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

Re: find the Steiner-said?

Expand Messages
  • jmn36210
    To Robert, who first wrote: Unhappily, JBA doesn t give his source for this important spiritual law . He doesn t say whether he got it from Steiner, from
    Message 1 of 127 , Oct 1, 2007
    • 0 Attachment
      To Robert, who first wrote:
       
      Unhappily, JBA doesn't give his source for this
      "important spiritual law". He doesn't say whether
      he got it from Steiner, from some other occultist,
      or whether he is speaking on his own authority as
      a public Teacher of occultism. I do seem to have
      a vague memory that I read something *similar*
      to this alleged "law" somewhere in a Steiner text;
      not quite the same, but similar. But, after
      searching, I haven't found the relevant passage
      from Steiner.

      Did I dream it? False Memory Syndrome? Could
      anyone point me toward the relevant Steiner-said,
      if it does exist?
      -------------------------------------------------------------------------
       
      Robert, I wouldn't be surprised if you and JBA were *both* referring to
      the same passage of the GA.
       
      I believe JBA is merely expressing his own interpretation of the "law"
      or "central spiritual-scientific fact of evolution", with his own words,
      and from a specific perspective.
       
      Not available online at the RS Archive...
       
      Rudolf Steiner [GA 180 "Mysterienwahrheiten und Weihnachtsimpulse" -
      Dornach, December 26, 1917]:
       
       
      "Eine Menschengeneration von dreiunddreißig Jahren reift einen Gedankenkeim,
      einen Tatenkeim aus. Ist er dann ausgereift, so wirkt er  durch sechsundsechzig
      Jahre weiter noch im geschichlichen Werden. Man erkennt die Intensität eines
      Impulses, den der Mensch ins geschichtliche Werden hineinlegt, auch in seiner
      Wirksamkeit durch drei Generationen, durch ein ganzes Jahrhundert hindurch."
       
      Freely (and perhaps clumsily :-) translated by J-M:
       
      "A thought-seed, an act-seed, matures [fully] in the course of a [human]
      generation of 33 years. Once it is mature, it goes on having an effect on the
      historical development during 66 years. The intensity of an impulse that one
      introduces into the historical development is thus known in its effectiveness
      throughout 3 generations, throughout a whole century."
       
      No False Memory Syndrome --- as far as I can tell ;-)
       
      Jean-Marc
       

      ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


      --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason <robertsmason_99@...> wrote:
      >
      > To Dan, who wrote:
      >
      > >>The fact is that I brought the quote to
      > underline the *reality* of such a spiritual
      > law. The law of three generations has an
      > concrete enounce in those writings of Countess
      > d'Adhemar. It doesn't matter who was really
      > the person described in the letters; we can
      > trace this law from the text linked; and that
      > law describes exactly the amount of time when a
      > spiritual impulse grows or fades, depending on
      > the roots and life forces that this impulse
      > founds in humanity.
      >
      > >>Maybe you could find interesting to read
      > (again) the passage from the lecture on
      > December 16, 1904, Berlin; The Temple Legend:
      > Lecture IX ; this is where Rudolf Steiner
      > describes a passage related to Count S.G. from
      > the same writtings of Mme. Countess d'Adhemar
      > (the warnings for the danger of the French
      > Revolution in 1789) You will find interesting
      > there, that, again, the *impulse* carried by
      > C.S.G (Christian Rosenkreutz) will be again
      > alive in humanity in the next century (1875 -
      > the year of Theosophical Society founding) is
      > based on the same law.
      >
      > >>This law of three generations is connected
      > almost everywhere with the same
      > Individuality.<<
      >
      > Robert writes:
      >
      > I didn't find the "Temple Legend" lecture
      > online, but from your hints about it, I doubt
      > that it would state the same "law" as Ben
      > Aharon stated it . . . as neither did the
      > passages you quoted from Mme. d'Adhémar nor the
      > report from Rittlemeyer about Steiner.
      >
      > I had the feeling that I somewhere read Steiner
      > as saying something closer to what Ben Aharon
      > said, but maybe my False Memory Syndrome was at
      > work. Both Saint-Germain and Steiner-from-
      > Rittlelmeyer *perhaps* do allude to a hundred-
      > year "law" of sorts, but as it relates to how
      > often a "spiritual impulse" may be given, or
      > perhaps to how often the possibility may exist
      > for "exoteric" people (in large numbers?) to
      > accept an "esoteric" offer. If the French
      > Monarchy would not accept Saint-Germain's
      > advice and put it into practice, then a century
      > must pass before he could return to help again;
      > if mankind would not let Anthroposophy "strike
      > through as new culture" in the early Twentieth
      > Century, then we would have to wait another
      > century before we would have the chance again.
      >
      > Ben Aharon seems to be saying something
      > different, though exactly what is not clear to
      > me. Here again are his words:
      >
      > "However, what most anthroposophists seem to be
      > unaware of is a central spiritual-scientific
      > fact of evolution, that must be applied also to
      > the anthroposophical society and the practical
      > movements springing out of Anthroposophy. We
      > must see that this 'horizontal' spiritual
      > transmitting of what Rudolf Steiner gave
      > physically is bound to become weaker from one
      > generation to another, and that this is
      > occurring notwithstanding the question of the
      > significance of any individual contribution
      > offered along the way. This is so because of
      > the operation of an important spiritual law
      > that governs the natural spiritual decline in
      > the vitality and fertility of any spiritual
      > inheritance in the physical world.
      >
      > "This law works in such a way that a spiritual
      > impulse on the physical [plane] can only
      > maintain its- already declining- inner vitality
      > only in the course of three generations. After
      > three times 33- a century- the physical ability
      > to transmit a spiritual impulse ceases
      > entirely. Then any spiritual movement stands at
      > a crossroads: It has only two possibilities
      > before it. Either it becomes purely
      > traditional, carrying forward things past in an
      > old and hence increasingly irrelevant form, or
      > is able to breakthrough to the at present
      > living supersensible sources out of which its
      > inspiration came in the first place."
      >
      > Robert continues:
      >
      > He seems to be speaking not of a limit to how
      > often a "spiritual impulse" might be offered or
      > accepted but rather of a limit to how long such
      > an "impulse" might work in the physical world.
      > But when I try to figure out exactly how Ben
      > Aharon's alleged "law" would work in practice,
      > I can't get any clear understanding of it.
      >
      > First he speaks of a "'horizontal' spiritual
      > transmitting of what Rudolf Steiner gave
      > physically", then of "the vitality and
      > fertility of any spiritual inheritance in the
      > physical world", and then of "the physical
      > ability to transmit a spiritual impulse".
      >
      > What exactly is a "spiritual transmission" of
      > something "given physically"? Aren't Steiner's
      > written or spoken words "transmitted"
      > physically through the Anthro publications?
      > When are they ever transmitted "spiritually"
      > anyway? By telepathy? If so, does the
      > telepathy cease after a hundred years? How
      > does Ben Aharon know this, and how can he draw
      > such dire conclusions? This isn't clear at
      > all.
      >
      > Neither is it clear why Ben Aharon then speaks,
      > not of the "spiritual transmission" of
      > something "given physically", but of "the
      > physical ability to transmit a spiritual
      > impulse" -- apparently -- as an expression of
      > the same "law". But in what sense are
      > "spiritual transmission" and "physical ability
      > to transmit" the same kinds of functions? It
      > would seem to me that one is spiritual and the
      > other physical. Ben Aharon's apparent equation
      > is unintelligible to me.
      >
      > But what "physical ability to transmit a
      > spiritual impulse" do we ever have anyway?
      > When we, for instance, communicate an idea by
      > spoken or written words are we thereby
      > transmitting a "spiritual impulse" with our
      > "physical ability"? -- Perhaps; loosely
      > speaking. But, speaking more exactly, we do
      > not thereby *physically* transmit anything
      > "spiritual", i.e. the ideas, the meanings.
      > (Except perhaps in the sense that everything in
      > the physical world is *ultimately* a
      > manifestation of the Spirit. But surely this
      > is not the sense in which Ben Aharon was
      > speaking?) What we transmit *physically* when
      > we communicate in written or spoken words are
      > only the marks on the paper, the audible
      > sounds, the pixels on the screen, etc.; the
      > *spiritual* content (i.e. the ideas, the
      > meanings) of the words are not even "in" the
      > physical world to be transmitted. More
      > exactly, what happens in such communication is
      > that the speaker (or writer) "goes into" the
      > spiritual world through his thinking, grasps
      > some ideas (meanings), understands the ideas in
      > words of an Earthly language, and then puts
      > these words into their physical correlates (the
      > marks, the sounds) and sends them; then the
      > listener (or the reader) hears (or sees) the
      > "literal words" (i.e. the physical sounds or
      > marks), correlates these physical entities to
      > their meanings that are conventional in that
      > particular Earthly language, and thereby "goes
      > into" the spiritual world to *understand* the
      > communicated ideas, the meanings.
      >
      > In other words (Ben Aharon's words), the
      > listener (reader) does in fact make a
      > "breakthrough to the at present living
      > supersensible sources out of which its
      > inspiration [i.e. the communicated idea, the
      > meaning] came in the first place". There is
      > nothing unusual about such a "breakthrough"; it
      > happens in every successful (or even partially
      > successful) human communication "in" the
      > physical world. If it did not happen, there
      > would be no understanding and thus no
      > communication, i.e. no "transmission" of
      > anything other than the physical sounds or
      > marks.
      >
      > And it's really hard for me to try to see how
      > or why *this* kind of "physical ability to
      > transmit a spiritual impulse" should weaken or
      > die after a hundred years. Am I, for instance,
      > unable to understand a calculus theorem that
      > Leibniz discovered and wrote down, simply
      > because he wrote it hundreds of years ago? --
      > No; the "spiritual impulse" contained in the
      > theorem is still "there" in the spiritual world
      > just as it was hundreds of years ago. If I can
      > read the language and notation that Leibniz
      > used, I can make the "breakthrough" to the
      > "supersensible sources" of the theorem and
      > understand it, just as I can understand a
      > theorem that that was discovered and published
      > last year (assuming that I have the
      > mathematical ability). -- I just don't see what
      > effect Ben Aharon's alleged "law" could have
      > here.
      >
      > More, it's really hard for me to see exactly
      > what effect Ben Aharon is imputing to this
      > "law" in relation to the "transmission" of
      > Anthroposophy. Is, for instance, *KoHW* now
      > incomprehensible, ineffective, defunct because
      > it was published over a hundred years ago,
      > while *Occult Science* is still "in effect" for
      > two more years, until its hundred years have
      > expired? Or is *KoHW* still "in effect" for
      > some years more, because Steiner revised it
      > after its first publication, and will it become
      > "defunct" when the hundred-year anniversary of
      > the final revision arrives? Is *PoF* now
      > defunct because it was first published in 1894,
      > or is it still "in effect" until 2018 because
      > Steiner last revised it in 1918? And is *A
      > Theory of Knowledge Implicit in Goethe's World
      > Conception* now "out of effect" because Steiner
      > did not revise it after its initial publication
      > in 1886? But wait; perhaps the notes that
      > Steiner added to *Theory* in 1923 are still "in
      > effect" while the (unrevised) body of the book
      > is now "defunct"? -- One might ask a hundred
      > questions like these, and I really wonder how
      > Ben Aharon might answer them in a way that
      > makes sense of and by his alleged "law".
      >
      > But now, Ben Aharon's "law" makes no sense to
      > me. I was hoping that my half-"remembered" (or
      > "dreamed"?) Steiner-said might shed some light
      > on what Ben Aharon *might* have been *trying*
      > to say. But the remarks from Saint-Germain and
      > Steiner-Rittelmeyer don't help me much; they
      > seem to have been talking about or assuming a
      > different "law". Their "law" does, apparently,
      > involve a hundred years or three generations,
      > but that's about as far as the similarity to
      > Ben Aharon's "law" goes, as far as I can see.
      >
      > But thanks for your input; at least we might
      > reasonably guess that *some kind* of hundred-
      > year law does exist.
      >
      > Robert Mason
      >
      >
      >
      > ____________________________________________________________________________________
      > Check out the hottest 2008 models today at Yahoo! Autos.
      > http://autos.yahoo.com/new_cars.html
      >

    • jmn36210
      Carol wrote: Both are none other than one as a result that I ( through choise?) took on the presidency of the society- the movement (as such and in a
      Message 127 of 127 , Dec 6, 2007
      • 0 Attachment

         

        Carol wrote:
         
        "Both are none other than one as a result that I ( through choise?) took on the
        presidency of the society- the movement (as such and in a context of rapport)
        became none other than one with her(the society)."
         
        Jean-Marc writes:
         
        Through choice?
        Definitely.
        Probably the toughest choice he ever made.
        In Steiner's words, there was "an absolute risk" (un risque absolu!) involved
        in him becoming president of the AS: the eventuality that the spiritual powers
        would deny Rudolf Steiner the possibility of being *both* their messenger
        [who had occult obligation towards the spiritual world and its revelations]
        and the president of the Anthroposophical Society [with the inherent outer
        and administrative concerns]. In other words, the former benevolent attitude
        of the spiritual powers was at stake: would the spiritual world, would the
        heavens close their gates?
        But his *sacrifice* led to the exact opposite outcome: their benevolence
        became greater than ever before...
        One important aspect of this mystery is: Michael's enemies --- the *demons*
        who had managed until then to prevent Steiner from speaking of facts he had
        known for years or decades --- were themselves reduced to silence!
        In other words, the lectures on *Karmic Relationships* directly result from
        this sacrifice...
         
        Carol wrote:
         
        "You wrote: 'He represented on Earth the actual source of the reflection
        of the spiritual stream he mentioned.'
        I imagine by 'actual' you mean genuine, authentic... (?)"
         
        Jean-Marc writes:
         
        I simply meant that there would be no reflection of the spiritual stream
        at all [i.e., no anthroposophical movement on Earth at all!] --- if Rudolf
        Steiner had not initiated it, if he had not brought the initial impelling force.
        He was the *Prime Mover*, as it were... ;-)
         
        Carol wrote:
         
        (note, the exeptional phenomena of a stigmatized individual for the first time
        is attached to a spiritual impulse which is not Catholic) 
         
        Jean-Marc writes:
         
        As we say in France, I sure would like to be a little mouse ( I'm Jerry! :-)
        in Rome --- because I'm wondering what kind of buzz this event is getting
        behind closed doors, in the Vatican.
        But I'm not so sure it's such *a grand event* within the Anthro world...
        After all, the crucifixion is --- Death, and the blood pouring from the wounds
        are [Steiner dixit] an expression of the excess of selfishness, an expression of
        the excess of egoism.
        I'm not talking about JvH as a person, of course.
        Gee, I thought Anthroposophy was mainly concerned with the Resurrection...
         
        Carol wrote:
         
        "This physical malaise of which he mentioned could indicate that in the months
        leading up to Christmas of that year, Steiner's soul was becoming ever
        increasingly sensitive to 'spirit dynamics' in their more specific form and that
        this sensitivity was reflecting itself within his physical organism."
         
        Jean-Marc writes:
         
        One should bear in mind that the First Goetheanum was burned to ashes...
        And an important occult consequence of this tragedy (it seems to me) was
        that --- since January 1923 [ he wrote this to Marie Steiner] --- Rudolf
        Steiner's supersensible bodies were no longer completely connected to his
        physical body...
         
        Carol wrote:
         
        "As for Rudolf Steiner the man, individual, mystic, teacher, founder of an
        esoteric movement and Society, representing MAYA, I'm confused."
         
        Jean-Marc writes:
         
        I was merely alluding to the fact that, at least in my eyes,
        the *Prime Mover* of the Anthroposophical Movement could not have
        been --- simply and solely human.
         
        J-M
         
        ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
        --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "carol" <organicethics@...> wrote:
        >
        >
        > Jean Marc, this might seem silly but I translated the French excerpt
        > taking the word and sense, while disregarding any form appropriate to
        > the english language:
        >
        > "Both are none other than one as a result that I ( through choise?) took
        > on the presidency of the society- the movement (as such and in a context
        > of rapport) became none other than one with her(the society)."
        >
        > You wrote: "He represented on Earth the actual source of the reflection
        > of the spiritual stream he mentioned."
        >
        > I imagine by 'actual' you mean genuine, authentic... (?)
        >
        > When you wrote that Steiner was "the incarnation of the movement itself
        > as it were; would that also imply, incarnation 'for, in the service' of
        > the movement/ impulse?
        >
        > You wrote: "From the Christmas Conference on, the society was supposed
        > to *practice (to do) Anthroposophy* --- instead of merely managing the
        > teachings!"
        >
        > I have the concept of 'express the impulse of' as well, in somewhat of a
        > similar quality which for some time appeared within the now fading
        > spirit impulse bestowed onto and attached to the Catholic Church. This
        > impulse 'expressed' itself quite vividly throughout a period of 'world
        > becoming' through it's follower's reflections, actions etc and decisions
        > tied to the growth of it's intitution.
        >
        > (note, the exeptional phenomena of a stigmatized individual for the
        > first time is attached to a spiritual impulse which is not Catholic)
        >
        > And it's funny how earlier today I reflected on an idea which you
        > presented in your last post concerning this topic and to which you now
        > add on to it with a desciption of "the little Dragons inoculate
        > Anthroposophia with their mortal intellectual venom.."
        >
        > To the original idea in question ("the Body [i.e., the AS as an earthly
        > *administrative* body] was utterly unfit (or unwilling) to accommodate
        > the living Spirit, and rejected it (!) --- the AS thus being born
        > (founded anew) as a sickly retarded child...[even perhaps as a nearly
        > stillborn child]. "), you now have this to add, but attached to it is
        > now a new question about the 9 months running up to the the Christmas
        > Conference.
        >
        > You wrote"Well, Rudolf Steiner wrote (March 25, 1923) to Edith Maryon:
        > "Actually, as far as the Society is concerned, all I need to say is that
        > I would like it best if I had nothing to do with it anymore. Everything
        > its executive committees do fill me with nausea..."
        >
        > My point about Steiner 'being human after all', would allow for us to
        > accept that he should have been free to express any physical discomfort
        > which he would have experienced as a result of the quality of his soul's
        > gaze into the 'spiritual dynamics' which were already in place within
        > the Society prior the the 'Christmas Conference event'. This physical
        > malaise of which he mentioned could indicate that in the months leading
        > up to Christmas of that year, Steiner's soul was becoming ever
        > increasingly sensitive to 'spirit dynamics' in their more specific form
        > and that this sensitivity was reflecting itself within his physical
        > organism.
        >
        > We know through what Steiner mentioned vis a vis Christmas/Easter times
        > in reference to spirit impulses, that his becoming president of the
        > Society at the time of the Christmas Conference, in addition to what he
        > further explained about it- indicate that this event, seeing as it
        > involved HIM being one aspect at the center of it's importance, must
        > have initiated in HIM additional supersensible forces and/or a deeper
        > sense of responsibility towards humankind's spiritual direction.
        >
        > And so, this joins the idea which you put forward in a previous post
        > which stipulates that there may not have been an outright crime of
        > 'poisining' but instead, that Steiner's physical degeneration may have
        > been a direct result of him becoming somewhat DIRECTOR of an esoteric
        > Society, and as such, he humanly found himself placed in a position
        > which allowed him to be more exposed to 'receive' Ahrimanic led attacks-
        > of which their force would have been cultivated within and originated
        > from within the very souls of members of the Society; he would have had
        > to assume the collective force of these sub strata attacks along with
        > what was already familiar to him, ex. the antipathic spirit forces
        > lurking within the machinations of outward society.
        >
        > The 9 month period which caracterizes the amount of time which his
        > soul/body sustained his renewed earthly 'responsibilities' could well be
        > considered significant. I agree.
        >
        > As for Rudolf Steiner the man, individual, mystic, teacher, founder of
        > an esoteric movement and Society, representing MAYA, I'm confused.
        >
        > Thanks for the interest, Carol.
        >
        > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "jmn36210" jmnguyen@ wrote:
        > >
        > > Carol wrote: "There's something that's a little off here. Do you
        > > consider the Anthro movement analogeous to Spirit or is Spirit
        > indicated
        > > here, a pre amalgamation picture of Movement+Karmic bonding which both
        > > later joined themselves to the Society. And this latter karmic bonding
        > > event would have presented more immediate risks to Rudolf Steiner's
        > > person since it more openly placed him in the face of materialistic
        > > influences. (also outrightly occult). This would have definitely taken
        > > him by surprise. After all, he was human!"
        > >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\
        > \
        > > ------- Let me quote Rudolf Steiner (in French :-) from GA 240 [Karmic
        > > Relationships, VI - not available online]: "Les deux ne font qu'un:
        > > *du fait que* je suis moi-même devenu le président de la
        > > société, le mouvement ne fait plus qu'un avec elle." (Editions
        > > Anthroposophiques Romandes, 1986) [Sie sind beide eins: Denn damit,
        > > daß ich selber Vorsitzender der Gesellschaft geworden bin, ist die
        > > anthroposophische Bewegung eins geworden mit der Anthroposophischen
        > > Gesellschaft.] [The two have merged into one: *due to the fact that* I
        > > became president of the society, the movement and the society have
        > > merged into one.] How does Rudolf Steiner characterize the
        > > anthroposophical movement? "...the anthroposophical movement, which
        > > represents on Earth the reflection of a spiritual stream..." (August
        > 12,
        > > 1924). That's my point. According to Steiner himself: until the
        > > Christmas Conference, the society was merely *managing* [gérer] the
        > > anthroposophical teachings that he, the teacher, brought to the
        > society
        > > --- from the outside (he wasn't a member of the Anthroposophical
        > > Society...). From the Christmas Conference on, the society was
        > supposed
        > > to *practice (to do) Anthroposophy* --- instead of merely managing the
        > > teachings! Steiner was the earthly focal point of a spiritual lens as
        > it
        > > were through which spiritual light was pouring down over Mankind; he
        > was
        > > an interface at the center of a *lemniscate* so to speak, the point of
        > > contact and conscious communication between the spiritual world, the
        > > spiritual beings, the spiritual impulses and intentions, and the
        > > physical world with earthly Mankind imprisoned in the Satanic delusion
        > > of materialism. He represented on Earth the actual source of the
        > > reflection of the spiritual stream he mentioned. Anthroposophical
        > > spiritual science is not merely (spiritual) knowledge; it is *living*
        > > spiritual wisdom --- and this is the real reason why it is *so often*
        > > caricatured by Anthros, who --- intellectually assassinate
        > > Anthroposophia! [i.e., the little Dragons inoculate Anthroposophia
        > with
        > > their mortal intellectual venom instead of quenching their thirst with
        > a
        > > living *elixir*(Steiner's own word) and curing their moribund psyche
        > > with the only true antidote available] Rudolf Steiner was the earthly
        > > source, bearer and messenger of the *living Spirit* - the incarnation
        > of
        > > the movement itself as it were; and this is why the two merged into
        > one
        > > when he became president of the society --- i.e., when the living
        > Spirit
        > > was embodied in the Society. Thus the drastic change that was
        > expected.
        > > But, as I said, I've always felt that Steiner's immediate poisoning
        > was
        > > extremely symptomatic of a bodily *rejection*... The fact is - that
        > > Steiner was not able to see his last lecture, his last address,
        > through
        > > to completion (28 September 1924) - and that is exactly 9 months [a
        > > human gestation period] after the Christmas Conference... Did anything
        > > happen exactly 9 months before the Christmas Conference (which is
        > > obviously an essential point in time, a landmark event in spiritual
        > > history)? Well, Rudolf Steiner wrote (March 25, 1923) to Edith Maryon:
        > > "Actually, as far as the Society is concerned, all I need to say is
        > that
        > > I would like it best if I had nothing to do with it anymore.
        > Everything
        > > its executive committees do fill me with nausea..." [Für die
        > > Gesellschaft habe ich eigentlich nur zu sagen, daß ich am liebsten
        > > nichts mehr mit ihr zu tun haben möchte. Alles, was
        > derenVorstände
        > > tun, widert mich an.] You see, *sacrifice* has many meanings... Yes,
        > > He was human, wonderfully human... But I believe this is a half-truth,
        > a
        > > partial truth. And, since Steiner insisted several times that
        > > half-truths are much more dangerous than complete untruths, let me add
        > > another part of the truth, in my own eyes at least: RUDOLF
        > > STEINER = MAYA (The sanskrit word maya means *illusion*, as you know.)
        > > Jean-Marc
        > >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\
        > \
        > > --------------
        > > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "carol" organicethics@ wrote:
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > Jean Marc wrote: "Steiner is obviously drawing our attention to an
        > > > occult phenomenon, to an occult spiritual fact, of which Mankind
        > does
        > > > not have the slightest idea in ordinary consciousness, in ordinary
        > > > historical consciousness [ = a dream narrated in a
        > > > pseudo-causative,pseudo-explanatory "fable convenue"]. In the
        > context
        > > of
        > > > the lectures, it is quite clear that this phenomenon is very
        > > intimately
        > > > related to the spiritual reality of Christ: I've already mentioned
        > > that,
        > > > according to Steiner, the *social* seeds or impulses are born with a
        > > > Christmas signature as it were --- and resurrect only 33 years later
        > > > with an Easter signature..."
        > > >
        > > > This is very interesting. Apparently Judith von Halle received her
        > > > Stigmata near Easter of (2004)? I'm sorry, I have limited memory
        > > range.
        > > > At any rate, I did register that it occured surrounding the Easter
        > > > celebration of likely 2004, perhap 05. This might likely indicate a
        > > > social seed/impulse signature being resurected with more spirit
        > depth
        > > > using the soul forces held by the incarnated Ms Halle.
        > > >
        > > > Jean Marc continues: "As far as I can tell, this means that all
        > > *social*
        > > > actions, whether free or unfree (a very schematic dichotomy...) ---
        > do
        > > > determine, for better or for worse, the coming social development of
        > > > Mankind. The fundamental difference being that the karmic
        > consequences
        > > > of free actions affecting the social becoming of Mankind originate
        > > from
        > > > free will and genuine knowledge (hence the importance of *pure*
        > > > objective thinking). For instance: Steiner did not begin
        > communicating
        > > > higher secret doctrines to immature children, to potential *rascals*
        > > > (sic) [Bösewichter] out of a mere subjective concern, emotion or
        > > > passion - but because the Master was able to convince him that
        > > Theosophy
        > > > was nevertheless necessary [an objective necessity] in our time."
        > > >
        > > > Yes, I believe that Theosophical spiritual development is
        > fundamental
        > > to
        > > > being able to effectively and freely act as a given medium (having
        > > > oneself ignited creative spirit forces), who can PERMIT THE PASSAGE
        > of
        > > > the spirit forces which animate specific social seeds/impulses to
        > > > traverse from out of the Higher Devachanic realm into the Earthly
        > > > Etheric.
        > > >
        > > > JM: "Or, Rudolf Steiner, not knowing how the spiritual world would
        > > > react, freely united his own karma with that of the Anthroposophical
        > > > Society [i.e., the Movement was embodied in the Society] as an act
        > of
        > > > salvation, as a sacrificial act of salvation --- and Steiner was
        > > > immediately *poisoned*!
        > > >
        > > > I'm pretty sure this will sound *taboo* to quite a few Anthros ---
        > but
        > > > phenomenologically speaking, I've always felt that this meant that
        > the
        > > > Body [i.e., the AS as an earthly *administrative* body] was utterly
        > > > unfit (or unwilling) to accommodate the living Spirit, and rejected
        > it
        > > > (!) --- the AS thus being born (founded anew) as a sickly retarded
        > > > child...[even perhaps as a nearly stillborn child]. "
        > > >
        > > > There's something that's a little off here. Do you consider the
        > Anthro
        > > > movement analogeous to Spirit or is Spirit indicated here, a pre
        > > > amalgamation picture of Movement+Karmic bonding which both later
        > > joined
        > > > themselves to the Society. And this latter karmic bonding event
        > would
        > > > have presented more immediate risks to Rudolf Steiner's person since
        > > it
        > > > more openly placed him in the face of materialistic influences.
        > (also
        > > > outrightly occult).
        > > >
        > > > This would have definitely taken him by surprise. After all, he was
        > > > human!
        > > >
        > > > JM: "Let's remember that Judas is the Representative Apostle of our
        > > > consciousness soul age... In other words, it's an Anthro "fable
        > > > convenue"(imho) to believe that Rudolf Steiner himself was ill; he
        > > > suffered, and died, from the fatal illness of the Anthro community,
        > > from
        > > > the karmic illness(es) of his disciples."
        > > >
        > > > That's quite possible. I don't think anyone of us really knows
        > exactly
        > > > what kind of infiltration and betrayal scenario took place, however,
        > > I'm
        > > > sure that some people at the time of the crime may have been able to
        > > > gather some clues...
        > > >
        > > > JM: "In compensation, according to Steiner's own testimonies, the
        > > > Spiritual Gates opened wide, as never before. And, the lectures on
        > > > *Karmic Relationships*, for instance, could be offered to Mankind.
        > > > Perhaps I'm digressing, but I believe that the above is a somewhat
        > > > canonical example of how free consciousness and "causality that
        > comes
        > > > from outside" (sic) are in fact intimately interwoven."
        > > >
        > > > It's interesting how once Steiner had consciously bound his Karma to
        > > the
        > > > earthly face of Anthroposophy (Movement + Society) and once a
        > > stricking
        > > > (fatal) occult attach has played itself out, he witnessed 'the
        > > Spiritual
        > > > Gates open wide'. I'm wondering if the Spiritual Gates opened wide
        > in
        > > > the general sense, or specifically for his own reference. I'm
        > guessing
        > > > that it was the former.
        > > >
        > > > Nice post, Carol.
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > >
        > > > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, "jmn36210" jmnguyen@ wrote:
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > > > Robert wrote: "You seem to be assuming a negative answer to
        > > > > the question that I had asked; just assuming
        > > > > it, not proving it. It would seem to me that
        > > > > consciousness raised to the level of the kind
        > > > > of freedom taught in *PoF* must, to some degree
        > > > > at least, be undetermined by any "law" or
        > > > > causality that comes from "outside" that
        > > > > consciousness, i.e. outside that free,
        > > > > individual human spirit. So, it would seem, to
        > > > > whatever extent such free consciousness affects
        > > > > social development, that social development
        > > > > would be undetermined by that "law". The "law"
        > > > > operates mainly upon "inert" processes and
        > > > > "unfree" beings. What is a spiritual "law" but
        > > > > the sum-total of the actions of the Creative
        > > > > Beings? Everything (ontologically) is
        > > > > ultimately only beings and their activities.
        > > > > To the extent that we are "free spirits" in the
        > > > > sense of *PoF*, we are also creative beings and
        > > > > are thus also makers of the "law". -- The
        > > > > question I was asking was essentially one about
        > > > > this "extent": to what extent are we free
        > > > > within the socio-historical process, and to
        > > > > what extent do our free actions have "any
        > > > > bearing" upon that process? I don't know the
        > > > > answer; it seems to me that we are -- to some
        > > > > extent -- unfree and impotent, but it seems
        > > > > excessive to assume that we have no freedom and
        > > > > power *whatsoever* within and upon the socio-
        > > > > historical process." Jean-Marc writes: (First of all, I'm sorry
        > for
        > > > > the delay...) Robert, no one (!) is assuming --- "that we have no
        > > > > freedom and power *whatsoever* within and upon the
        > socio-historical
        > > > > process"(sic) ... Basically, I believe you've misinterpreted what
        > my
        > > > > *frogman* example was supposed to illustrate: from the occult
        > > > > perspective of Steiner's revelations regarding the historical
        > > becoming
        > > > > of Mankind, the effectiveness of all *social* seeds or actions ---
        > > > > whether free or unfree! --- endures for three generations, for
        > three
        > > > > 33-year cycles, i.e., for a century. Period. Rudolf Steiner never
        > > > > alludes to the necessity of discriminating between free and unfree
        > > > > actions in the lecture (December 26, 1917) --- imo, because it is
        > > > > entirely irrelevant from that particular standpoint. In other
        > words,
        > > > > whether you are "making a pair of shoes" (Steiner's example) as an
        > > > > enlightened *PoF* enthusiast, or as a 10-year-old Asian child
        > > working
        > > > 16
        > > > > hours a day for a big Western Corporation making handsome profits
        > > > thanks
        > > > > to modern slave labor, the occult phenomenon [the *objective
        > > > phenomenon*
        > > > > I was alluding to in my previous post...] Steiner is drawing our
        > > > > attention to is essentially the same: one century is the occult
        > > > > lifetime of any [free or unfree, minute or gigantic] *social*
        > > impulse,
        > > > > as far as its effectiveness is concerned in the historical
        > becoming
        > > of
        > > > > Mankind. Beyond the one century deadline, the initial *momentum*
        > of
        > > > the
        > > > > original impulse or social seed is no longer effective; therefore,
        > > the
        > > > > social seeds must be sown periodically. Hence perhaps the constant
        > > > > return (every century!) of the great spiritual figures I
        > mentioned.
        > > > > Unfortunately, the lectures are not available online --- but
        > Steiner
        > > > is
        > > > > obviously drawing our attention to an occult phenomenon, to an
        > > occult
        > > > > spiritual fact, of which Mankind does not have the slightest idea
        > in
        > > > > ordinary consciousness, in ordinary historical consciousness [ = a
        > > > dream
        > > > > narrated in a pseudo-causative, pseudo-explanatory "fable
        > > convenue"].
        > > > In
        > > > > the context of the lectures, it is quite clear that this
        > phenomenon
        > > is
        > > > > very intimately related to the spiritual reality of Christ: I've
        > > > already
        > > > > mentioned that, according to Steiner, the *social* seeds or
        > impulses
        > > > are
        > > > > born with a Christmas signature as it were --- and resurrect only
        > 33
        > > > > years later with an Easter signature... As far as I can tell, this
        > > > means
        > > > > that all *social* actions, whether free or unfree (a very
        > schematic
        > > > > dichotomy...) --- do determine, for better or for worse, the
        > coming
        > > > > social development of Mankind. The fundamental difference being
        > that
        > > > the
        > > > > karmic consequences of free actions affecting the social becoming
        > of
        > > > > Mankind originate from free will and genuine knowledge (hence the
        > > > > importance of *pure* objective thinking). For instance: Steiner
        > did
        > > > not
        > > > > begin communicating higher secret doctrines to immature children,
        > to
        > > > > potential *rascals* (sic) [Bösewichter] out of a mere
        > subjective
        > > > > concern, emotion or passion - but because the Master was able to
        > > > > convince him that Theosophy was nevertheless necessary [an
        > objective
        > > > > necessity] in our time. (Cf. his letter to Marie von Sivers from
        > > > January
        > > > > 9, 1905) Or, Rudolf Steiner, not knowing how the spiritual world
        > > would
        > > > > react, freely united his own karma with that of the
        > Anthroposophical
        > > > > Society [i.e., the Movement was embodied in the Society] as an act
        > > of
        > > > > salvation, as a sacrificial act of salvation --- and Steiner was
        > > > > immediately *poisoned*! I'm pretty sure this will sound *taboo* to
        > > > quite
        > > > > a few Anthros --- but phenomenologically speaking, I've always
        > felt
        > > > that
        > > > > this meant that the Body [i.e., the AS as an earthly
        > > *administrative*
        > > > > body] was utterly unfit (or unwilling) to accommodate the living
        > > > Spirit,
        > > > > and rejected it (!) --- the AS thus being born (founded anew) as a
        > > > > sickly retarded child...[even perhaps as a nearly stillborn
        > child].
        > > > > Let's remember that Judas is the Representative Apostle of our
        > > > > consciousness soul age... In other words, it's an Anthro "fable
        > > > > convenue"(imho) to believe that Rudolf Steiner himself was ill; he
        > > > > suffered, and died, from the fatal illness of the Anthro
        > community,
        > > > from
        > > > > the karmic illness(es) of his disciples. In compensation,
        > according
        > > to
        > > > > Steiner's own testimonies, the Spiritual Gates opened wide, as
        > never
        > > > > before. And, the lectures on *Karmic Relationships*, for instance,
        > > > could
        > > > > be offered to Mankind. Perhaps I'm digressing, but I believe that
        > > the
        > > > > above is a somewhat canonical example of how free consciousness
        > and
        > > > > "causality that comes from outside" (sic) are in fact intimately
        > > > > interwoven. Robert wrote: Just remember: a lot more was happening
        > > > > in
        > > > > 1933 besides the rise of Hitler. To the east,
        > > > > Stalinism/Bolshevism was reaching an horrific
        > > > > climax, with the "liquidation" of the "Kulaks",
        > > > > the Ukrainian famine, etc. The aggressive
        > > > > party was taking power in Japan, and China was
        > > > > in bloody chaos and civil war. To the west, FD
        > > > > Roosevelt was assuming dictatorial powers by
        > > > > his closure of banks and seizure of gold; the
        > > > > USA was bankrupt; the title of the property,
        > > > > labor, and bodies of the people of the US was
        > > > > pledged as security to the banks for the money
        > > > > the US government owed, etc. -- The Demon
        > > > > wasn't working only through Hitler.
        > > > > Jean-Marc writes: Of course, but isn't Adolf Hitler ---
        > emblematic?
        > > > > The fact is that for many years I've been wondering if AH wasn't
        > > some
        > > > > sort of macrocosmic projection of the "Lesser Guardian of the
        > > > Threshold"
        > > > > --- i.e., a personification of the karmic accumulated result of
        > the
        > > > > spiritual evolution of Humanity up to the time of the *Second
        > > > Coming*...
        > > > > A pathetic caricature which happens to be a true image of our own
        > > > > frantic inner little *Führer*, of our own inner little *Guide*,
        > > of
        > > > > our own (sadly repressed :-) egotism and egoism?... Perhaps an
        > acid
        > > > test
        > > > > for too sleepy people? :-) And, from this standpoint of mine,
        > > "Little
        > > > > Boy" would be a demonic counter-image of the "Greater Guardian of
        > > the
        > > > > Threshold"... As I said, just wondering... Jean-Marc
        > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        > ------------------------------------------------------------------------\
        > \
        > > \
        > > > \
        > > > > ------------------
        > > > > --- In anthroposophy@yahoogroups.com, Robert Mason
        > robertsmason_99@
        > > > > wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > To Jean-Marc, who wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>Whether a frogman falls into a pond --- on
        > > > > > his own initiative, in the daylight, or
        > > > > > inadvertently, sleepwalking by moonlight ---
        > > > > > the frogman's state of consciousness at the
        > > > > > moment of impact will have no influence
        > > > > > whatsoever on the objective phenomenon: the
        > > > > > surface of the water will be disturbed for a
        > > > > > certain time [only] according to the laws of
        > > > > > physics [fluid mechanics].<<
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Robert writes:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Well, yes; but the physics of the water is not
        > > > > > the same as the "physics" of free human
        > > > > > spirits. (But, to get really picky, I note
        > > > > > that you are assuming no psycho-kinetic effects
        > > > > > on the water from the frogman. Physics
        > > > > > nowadays cannot safely make such assumptions on
        > > > > > the quantum-mechanical level, and maybe not
        > > > > > even on the "macro" level.)
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Jean-Marc wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>Likewise, it seems that the phenomena Rudolf
        > > > > > Steiner is referring to [the social *seeds* of
        > > > > > all sorts] comply with a spiritual law that we
        > > > > > are usually not aware of --- and that, from
        > > > > > this specific perspective, our state of
        > > > > > consciousness has no bearing on the phenomena
        > > > > > and their duration whatsoever. . . . .<<
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Robert writes:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You seem to be assuming a negative answer to
        > > > > > the question that I had asked; just assuming
        > > > > > it, not proving it. It would seem to me that
        > > > > > consciousness raised to the level of the kind
        > > > > > of freedom taught in *PoF* must, to some degree
        > > > > > at least, be undetermined by any "law" or
        > > > > > causality that comes from "outside" that
        > > > > > consciousness, i.e. outside that free,
        > > > > > individual human spirit. So, it would seem, to
        > > > > > whatever extent such free consciousness affects
        > > > > > social development, that social development
        > > > > > would be undetermined by that "law". The "law"
        > > > > > operates mainly upon "inert" processes and
        > > > > > "unfree" beings. What is a spiritual "law" but
        > > > > > the sum-total of the actions of the Creative
        > > > > > Beings? Everything (ontologically) is
        > > > > > ultimately only beings and their activities.
        > > > > > To the extent that we are "free spirits" in the
        > > > > > sense of *PoF*, we are also creative beings and
        > > > > > are thus also makers of the "law". -- The
        > > > > > question I was asking was essentially one about
        > > > > > this "extent": to what extent are we free
        > > > > > within the socio-historical process, and to
        > > > > > what extent do our free actions have "any
        > > > > > bearing" upon that process? I don't know the
        > > > > > answer; it seems to me that we are -- to some
        > > > > > extent -- unfree and impotent, but it seems
        > > > > > excessive to assume that we have no freedom and
        > > > > > power *whatsoever* within and upon the socio-
        > > > > > historical process.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > J-M wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>In other words, Steiner is not saying that "a
        > > > > > pair of shoes" will last 33 years, let alone a
        > > > > > whole century :-) (Nor is he implying that
        > > > > > philosophical or anthroposophical books will
        > > > > > lose all spiritual significance beyond a
        > > > > > hundred-year deadline.) He's saying, it seems
        > > > > > to me, that the spiritual impulses that bring
        > > > > > about the social [read Christic...] *seeds*
        > > > > > need to be renewed every 100 years.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>From this perspective --- is it really
        > > > > > surprising that [according to Steiner]
        > > > > > Christian Rosenkreutz, and the Bodhisattva, and
        > > > > > Master Jesus, are all reincarnated --- in every
        > > > > > century?<<
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Robert writes:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > OK; I wouldn't argue too much with that
        > > > > > thought. The 100-year "law" is effective and
        > > > > > is "used" by the Guiding Spirits because large-
        > > > > > scale socio-historical evolution is lived-out
        > > > > > by mankind almost wholly in an unfree, "dream"
        > > > > > consciousness.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > J-M wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>Assuming that some of you do enjoy
        > > > > > "scratching your heads":
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>"So we see a Being passing through history
        > > > > > for whom a century is a year; evolving in
        > > > > > accordance with Sun-laws though one is not
        > > > > > aware of it." [GA 161 - January 10, 1915]<<
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Robert writes:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > This "Being" is, as RS explains, the Being of
        > > > > > Philosophy. And, I think, this Being evolves
        > > > > > in accordance with "laws" (from the "outside").
        > > > > > Why? -- Because even She is not a wholly free
        > > > > > being; She is a created Being as well. RS
        > > > > > perhaps implicitly alludes to this fact in the
        > > > > > very next paragraph:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > "And then only there lies further back another
        > > > > > Being still more supersensible than the Being
        > > > > > that evolves as humanity except that a year is
        > > > > > as long as a century. This Being that stands
        > > > > > behind evolves in such a way that its external
        > > > > > expression is our personal destiny, how we bear
        > > > > > this through still longer periods, from
        > > > > > incarnation to incarnation. Here stand the
        > > > > > Spirits regulating our outer destiny and their
        > > > > > life is of still longer duration than the life
        > > > > > of those for whom we must say that a century
        > > > > > corresponds to a year."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > J-M wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>From this standpoint, let's consider the
        > > > > > Mystery of Golgotha as the central event in the
        > > > > > spiritual / historical evolution of Mankind.
        > > > > > What does that mean? It means that Mankind was
        > > > > > born again, was born anew --- thanks to the
        > > > > > Mystery of Golgotha. Or, perhaps in the strict
        > > > > > spiritual sense: *Humanity* [i.e., self-
        > > > > > consciousness!] was actually born on the
        > > > > > Golgotha!...
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>Well, assuming that this new Humanity, this
        > > > > > Christ-bearing Humanity, this Sun-bearing
        > > > > > Mankind, evolves in accordance with Sun-laws --
        > > > > > - then the 20th and 21st centuries would
        > > > > > witness the emancipation of Mankind, the birth
        > > > > > of its *I*, the birth of the *Ego-body* of the
        > > > > > new Humanity...<<
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Robert writes:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > You might be interested: Terry Boardman has
        > > > > > written on this theme; for instance:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > "The 21st century . . . . is the very special
        > > > > > time when the ego of mankind as a whole - since
        > > > > > Christ came for all of mankind – takes
        > > > > > possession of the house of mankind just as it
        > > > > > was a very special moment when the young adult
        > > > > > used to be given the key of the door and was
        > > > > > recognised socially as an adult. In this 21st
        > > > > > century we shall have such global self-
        > > > > > consciousness as never before. Precisely in
        > > > > > this century then, the luciferic and ahrimanic
        > > > > > forces can be expected to make their greatest
        > > > > > strike against the human ego and the ego of
        > > > > > mankind that seeks for freedom." (from "The
        > > > > > China - America Relationship in the 21st Century
        > > > > > and the Spectres of 1776 (2)")
        > > > > > <http://www.monju.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/EW11b.htm>
        > > > > >
        > > > > > J-M wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>In this regard, when did this new Humanity
        > > > > > reach its 20th year? On its 19th birthday, in
        > > > > > the year 1933! [date of birth = 33 AD]
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>Yes, this is exactly the time when the
        > > > > > *Second Coming* of Christ, when the
        > > > > > reappearance of *Christ in the Etheric* was
        > > > > > expected to begin . . . .<<
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Robert writes:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Why 1933? -- Willy Sucher suggested that two
        > > > > > 950-year cycles of the precession of the nodes
        > > > > > of Saturn were needed; one for expansion and
        > > > > > one for contraction of the ethereal body of
        > > > > > Christ.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Gennady Bondarev tried to approach an
        > > > > > understanding of the "Second Coming" through a
        > > > > > Goethean perception of metamorphosis. He
        > > > > > considers the Seven Deeds of Christ; RS told us
        > > > > > of the three pre-earthly deeds; the Incarnation
        > > > > > was the fourth. The fifth was the Ascension:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > "The Mystery of Golgatha was the stage of the
        > > > > > Holy Divine metamorphosis through which God, as
        > > > > > He passed through them, united with all the
        > > > > > kingdoms of nature. The act of this union is
        > > > > > given to religious consciousness I the festival
        > > > > > of 'Ascension'. . . ."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > "The process of the Ascension lasted exactly 19
        > > > > > centuries -- from 33 to 1933 AD. This is the
        > > > > > length of time it took for God to unite fully
        > > > > > (though not in the body of Jesus) with the
        > > > > > world of the physical, i.e. of spatio-temporal
        > > > > > being. (The number of time is 12; the number
        > > > > > of life, of metamorphosis in the three-
        > > > > > dimensional space is 7. Christ needed 3 years
        > > > > > in order to unite with the body of Jesus; there
        > > > > > rules in man the principle of the trinity.)
        > > > > >
        > > > > > "The world has now entered a stage of
        > > > > > development that corresponds to Whitsun, the
        > > > > > festival when the Holy Spirit descends to those
        > > > > > human beings who possess and individual 'I" . .
        > > > > > . ."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > "[The] seventh deed of Christ will allow man to
        > > > > > partake in the body of resurrection. . . ."
        > > > > >
        > > > > > "Anthroposophy as the message of the Holy
        > > > > > Spirit, the 'Comforter', the 'Spirit of truth'
        > > > > > whom Christ Himself promised to send to us, and
        > > > > > kept His promise, allows the human being to
        > > > > > approach the experience of Christianity in the
        > > > > > spirit of the Whitsun Festival." (from *The
        > > > > > Crisis of Civilization*)
        > > > > >
        > > > > > J-M wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >> --- and also exactly the time when Adolf
        > > > > > Hitler became chancellor. No wonder that the
        > > > > > Sun Demon, according to Steiner, would manifest
        > > > > > itself in the year 1933 . . . .<<
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Robert writes:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Just remember: a lot more was happening in
        > > > > > 1933 besides the rise of Hitler. To the east,
        > > > > > Stalinism/Bolshevism was reaching an horrific
        > > > > > climax, with the "liquidation" of the "Kulaks",
        > > > > > the Ukrainian famine, etc. The aggressive
        > > > > > party was taking power in Japan, and China was
        > > > > > in bloody chaos and civil war. To the west, FD
        > > > > > Roosevelt was assuming dictatorial powers by
        > > > > > his closure of banks and seizure of gold; the
        > > > > > USA was bankrupt; the title of the property,
        > > > > > labor, and bodies of the people of the US was
        > > > > > pledged as security to the banks for the money
        > > > > > the US government owed, etc. -- The Demon
        > > > > > wasn't working only through Hitler.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > J-M wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>Rudolf Steiner also said that shortly after
        > > > > > the year 2000, some kind of law, not a law in
        > > > > > the strict sense of the word, but something
        > > > > > that will have a similar effect, will come from
        > > > > > America: its aim will be to ban people --- from
        > > > > > thinking *individually*! Anti-Christ in all his
        > > > > > glory...<<
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Robert writes:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > I have the quote, picked up somewhere on the
        > > > > > WWW, probably from Rick Distasi:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Steiner said: "We might say that the present
        > > > > > time is doing very well compared with that
        > > > > > which will come in the future when the Western
        > > > > > development blossoms more and more. Very
        > > > > > shortly, when one will have written the year
        > > > > > 2000, there will come from America not a direct
        > > > > > prohibition, but a kind of prohibition against
        > > > > > all thinking, a sort of law which will have the
        > > > > > aim of suppressing all individual thinking. On
        > > > > > the other hand there is a beginning achieved in
        > > > > > this direction of suppressing all individual
        > > > > > thinking into pure materialistic thinking where
        > > > > > one does not need to work upon the soul but on
        > > > > > the basis of external experiments, and the
        > > > > > human being is handled as if he were a
        > > > > > machine...
        > > > > > ... For example, we have machines today which
        > > > > > add and subtract; everything is convenient.
        > > > > > Now, in the future you will not get a law
        > > > > > passed which says you must not think. No. What
        > > > > > will happen is that things will be done the
        > > > > > effect of which will be to exclude all
        > > > > > individual thinking. This is the other pole to
        > > > > > which we are proceeding. This is connected with
        > > > > > the development of the West." (4 Apr. 1916, in:
        > > > > > Things of Past and Present in the Spirit of
        > > > > > Man, unpubl. typescript)
        > > > > >
        > > > > > J-M wrote:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > >>What is globalization? Notwithstanding the
        > > > > > globalization of free market economy [and the
        > > > > > Anglo- American (occult) intention to
        > > > > > economically enslave a major part of the world
        > > > > > and its population - which is nothing else but
        > > > > > Black Magic on a nationalistic or even perhaps
        > > > > > a racist level (the race of the omnipotent
        > > > > > Lords and the race of the Slaves that will work
        > > > > > to enrich their Lords)] --- it seems to me
        > > > > > that, from a spiritual perspective,
        > > > > > globalization is the symptom of Mankind
        > > > > > becoming aware of itself as an entity, as a
        > > > > > spiritual in-dividuality (i.e., the symptom of
        > > > > > a [Christic] consciousness of spiritual unity,
        > > > > > more or less intinctively rising above and
        > > > > > beyond the differentiations from the past, such
        > > > > > as peoples and races).
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Robert writes:
        > > > > >
        > > > > > OK; I pretty much go along with that, in
        > > > > > general. Some kind of "globalization" must
        > > > > > come, eventually, and it doesn't have to be a
        > > > > > bad thing. It's "bad" when it is in the hands
        > > > > > of the transnational mega-corporations and is
        > > > > > enforced by the military power of the Shadow
        > > > > > Government of the US and her allies, all in the
        > > > > > service of the power-occultists. -- But in
        > > > > > another sense, in a roundabout way, even this
        > > > > > "bad" is good, assuming that the higher, good
        > > > > > Gods are ultimately in control and allow the
        > > > > > Adversarial Spirits and their minions to
        > > > > > exercise power only in accordance within the
        > > > > > overriding constraints of a wise and loving
        > > > > > karma. "All things work together for good . .
        > > > > > . ." said Paul.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > That thought might be somewhat comforting, but
        > > > > > humanly it's kind of hard to feel much comfort
        > > > > > if you're personally getting it in the neck
        > > > > > from the rapacious, demonic economic
        > > > > > oppressors. That roundabout "good" is really
        > > > > > doing it the hard way; I'd rather do it the
        > > > > > easy way.
        > > > > >
        > > > > > Robert M
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > >
        > > > > > __________________________________________________
        > > > > > Do You Yahoo!?
        > > > > > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
        > > > > > http://mail.yahoo.com
        > > > > >
        > > > >
        > > >
        > >
        >
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.