing so automatically. (Also, his relationship with
      Sally Hemings is by no means proven; the DNA evidence gave a likelihood of
      one in a hundred, where I guess it's politically correct to say that a
      certain black athlete is innocent of cutting his wife's head off even though
      THAT DNA evidence was one in 5 billion, a more normal number for definite
      matches). In other words, I don't think any of us should easily say that
      someone "failed to live up to his lofty ideals". When one points a finger at
      someone else, three point back at you. At least he set them and tried to live
      up to them. He freed his slaves at his death, warned his countrymen that
      slavery was an evil, wrote it into the first draft of the Declaration, etc.

      Some minor points: "all men" included women back then: the noun "man"
      then included "man-with-a-womb" or womb-man. But women were not allowed to
      own property, and the right to vote was only to property-holders. Know why?
      Not to "discriminate against the poor classes", but because a man who was a
      tenant farmer could be forced by his land-lord to vote the "right" way or
      else be kicked off. The landholding requirement was to prevent this sort of
      election fraud. But of course, the English laws we brought over to America
      (such as no women owning property) were only changed gradually: Jefferson
      himself wrote that the elimination of the law of primogeniture (the first son
      inheriting everything) was going to make more change in America than the
      Constitution. Next, the theory that the set-up of America was based on the
      Iroquois Confederacy has little evidence for it (politically correct though
      it may sound), and a lot against it: Montesquieu, Locke, Rousseau and
      Voltaire were the 4 men whose portaits TJ carried with him, and their ideas
      are clearly all through the Declaration and the Constitution: Europeans all,
      they knew little of the Iroquois. Finally, the ascription of occult interests
      to Licoln is also a bit of a stretch: it was his wife who became interested
      in mediums after the death of a child, and once on the spur of the moment
      Lincoln went with her to one seance, and the results intrigued him enough to
      have the medium come to the White House once or twice. Mostly he read the
      Bible, and he certainly didn't use Ouija boards or whatever, or have a
      library of occult books.

      Most importantly, the idea that a cabal of WHOMEVER---Jews, Freemasons,
      or whatnot---controls the free market process, is just not true. Consumers
      wanting to buy things is what controls everything: want to stop
      slaughter-houses? If people stopped eating meat, that would be that! No man,
      family, group of families or consortium of groups can control the market. The
      history of OPEC is a good thing to study to see how hard it is for anyone to
      control the economic process or even a small part of it. Conspiracy theory is
      bad economics. (Forgive me for being so definite in my opinions, but I've
      been a professor of political science and economics for 10 years.) So there
      is no earthly conspiracy that is behind things. Now, an UNEARTHLY one, namely
      led by Ahriman, influencing minds---that's another thing! But the Grand
      Master of the Masons didn't order Harry Truman, a 33rd degree Mason, to drop
      the bomb, nor order George Wallace, a 33rd degree Mason, to stand in the
      schoolhouse door, nor order George McGovern, a 33rd degree Mason, to run such
      a poor campaign that Nixon (not a Mason) would win by a landslide.

      >>>If Steiner was a Mason, that, of course, does not mean that he was into
      use of global power and all the way Prince Klaus____ and others
      were/are(Prince C/Klaus?____ from the Netherlands, first President of the
      highly secretive Bilderberg Group, and formerly also connected with the SS
      or some Nazi group). But many of these groups, as i said, are populated with
      33rd degree Masons, so i remain suspicous, for now.
      I'll appreciate any insights you or anyone has.>>>

      *******As far as I know, Rudolf Steiner was NOT a member of the Masonic
      Order. In Europe more than in America, there is a section of the Masons very
      deeply into its mystic foundations (here it's mostly a fraternal fellowship
      of businessmen), and these members saw very early the value in Steiner's
      knowledge, as many had in Blavatsky a generation before; so, Steiner once
      gave 2 lectures to Masons, and he referred to the Masonic legends and such
      frequently because there were many Masons in his audiences. I don't know what
      that stuff was about Steiner undergoing (or was it supervising?) a Masonic
      initiation. Sounded strange.

      One last thing: the Illuminati, the subject of a series of ridiculous
      conspiracy-theory books, were a Bavarian Masonic group that were definitely
      anti-established order or even socialistic. Their motto was "Peace with the
      Cottage, War with the Palace". Not a likely ally of the Rockefellers,
      Rothschilds, the Trilateral Commission, and the other members of the One Big

      In (reflected) Light,
      Dr. Starman
    Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.