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

Re: Pete Diana phenomena

Expand Messages
  • holderlin66
    holderlin wrote: Now lets take a bigger physics problem of time and those notes left for the future. There is the incident with the three kings. Here we
    Message 1 of 27 , May 1, 2005
    • 0 Attachment
      holderlin wrote:

      "Now lets take a bigger physics problem of time and those notes left
      for the future. There is the incident with the three kings. Here we
      encounter a real time coded and star coded message of direction, map
      on and link to a geographic place and time. No GPS involved.

      "The workings in the world reveal intimate intricacies of complexity.
      Certainly unraveling the complexities of Karma is a physics issue
      where we understand that entering the world of matter, as a being,
      and preparing to enter into a profound mission, with the starry
      world in agreement, that there are certainly risks involved. We
      sometimes miss the indicators that we ourselves have left for our
      destiny moments and we get lost."

      Bradford comments;

      To illustate the utter nonsense of the religious/agnostic belief in
      the Big Bang...compare the statement above with this statement.

      "This is Einstein's Year. One-hundred years ago a little known Swiss
      patent clerk in the very early years of a scientific career was
      confronted with a series of paradoxes related to time and space,
      energy and matter. Gifted with a profound intuition and a powerful
      imagination, Albert A. Einstein rose out of obscurity to present an
      entirely new way of looking at natural phenomenon. Einstein showed
      us all that time had very little to do with clocks, energy has less
      to do with quantity and more to do with quality, space was not
      just "a big square box to put stuff in", matter and energy were two
      sides of the same cosmic coin, and gravity had a profound effect on
      everything - light, matter, time, and space."

      We have discussed H.G. Wells "Time Machine" and several examples of
      notes from the future delivered to the past and past notes delivered
      in trajectory to future events, within precise coordinates of Time
      and Space...But what do we fail to do time and time again, we fail
      to apply abstract nonsense of Time and Space theories to the
      advanced structure of the Human I AM. Therefore Karma research,
      which we have ample accurate examples of, reveal a working relation
      to the stars and profound locked in coordinates of time, space and
      incarnation.

      There is really no room for such nonsense as the big bang theory, it
      as a pacifier for Ahrimanic forces. Sure we can think any number of
      theories but to not recognize that the Big Bang theory is a self
      defeating, self negating, spirit denial manifesto, of denial of self
      and denial of the I AM, reveals a strange idiocy. Again, repeat it
      to yourself, it reveals a strange idiocy. It must defy the entire
      Christian Religion and all things, thought to be eternal, mere
      accidents and whims of matter, including us and nature and the
      position of Earth in relation to the destiny of humanity. None of
      which stands up on close scrutiny. No accidental Darwinian event or
      Divine Fart has brought about the intimate intricicies of the
      complex etheric body, complex astral body or fiery divine core of
      the eternal I AM...even if war STar Dust, million year old carbon
      and carbon based life forms...

      http://www.universetoday.com/am/publish/perfect_einstein_ring.html

      Near Perfect "Einstein Ring" Discovered

      "Gravitational lensing happens when the gravity of a relatively
      close galaxy acts as a telescope lens to focus the light from a more
      distant galaxy. It allows astronomers to see distant objects they
      could never have a hope of observing with current instruments,
      essentially looking back to moments after the Big Bang (cosmically
      speaking). The galaxies are never perfectly lined up, though, and
      the "natural telescope" is a bit blurry. But now astronomer Remi
      Cabanac has found one of the most complete lenses ever discovered: a
      near perfect Einstein Ring, magnifying a distant galaxy with
      incredible clarity.

      This is Einstein's Year. One-hundred years ago a little known Swiss
      patent clerk in the very early years of a scientific career was
      confronted with a series of paradoxes related to time and space,
      energy and matter. Gifted with a profound intuition and a powerful
      imagination, Albert A. Einstein rose out of obscurity to present an
      entirely new way of looking at natural phenomenon. Einstein showed
      us all that time had very little to do with clocks, energy has less
      to do with quantity and more to do with quality, space was not
      just "a big square box to put stuff in", matter and energy were two
      sides of the same cosmic coin, and gravity had a profound effect on
      everything - light, matter, time, and space.

      Today we use all these principles – enunciated a century ago - to
      probe the most distant things in the Universe. Because of Einstein's
      investigation of the photoelectric effect, we now understand why
      light is not continuous but curiously riddled with dark and bright
      lines telling us when that light was emitted, what emitted it. and
      the kinds of things touching it in its travels. Because of
      Einstein's insight into the conversion of mass and energy, we now
      understand how distant suns illuminate the cosmos, and how powerful
      magnetic fields whip particles up to stupendous speeds later to come
      crashing down on the Earth's atmosphere. And because gravity is now
      understood to influence everything, we have learned how distant
      objects can capture and focus light from even more distant objects.

      What conclusions can we draw based on this discovery?

      Remi underscores the significance of this find by saying "The source
      amplified by the lens is the galaxy with the brightest apparent
      luminosity ever discovered at such a distance. It will give us
      unique information on the physical conditions prevailing in the
      interstellar medium when the universe was only 12% of its present
      age. The shape of the source is also very important because it gives
      the amount of mass within the lens at a redshift of z=1. Only a
      handful of Einstein rings have been discovered at such high
      redshift. It will give an important measurement at how elliptical
      galaxy mass evolved through time."
    • holderlin66
      holderlin wrote: If it took someone, and I don t recommend Tarjei s or Mike s path, but if destruction of the roots of ones being, either with drugs or being
      Message 2 of 27 , May 1, 2005
      • 0 Attachment
        holderlin wrote:

        "If it took someone, and I don't recommend Tarjei's or Mike's path,
        but if destruction of the roots of ones being, either with drugs or
        being absolutely honest...and being born in Norway...with absolutely
        rebellious parents...Now otherwise, such a war torn country, a new
        battle, such as Mike's or my cousin David's or Pete's or Diana's or
        Dan's are fought out on a layer of deep psychology in a war torn
        country of the soul."

        http://www.waldorflibrary.org/Journal_Articles/RB4202.pdf

        "The hypothesis of chance as prime mover in development grows even
        more doubtful when we consider the numerous correspondences and
        connections human biography shows in relation to the evolution of the
        realms of nature and the situation of the whole cosmos. Human
        metabolism follows circadian rhythms which in turn depend on the
        sun's orbit around the earth. Pregnancy is still counted in lunar
        months, embryonic development proceeding in characteristic weekly
        and 4-weekly stages, not to speak of the direct effect of the sun on
        the vitamin D precursor in human skin, for instance, and on
        photosynthesis in plants. In terms of space and of rhythmic time
        sequences, earth and cosmos are part of a finely attuned
        system of relationship; nothing drops out of this as
        being "meaningless." This goes so far that even orders of magnitude
        show exact correspondence. I once worked out where we
        would get to if we took the number steps in powers of ten into the
        universe that we need to take to come to the smallest building
        stones of matter, which are in the range of 10( 16) 10( 18) meters.
        10( 16) 10( 18) meters reflects the distance to the nearest fixed
        stars, e.g. Alpha Centauri.

        To speak of chance when one knows of all these interactions and
        correspondences resulting from genetics, the influence of
        environmental factors and finally also the whole of nature and the
        cosmos around us, is to my mind to speak of a hypothesis that rests
        on extremely shaky foundations.

        "A great deal of research will clearly be needed to verify the
        details of the working hypothesis so clearly
        stated by Rudolf Steiner. Let me show it in a sketch here in
        conclusion.

        "According to this hypothesis, genetic material is selected not on
        the basis of good or bad luck or random chance, but by the human I,
        a reality in the spirit even before birth. With the aid of its
        thought organism (called the "ether body" by Rudolf Steiner, 1904)
        it has selected and combined the paternal and maternal genetic
        material in the way most appropriate to the individual' development.
        The genetic piano keys of our ancestors are played by the essential
        individual nature of the human being himself, and this also takes
        in the environmental influences it needs by developing specific
        interest and abilities to relate. Using its powers of thought,
        individual human nature sets its own developmental goals. At the
        same time it will depend on how it thinks about nature and the earth
        how these will develop in the centuries ahead. For in the human
        being evolutive potential comes free of the germ track of species,
        being available to man as thinking activity; independent creative
        potential to develop a concept of his own further development."

        Bradford comments;

        Are we our biographies? But how extensive are our biographies? What
        strikes the difference? This War Torn Iraq or War torn Viet Nam and
        a syndrome we call Post traumatic stress disorder is now applied to
        the soul. It becomes the same post traumatic stress disorder, under
        different names, if we apply the destructive forces of drugs,
        criminality and unleashing the hidden forces of the astral
        instincts, star animals in the soul, that run riot, are also
        symptoms of a War. Our War with ourselves and finding a working, in
        depth spiritual compass to carry the I AM through the morass of
        INCOMING BLATANT THEORIES.

        External destructive forces and a society that inwardly devours
        itself or individuals that cannot find the constructive force of
        inner soul reflection, apply to themselves a war torn ideology, they
        become their own individual war torn post traumatic stress disorder.
        But, you say, what stress, where was the instance that some had to
        experience external stress to have the application and the grasp
        that we are in the embrace, the embrace, the tidal surge of Shock
        and Awe, massive unleashed Ahrimanic issues from a global Being
        seeking to overthrow the Global issue of the free I AM, strikes
        right down to the base structure of the soul. And presently this
        attack, watering down, distracting, vaccines, fast food, media
        addiction, instant gratification, intellectuall conceit and cunning,
        play directly on the map of how the soul will navigate through this
        rough air space, massive psychic turbulence and find their own
        navigational center of gravity tied to the roots of world reality.

        http://www.lapismagazine.org/mcdermott.html

        "As it has been the aim of my dharma for approximately thirty years
        to transform my personal life in the light of the Mahayana and the
        transpersonal, I sought the guidance, first, of Sri Aurobindo, whom
        I have long considered the foremost spiritual teacher of modern
        India. Without revising that assessment, I turned for guidance to
        Rudolf Steiner, whom I consider the foremost spiritual guide of the
        West -- and perhaps of this historical period. It seems to me that
        Steiner has given a more comprehensive spiritual teaching than
        anyone else of the last several centuries. I have been working both
        at deepening my Anthroposophical work as such, and also at creating
        relationships between my Anthroposophical discipline and the
        spiritual work of diverse individuals and groups, many of whom are
        transpersonalists.

        "The transpersonal movement is based on a panoply of non-ordinary
        experiences, including those derived from psychotropics and
        psychedelics, meditation, shamanic practices, intuition, rituals,
        spiritual journeys, artistic activities, and organizational
        transformation -- a truly radical empiricism and one deepened by
        traditions of practice. The entire transpersonal movement has issued
        primarily from psychology, the most transpersonally advanced western
        discipline from the 1960's to the present. The transpersonal
        movement in turn continues to influence psychology and allied
        disciplines on behalf of a conception of psyche as profound and
        proactive. Not properly an `ism' or a community, `transpersonal' is
        an adjective prefixed to a loose confederacy of ideas, ideals,
        critiques and practices, as well as cultural (and more typically
        counter-cultural) mores.

        "I would propose as a working definition that the term transpersonal
        refers to a group of worldviews and practices which aim to foster
        soul transformative experience as well as to deepen and expand
        awareness of psychic and spiritual realities. It should be added to
        this definition that the realities which we in the third millennium
        West consider extraordinary would be perceived as perfectly ordinary
        in earlier cultures and in cultures at the present time not yet
        overwhelmed by the modern western paradigm. In recent decades,
        experiences that were kept out of mainstream cultural and
        intellectual life have been increasingly recognized as worthy of
        attention. As positivism and materialism tighten their grip on the
        intellectual life of the West, so do an increasing number of
        individuals and communities affirm the interior life. As darkness
        spreads, individual lights do shine, and need to shine, ever
        brighter."

        Bradford draws a broad example:

        Navigational adventuring out into the wide world and examing
        individual biographies are part of the crux of any approach to how a
        person has arrived or brought their family towards Waldorf or how
        they arrived at a clear decision to desire to study at an Anthro
        University. I would ask parents how they arrived here or whereever
        the Waldorf destiny had brought them and I would also ask specific
        questions in regard to parental navigation, expectation and
        childhood illnesses, specific destiny traits they have
        observed..etc...

        Then there is the intimacy of biography and the strange impelling
        forces that we bring with us into incarnation.

        "Already as little boy Heinrich Schliemann was obsessed by the idea
        that Homer had given an account of true history in his great epic
        poems - the Iliad and the Odyssey, and that Troy had really existed.
        He did all to find this famous place. And he achieved one of the
        greatest sensations of archaeology: The discovery of Troy and
        Mycenae."

        http://www.myrine.at/Schliema/schlieme.html

        R.S.

        http://wn.rsarchive.org/Lectures/Places/Dornach/19240322p01.html

        "...we find Garibaldi spending his boyhood in Nice as the son of a
        poor man who has a job in the navigation service. He is a child who
        has little inclination to take part in what the current education of
        the country has to offer, a child who is not at all brilliant at
        school, but who takes a lively interest in all sorts and varieties
        of human affairs. What he learns at school has indeed the effect of
        inducing him very often to play truant. While the teacher was trying
        in his own way to bring some knowledge of the world to the children,
        the boy Garibaldi much preferred to romp about out-of-doors, to
        scamper through the woods or play games by the riverside. On the
        other hand, if he once got hold of some book that appealed to him,
        nothing could tear him from it. He would lie on his back by the hour
        in the sunshine, absolutely absorbed, not even going home for meals.

        Broadly speaking, however, it was the great world that interested
        him. While still quite young he set about preparing himself for his
        father's calling and took part in sea voyages, at first in a
        subordinate, and afterwards in an independent position. He made many
        voyages on the Adriatic and shared in all the varied experiences
        that were to be had in the first half of the 19th century, when
        Liberalism and Democracy had not yet organised the traffic on the
        sea and put it under police regulations, but when some freedom of
        movement was still left in the life of man! He shared in all the
        experiences that were possible in times when one could do more or
        less what one wanted! And so he also had the experience — I believe
        it happened to him three or four times — of being seized by pirates.
        As well as being a genius, however, he was sly, and every time he
        was caught, he got away again, and very quickly too!

        And so Garibaldi grew up into manhood, always living in the great
        world. As I have said, I do not intend to give you a biography but
        to point out characteristic features of his life that can lead us on
        to a consideration of what is really important and essential."

        Bradford concludes;

        Critics can spout all they want against Anthroposophy or Spiritual
        Science but they really do not have a cognitive leg to stand on. We
        are all in either the consttructive or destructive battle of a
        navigational model for defining the I AM. Every leg of distancing
        themselves from one cult, lands them in another cult, the cult of
        current science beliefs in the big bang, which is a lousy, lousy,
        theory and also an intellectually safe cult with no answers, much
        worse than the accumulated intimate data from stone, plant, animal,
        human and the vast Goethean studies in the intimacy of biography
        that Spiritual Science provides.

        Somewhere in the soul life the soul starts to make cognitive sense
        of the vast historical testimony that humanity has brought forward
        regarding the spiritual world. If not, they remain post traumatic
        stress disorder fence sitters who are still in a war zone of their
        own souls soup.
      • Tarjei Straume
        ... From what I remember reading about MBE was that she claimed all illnesses are illusions, so that if you just refuse to recognize an ailment as something
        Message 3 of 27 , May 1, 2005
        • 0 Attachment
          At 17:40 30.04.2005, Bradford wrote:

          >What is the difference between Steiner and Mary Baker Eddy?

          From what I remember reading about MBE was that she claimed all illnesses
          are illusions, so that if you just refuse to recognize an ailment as
          something real, it will evaporate and you'll be healthy. Anything from
          common cold to cancer, including smallpox for that matter, just snap your
          fingers in faith and it disappears.

          Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but whatever MBE taught, it bore no
          resemblance to science nor to anthroposophically oriented spiritual
          science, although it was called 'Christian Science.'

          Tarjei
        • Frank Thomas Smith
          ... Oversimplified, Tarjei. The Christian Scientists have trained practitioners who visit sick people in order to show them how to believe that their
          Message 4 of 27 , May 2, 2005
          • 0 Attachment
            > At 17:40 30.04.2005, Bradford wrote:
            >
            > >What is the difference between Steiner and Mary Baker Eddy?
            >
            > From what I remember reading about MBE was that she claimed all illnesses
            > are illusions, so that if you just refuse to recognize an ailment as
            > something real, it will evaporate and you'll be healthy. Anything from
            > common cold to cancer, including smallpox for that matter, just snap your
            > fingers in faith and it disappears.

            Oversimplified, Tarjei. The Christian Scientists have trained
            "practitioners" who visit sick people in order to show them how to believe
            that their problems are only in the mind - and it often works. "Mind" is a
            very important word in C.S. I once saw a translation of their bible (Science
            and Health....no, I forget it's name, but it's quite interesting) into
            German and of course the translators had a problem translating "mind", their
            most important word, into German where, incredibly enough, it doesn't exist.
            They finally decided on "Gemüt" - which seemed to me to be using a German
            word which doesn't exist in English just to get even. The lack of "mind" in
            German is, I think, a great problem in translating Steiner's stuff. I often
            wonder where, if the word existed, he would have used it instead of, say,
            "soul". In any case, I have known a number of Chistian Scientists in my day,
            and - althugh it's not my cup of tea - found them all worthy of respect.

            Frank
            >
            > Correct me if I'm wrong about this, but whatever MBE taught, it bore no
            > resemblance to science nor to anthroposophically oriented spiritual
            > science, although it was called 'Christian Science.'
            >
            > Tarjei
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            > Yahoo! Groups Links
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
            >
          • winters_diana
            Hi Bradford. Do you recall that I was raised Christian Scientist? Does this post have my name on it for a reason? It d be nice if you could communicate
            Message 5 of 27 , May 2, 2005
            • 0 Attachment
              Hi Bradford. Do you recall that I was raised Christian Scientist?
              Does this post have my name on it for a reason?

              It'd be nice if you could communicate directly with other humans,
              rather than just sermonizing, and then threatening and berating
              people who haven't responded the way you'd have liked.

              I will get back to this post. I've flagged a couple of other things
              up ahead but may not do this today.

              My father is a sort of lapsed/renegade Christian Scientist, still
              very devout in his heart. His mother knew Mary Baker Eddy (or so a
              rather unreliable family history legend has it). Your comments are,
              as always, fascinating.
              Diana



              > Bradford comments;

              >What do we dislike about ourselves? The fine line between a
              >childhood belief system, foisted, like parents who chose Waldorf
              >Education or Christian Science, foisted upon their children or an
              >entire family following a line that sounds like Christian
              >Science/Spiritual Science and unable to discover any discerning
              >difference between the two systems.
            • holderlin66
              Bradford commented; There is always magic in the air. Poor Saul was shocked that he had to do a complete 180 and become a betrayer of that which his childhood
              Message 6 of 27 , May 3, 2005
              • 0 Attachment
                Bradford commented;

                "There is always magic in the air. Poor Saul was shocked that he had to
                do a complete 180 and become a betrayer of that which his childhood
                and his soul was built upon. Shouldn't we have said, the way Saul went
                out and killed followers of Christ, "now there was a rock of belief to
                build a Hebrew temple on?" Instead of ST. Peter, who remained rock
                headed, bull headed, Saul was literally knocked off his high horse by
                an inner etheric experience. So it is said, this inner etheric light,
                so it is said, even though, to even see this etheric light and hear
                this voice stemming from some recognized Being who Saul knew had just
                been on Earth and was severely tortured and murdered....Well this
                etheric/astral voice light...thing... rocked Saul to Paul. But this
                is all abstract to us today, downstream in time isn't it?

                Bradford looks further into the issue;

                But friends, friends of narrow insight, fearful rabbits and fanged
                kittie kats, didn't the Great Rock of the Church of Peter and the
                Great Iron cast will of Saul, national, patriotic, willing to arrest,
                stone and kill those early Christians, wasn't Peter and Saul/Paul
                beheaded, slain and killed together, to become, dare we think it? The
                foundations of Peter and Pauline versions of Christianity.

                "... it has been said that they were martyred at Rome at the command
                of the Emperor Nero, and buried there. As a Roman citizen, Paul would
                probably have been beheaded with a sword. It is said of Peter that he
                was crucified head downward. The present Church of St Peter in Rome
                replaces earlier churches built on the same site going back to the
                time of the Emperor Constantine, in whose reign a church was built
                there on what was believed to be the burial site of Peter. Excavations
                under the church suggest that the belief is older than Constantine.

                St. Augustine writes (Sermon 295):

                Both apostles share the same feast day, for these two were one; and
                even though they suffered on different days, they were as one. Peter
                went first, and Paul followed. And so we celebrate this day made holy
                for us by the apostles' blood. Let us embrace what they believed,
                their life, their labors, their sufferings, their preaching, and their
                confession of faith.
                Prayer (traditional language)

                Almighty God, whose blessed apostles Peter and Paul glorified thee by
                their martyrdom: Grant that thy Church, instructed by their teaching
                and example, and knit together in unity by thy Spirit, may ever stand
                firm upon the one foundation, which is Jesus Christ our Lord; who
                liveth and reigneth with thee, in the unity of the same Spirit, one
                God, for ever and ever.

                Bradford concludes;

                Bradford and any intelligent person would see clearly that Spiritual
                Science is founded in Pauline Christianity. Any one who wiggles out of
                this is avoiding the Imperial Roman war waged even today from Amerika,
                against the Etheric Christ. The powerful mustard seed, the powerful
                seed that sprouted from Paul's martyrdom in Rome has landed in such a
                novel and inspiring form, in Spiritual Science that it not only builds
                upon the Petra Bible foundations of the Christ, but lifts the Five
                Gospels, as only Pauline Christianity could do.

                Rusty, clunky, pathetic, cowardly, and retarded thinking clings to
                Popes of Rome or Presidents of the West. If you rebel and are galled
                at the ideas that have been laid out in this thread, you are merely a
                rusted relic, a tangled ball of war torn soul dysfunction and fouled
                in the ropes and throws of your own self deluded Ahrimanic and
                Luciferic denials. You certainly learned nothing of the history of the
                I AM, the history of humanity nor the history of science. You are
                stranded and shallow, lost on the shallow margins of a swampy shore
                and you also wish to cling to denial so that living forces cannot
                touch you.

                And that is why you cling to failed insights. You cling to failed
                insights because you imagine that such abstract ideas as the big bang
                really can't insist on any moral maxims. That's right, Big Bangs and
                maybe there is an OverSoul as Emerson might have thought, but nothing
                specific, no I AM accountability.

                Hit the buzzer Johnny and tell these toddler tykes just what they won?
                They won the constant flaming denial, petty intellectual quibbling,
                low mental battery life that fails to recognize Their Life, riddled
                as it is with wonder, when it stares them in the face. They couldn't
                find Ahriman in their big toe with a Zarathustra flashlight. While our
                life is actually sustained by the Christ Event, they run willy nilly
                and are too cowardly to accept that they are not guilt ridden and must
                scurry away from the Light of the I AM for shame....Christ does not
                bear shame and grudge as we do. Christ is the open depth of sustaining
                Life, the Life that is livingly and faultering described out of
                Pauline Christianity, as Spiritual Science.
              • Tarjei Straume
                ... Thank you, Frank. Tarjei
                Message 7 of 27 , May 3, 2005
                • 0 Attachment
                  At 14:03 02.05.2005, Frank wrote:

                  >Oversimplified, Tarjei. The Christian Scientists have trained
                  >"practitioners" who visit sick people in order to show them how to believe
                  >that their problems are only in the mind - and it often works. "Mind" is a
                  >very important word in C.S. I once saw a translation of their bible (Science
                  >and Health....no, I forget it's name, but it's quite interesting) into
                  >German and of course the translators had a problem translating "mind", their
                  >most important word, into German where, incredibly enough, it doesn't exist.
                  >They finally decided on "Gemüt" - which seemed to me to be using a German
                  >word which doesn't exist in English just to get even. The lack of "mind" in
                  >German is, I think, a great problem in translating Steiner's stuff. I often
                  >wonder where, if the word existed, he would have used it instead of, say,
                  >"soul". In any case, I have known a number of Chistian Scientists in my day,
                  >and - althugh it's not my cup of tea - found them all worthy of respect.

                  Thank you, Frank.

                  Tarjei
                • winters_diana
                  ... Not much oversimplified. They believe matter does not exist. Matter is illusion, thus all physical ailments are illusion. To be healed is a matter of
                  Message 8 of 27 , May 3, 2005
                  • 0 Attachment
                    Tarjei:
                    >From what I remember reading about MBE was that she claimed all
                    >illnesses are illusions, so that if you just refuse to recognize an
                    >ailment as something real, it will evaporate and you'll be healthy.
                    >Anything from common cold to cancer, including smallpox for that
                    >matter, just snap your fingers in faith and it disappears.

                    Frank:

                    >Oversimplified, Tarjei.

                    Not much oversimplified. They believe matter does not exist. Matter
                    is illusion, thus all physical ailments are illusion. To be healed is
                    a matter of "knowing the truth." If you get good at this, you should
                    theoretically to be able to do it by snapping your fingers.

                    They aren't exactly consistent about it, though. Christian Scientists
                    avoid all drugs and alcohol and can't take *any* medication. (No,
                    they don't vaccinate.) You can't take so much as an aspirin for a
                    headache without it being a frigging spiritual crisis. (Do I have
                    some bitterness <G>). However, they do see dentists, wear eyeglasses
                    and get routine obstetric care, have babies in hospital, and report
                    promptly to the emergency room with broken bones.


                    >The Christian Scientists have trained "practitioners" who visit sick
                    >people in order to show them how to believe that their problems are
                    >only in the mind - and it often works.

                    Yes - testimony to these healings are a central part of CS. And then
                    again, you can be lying on the table in the emergency room turning
                    green, with the doctor telling you you will die if you don't have
                    your ruptured appendix taken out, and your wife screaming at you, and
                    the local Christian Science practitioner helping you to "know the
                    truth," and you won't live unless you give in at the last minute and
                    let the doctors ("materialists," nearly as dreaded an epithet in
                    Christian Science as in anthroposophy) work their evil on you. (This
                    happened to my father.)


                    >"Mind" is a very important word in C.S. I once saw a translation of
                    >their bible (Science and Health....no, I forget it's name, but it's
                    >quite interesting)

                    Yes, that's it - "Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures" is
                    Mary Baker Eddy's key work; it's commentary on the Bible, and some
                    other stuff too. Interesting, yes. It's not "their Bible" strictly
                    speaking, unless you mean that in the colloquial sense (the way I say
                    Steiner is your bible, for instance).

                    I will write more about it later. Christian Science is similar in
                    some ways to anthroposophy (both coming out of 19th century
                    spiritualism) and quite dissimilar in others. For instance, they are
                    appalled by the notion of reincarnation; they consider it a
                    materialist error. (And "error" is a very loaded word in CS.)
                    Anthroposophy is a much more sophisticated doctrine. Christian
                    Science is very dull in comparison, no cosmology, no spiritual
                    hierarchies etc., and really none of the occult stuff, unless you
                    count the belief in "malicious animal magnetism," which is sort of a
                    cross between hypnotism and a hex and (if periodicals I perused in my
                    father's study last time I was home are any indication) a concept
                    they still take very seriously.
                    Diana
                  • winters_diana
                    Bradford, I have gone back to this, but to be honest, I find myself annoyed that it is not possible to actually converse with you; one can only be lectured at.
                    Message 9 of 27 , May 3, 2005
                    • 0 Attachment
                      Bradford, I have gone back to this, but to be honest, I find myself
                      annoyed that it is not possible to actually converse with you; one
                      can only be lectured at. I feel I am being addressed here as
                      a "Christian Science family survivor" but then again, perhaps it's a
                      coincidence you go on about belief systems "foisted upon their
                      children or an entire family following a line that sounds like
                      Christian Science/Spiritual Science and unable to discover any
                      discerning difference between the two systems." Does this mean me or
                      should I bother saying anything about this?

                      There are many differences between "Christian Science" and "Spiritual
                      Science"; they are quite dissimilar. I was not upset with the Waldorf
                      school because I thought Christian Science was too much like
                      Spiritual Science, if that's what you thought. I gather from your
                      reprinting this unflattering piece on Christian Science that you are
                      trying to say I was warped by this and somehow ruined for
                      understanding "real" spiritual science later.

                      My own family is critical of CS. My father wrote a book about his
                      negative experiences with the church, although he still considers
                      himself a Christian Scientist, just disillusioned with institutional
                      religion.
                      Diana



                      > Christian Science holds that "false beliefs are the procuring cause
                      > of all sin and disease." (Science and Health, p. 171) Indeed,
                      > relying on medicine is a sin because it is "anti-Christian".
                      > (Science and Health, p. 169)
                      >
                      > Supposedly, physicians themselves actually cause disease! They "are
                      > flooding the world with diseases, because they are ignorant that
                      the
                      > human mind and body are myths". (Science and Health, pp. 150-
                      > 151) "[T]he ordinary physician is liable to increase disease with
                      > his own mind..." (Science and Health, p. 159)
                      >
                      > Drugs do not work. "[A] drug has no efficacy of its own, but
                      borrows
                      > its power from human faith and belief. The drug does nothing,
                      > because it has no intelligence." (Science and Health, p. 12)
                      >
                      > Bradford comments;
                      >
                      > What do we dislike about ourselves? The fine line between a
                      > childhood belief system, foisted, like parents who chose Waldorf
                      > Education or Christian Science, foisted upon their children or an
                      > entire family following a line that sounds like Christian
                      > Science/Spiritual Science and unable to discover any discerning
                      > difference between the two systems. They sound alike and behave
                      > alike and it all is the same mumbo jumbo and bible stuff rolled
                      into
                      > a big fat cigar. They all have the same flaws, the same errors and
                      > the same type of stupid people who are attracted to them. People
                      > like my dumb parents.
                      >
                      > What is the difference between Steiner and Mary Baker Eddy? These
                      > are tough calls and if we insist to a newbie or a psychologically
                      > embedded Christian Science upbringing that they are apples and
                      > oranges...both fruits, we encounter rebellions directed somewhere,
                      > somewhere intended against the parents who chose such a whacky
                      > antisocial destiny, in either of the above cases but direted
                      against
                      > the followers of those whacky beliefs. Now hard is that to
                      > understand?
                      >
                      > Yes, I admit it. I inflicted Waldorf Education on my two children,
                      > now thirty, and I have paid dearly for it ever since. And the crux
                      > of the argument is choosing something the parents thought right for
                      > their children and somehow new agey enough, wholistic or holistic
                      > enough and granola enough....And then there is the side issue of
                      > STeiner himself and all those brainwashed souls... It is very hard
                      > to grasp such nose bleed concepts as the history of science and the
                      > sheaths of a human being and all that Bible stuff of Steiner's let
                      > alone the strange thoughts that run through Waldorf teachers heads.
                      > Now Catholics, strict Catholics have also the same rebellion going
                      > on against strong belief systems as the Christian Science family
                      > survivors.
                      >
                      > Well no, my parents never heard of Spiritual Science and would
                      never
                      > have approached it if they did. Me, Wheaton Illinois was the
                      destiny
                      > location of my hot summers with my cousin David and John Belushi.
                      > Wheaton Illinois and Naperville was Billy Graham and Christian
                      > fundamental country and my Grandma was wonderfully and warmly,
                      > deeply embedded in Lutheran Christian values... Norwegian as she
                      > was. But, but I was adopted and went to public schools and I can
                      > define my destiny in somewhat of a unique pattern outside of the
                      > family embeddedness. Mainly because of specific incarnations
                      > safeguards that I always thought were handicaps, rather they
                      > protected my spiritual integrity.
                      >
                      > Not so my cousin David. Same Age, Three time swift boat runner in
                      > Nam and former resident of Joliet Prison, heroine abuser and
                      > addicted and finally coming full circle back to grannies religion,
                      > Fundamental Preacher for the Hells Angels and huge...I love my
                      > cousin David, we have always been like brothers. It is a stunning
                      > book unwritten but very much on the model of C.S. Lewis, "Until we
                      > Have Faces."
                      >
                      > But I would never expect, nor can even hope that thinking,
                      > discernment and growth in the objective actiivty of the Spiritual
                      > Science would ever grow as a destiny force in either my parents or
                      > David. Now it is not to say that the roots of a person cannot be
                      > overcome but I say to you that it is hard in the Pauline sense,
                      that
                      > Paul was strictly brought up, highly educated, to kick against the
                      > pricks of his beliefs.
                      >
                      > For the entire roots of ones being rebels against the idea that
                      Paul
                      > heard a voice inside his spirit, or that the human being has the
                      > capacity to approach the Christ mystery in such depth that the
                      > moment of Zarathaustra, Buddha, Leaving the Jesus vehicle for the
                      > Christ entrance...has a whole series of rich and powerful, touching
                      > insights that might violate those deeply hidden roots of childhood
                      > and the introspection needed, is not deep enough yet to get you to
                      a
                      > new karmic inner standpoint. Or, as is stated by critcs, we are all
                      > daft and just the same brand of beliefs as any other belief. And
                      > then they hide themselves, actually have the nerve to hide
                      > themselves in the flaky belief of the Big Bang and matters myths.
                      >
                      > Because is there really a difference between Dr. Steiner and Mary
                      > Baker Eddy?
                      >
                      > "Mrs. Eddy's Checkered Career
                      >
                      > http://www.skepticreport.com/health/christianscience.htm
                      >
                      > "Most Christian Scientists display a great deal of reverence for
                      > Mary Baker Eddy, the founder of their religion. For some adherents,
                      > such as Bliss Knapp, author of The Destiny of the Mother Church,
                      > Mrs. Eddy was a semi-divine being whose coming was prophesied in
                      > Isaiah. Knapp's book was originally suppressed by the Christian
                      > Science hierarchy, but eventually was published by them in what
                      some
                      > saw as a cynical ploy to reap the rewards of Knapp's US $90 million
                      > bequest [Ost].
                      >
                      > However, a careful examination of the record shows that Mrs. Eddy
                      > often acted in direct contradiction to the tenets of her own
                      > religion.
                      >
                      > For example, a diary kept by Calvin Frye, a household servant of
                      > Mrs. Eddy, reveals that she was addicted to morphine, and in fact
                      > had a lifelong dependence on morphine pills and shots [Gar].
                      >
                      > In her later life, Mrs. Eddy wore glasses (supposedly not needed by
                      > Christian Scientists) and was frequently attended by doctors [Sta].
                      >
                      > In the last half of her life, Mrs. Eddy developed symptoms of
                      > paranoia, claiming that her enemies were attempting to attack her
                      > with "malicious animal magnetism" (MAM). She once wrote, "Mother
                      > never has and cannot be mistaken in her diagnosis of MAM." In the
                      > second and third editions of Science and Health, she demanded that
                      > courts recognize crimes committed by MAM [Gar].
                      >
                      > She sued a former associate for using MAM to inflict "great
                      > suffering of body and mind and spinal pains and neuralgia and a
                      > temporary suspension of mind" on one of her followers [Gar].
                      >
                      > As Martin Gardner has shown, she plagiarized material from many
                      > sources, particularly Thomas Carlyle and John Ruskin [Gar].
                      >
                      > Of course, none of these incidents have any direct bearing on the
                      > health claims of Christian Science, but they do cast serious doubt
                      > on the image of Mary Baker Eddy as ethical teacher and model
                      > promoted by the Christian Science church.
                      >
                      > Mrs. Eddy's Tall Tales
                      >
                      > Mrs. Eddy's writings are filled with bizarre incidents, leading one
                      > to believe that either she was extremely gullible or that she
                      > cynically manipulated her audience with these tall tales. For
                      > example, she once claimed [Gar, p. 57] that some Oxford students
                      > killed a criminal by making him think he was bleeding to
                      death. "Had
                      > they changed the felon's belief that he was bleeding to death,
                      > removed the bandage from his eyes, and he had seen that a vein had
                      > not been opened, he would have resuscitated." No documentation was
                      > provided for this claim.
                      >
                      > In Science and Health, p. 245, she wrote of an English woman
                      > who, "disappointed in love in her early years, she became insane
                      and
                      > lost all account of time. Believing that she was still living in
                      the
                      > same hour which parted her from her lover, taking no note of years,
                      > she stood daily before the windo watching for her lover's coming.
                      In
                      > this mental state she remained young. Having no consciousness of
                      > time, she literally grew no older. Some American travellers saw her
                      > when she was seventy-four, and supposed her to be a young woman.
                      She
                      > had no care-lined face, no wrinkles nor gray hair, but youth sat
                      > gently on cheek and brow. Asked to guess her age, those
                      unacquainted
                      > with her history conjectured that she must be under twenty." Mrs.
                      > Eddy cited as her source an article in the Lancet, but without
                      > volume and page numbers it is impossible to verify the source.
                      >
                      > Also in Science and Health, pp. 556-557, she wrote: "It is related
                      > that a father plunged his infant babe, only a few hours old, into
                      > the water for several minutes, and repeated this operation daily,
                      > until the child could remain under water twenty minutes, moving and
                      > playing without harm, like a fish." Again, she provided no
                      > documentation."
                    • holderlin66
                      holderlin wrote: But now comes this Nazi Folk Monster that steals Zarathustra/Jesus and steals the entire Folk to follow some strange path away from the
                      Message 10 of 27 , May 4, 2005
                      • 0 Attachment
                        holderlin wrote:

                        "But now comes this Nazi Folk Monster that steals Zarathustra/Jesus and
                        steals the entire Folk to follow some strange path away from the
                        Etheric Sciences of the Christ Event, or a Pauline event in the 20th
                        century...who can hold such a tale together with their logical minds?
                        U can't that's for sure. It requires looking at Nietzsche and at
                        Hitler and others... and U are just too apathetic and uninterested to
                        walk that trail."

                        Bradford comments;

                        Shallowness and abstractness don't just apply to Pete and Diana, we
                        are all shallow and abstract. The trick is to find the way to focus
                        the soul on what is decidedly not shallow and abstract and build the
                        discernment we need to the foundation of the I AM. I wish to give a
                        blazingly interesting example of a study in thinking that has no
                        interest or knowledge in one iota of the refined thinking of Spiritual
                        Science, yet is entirely in tune with the tenor of the times we live
                        in. How you come right up to a reality and don't see it. You can't see
                        it because you have been blinded from looking right at it. And that is
                        the Etheric Christ Event of 1933. Case in point!

                        http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=20952

                        "History is tapping us on the shoulder and pointing. The sixtieth
                        anniversary of the liberation of Auschwitz followed so closely by the
                        popification of an ex-member of the Hitler Youth combine to force our
                        attention back to the Nazi catastrophe. We study World War II and the
                        Holocaust and ask ourselves "How could it happen? How could civilized
                        people let it come to this? How could they consent to let their flag
                        become the registered trademark for collective evil and let their
                        country walk into history with the blood of millions on its
                        conscience?" We shake our heads and turn away from the questions
                        because our historical gaze is dazzled by the enormity of what
                        happened in the 1940's. "Never again!" we say with tears in our eyes.

                        But if we truly want some calamity to happen Never Again, we won't
                        just study that calamity. We'll study what went before. We'll study
                        its precursors. What allowed, invited, or caused it to happen? Who
                        were catastrophe's midwives? If we learn to recognize them, there is
                        hope that we can turn them away when they again show up, smiley-faced,
                        at our door. Before World War II and the Holocaust, there was Germany
                        of the 1920's and '30's. That's where we need to focus our cross-
                        generational telescopes.

                        If we take a look at pre-WWII Germany, we notice it has some things in
                        common with the United States now. Start with the concept of
                        exceptionality. Nazi ideology grew out of Germans' belief that their
                        country was uniquely privileged because it was uniquely valuable. This
                        made them an exception to rules and norms.

                        The average "Proud to Be an American" bumper-sticker-buyer believes
                        the same thing. (I'm still waiting for some churchgoing patriot to
                        notice that being born American is a gift of grace and to begin
                        marketing "Humble to be an American" decals.) A belief in your
                        country's exceptionality takes you way out beyond the warm self-
                        appreciation of patriotism; in naming your heritage "exceptional," you
                        cut your ties to the family of nations and set yourself above the
                        rules. Our belief in our own exceptionality erodes the walls that hold
                        back human greed, fear of otherness, and violence. Exceptionality
                        makes the unthinkable possible, even reasonable.

                        Before the Nazi rise to power, German society bloomed with cultural,
                        artistic, and social openness, as did the United States in the last
                        third of the twentieth century. The dominant culture enriched itself
                        by cross-pollinating with other groups. Creativity, innovation, and
                        freedom held sway in art, music, drama, and dance. In lifestyle
                        choices, openness and experimentation were possible."

                        Bradford breaks in here:

                        Now all this is well and good and appears to be OK. OK meaning, ya
                        that was the situation before and as we have read recently in previous
                        posts that Tarjei and I worked on with Wilson and Powell, we can track
                        something very powerfully to 1933, but before that to Weimar and right
                        in the midst of Weimar is Leo Strauss, but Weimar is where Steiner and
                        the Ahrimanic forces had one of their most fierce jousts, where
                        Michael and Ahriman slammed into one another. But also it truly had to
                        do with Wagner as a decoy and spinning Zarathustra and racism. This is
                        all neatly tucked out of sight of history and ahrimanic symptomology
                        has reasons for it. The reasons are the Loenghrin factor.

                        But now in the article, Ahriman steps into the brain mass and unfolds
                        the richest moral testimony that spews out of the brains of every
                        university. We have already outlined here that the Big Bang and
                        physics theories are pretty much declarations that there is no true I
                        AM in the universe just matter collections and string theories. It is
                        a convienent place for the abstract and shallow to remain in hiding,
                        at the shallow margins where the little fish suffocate themselves
                        because the cluster f--- is intense. Everyone craves to hide in the
                        agnostic shoals after the stormy incarnations and tribulations of the
                        middle ages, and the church Inquistions. So watch what comes next in
                        this article, that reveal human abstraction and the accepted voice of
                        the Ahrimanic as smooth as you please, as if moral ethics can be
                        squeezed out of physics.

                        ..........

                        ".....A part of this bubbling cultural ferment was caused by physics.
                        We think of physics as an esoteric branch of science that is of
                        interest only to the The Few, The Proud, The Geeks whose quirky
                        neuroanatomy makes them able to emote in equations. But where physics
                        goes, culture follows. The big metaphors in all areas are based on the
                        physics of our time. And both Nazi Germany and the American Whatever-
                        the-Hell-You-Call-What-We-Are-Becoming were preceded by advances in
                        physics that announced reality to be much different from what we'd
                        always assumed it to be. In the early part of the twentieth century,
                        Einstein's and Heisenberg's physics of relativity and uncertainty--
                        largely centered in German universities--proclaimed that some of our
                        most fundamental understandings about the universe were Wrong, Wrong,
                        Wrong. As quantum mechanics and the new cosmology developed in the
                        later part of the twentieth century--largely centered in U.S.
                        universities--their outrageous paradoxical observations once again
                        taught the lesson that common sense isn't always right. Things aren't
                        always--or ever--the way they seem.

                        In physics as in lifestyle and the arts, Germany and the United States
                        both saw a great questioning of old values, limits, and
                        presuppositions of all kinds--followed by an iron backswing of the
                        pendulum rushing to shut down all the openness, answer all the
                        questions, replace uncertainty with certainty, and relativism with
                        absolutes. Does our anxiety in the face of uncertainty and relativity
                        drive us to cook up fake certainties, like which language is better,
                        who is going to Hell, who must live, and who should die? Did Germany,
                        and will the United States, overcompensate for being uncertain like
                        Napoleon did for being short?

                        Another family resemblance between Germany of the '20's and '30's and
                        the Righteous Right of today is the feeling that somebody done us
                        wrong. For Germany, the sense of being aggrieved was related to the
                        famously vindictive Treaty of Versailles that settled the overt
                        hostilities of World War I but left Germans with smoldering bitterness
                        against what they saw as injustice and injury. The core resentment
                        that energizes the swing toward right-wing "Christian" totalitarianism
                        is the confusing, painful panic at seeing The Way and The Truth become
                        one of many ways and many truths. As one pulpiteer expressed
                        it, "having our culture become a subculture" is felt as a wound, an
                        assault. On September 11th, the cultural assault on our inner
                        landscape then manifested as a physical attack on our outer landscape,
                        echoing the unsolved burning of the Reichstag building in 1933."

                        Bradford concludes;

                        Not I invite you to enter some rich history. A region, not for the
                        shallow or abstract, but for the Michael Student as study material. I
                        feel like Rod Serling here, 'you are about to enter a world' that
                        those who are abstract and shallow cannot even hope to cope in. They
                        haven't the grounding. They remain on one side of a delusion and we
                        can prove, with so many instances that this current GWB/ Wilson and 72
                        year pattern from 1933 is here again. Staring us in the face but can't
                        be seen. But the problem is that you, dear Michael Students must
                        explain it to yourselves. You dear Michael Students must somehow get
                        out of the spin cycle and recognize the second phase of the Michael
                        Epoch we are in.

                        This is no place for the Circus, this is the place for students of
                        Spiritual Science. Cats, snits, sentient soul emotional flaming, well
                        you can't even approach this region, it would be obvious. As I have
                        said, it is a Loenghrin problem. A problem you can't even grasp
                        because you don't have the tools or the faculties. Well here are some
                        tools, strictly for Michael Students.

                        http://makeashorterlink.com/?D1675440B
                      • holderlin66
                        holderlin brought: http://makeashorterlink.com/?D1675440B Darwin s The Origin of Species is pivotal for the ideological foundation for capitalism. Prior to
                        Message 11 of 27 , May 4, 2005
                        • 0 Attachment
                          holderlin brought:

                          http://makeashorterlink.com/?D1675440B

                          "Darwin's The Origin of Species is pivotal for the ideological
                          foundation for capitalism. Prior to The Origin a mediaeval sense of
                          responsibility to one's fellow man still permeated the different
                          strata of the social ladder. The Origin gave a kind of
                          spiritual/ideological seal of approval for eliminating the poor in
                          our body social – much as Nature eliminates the unfit for the
                          purpose of evolution. Eliminating the economically unfit is thus –
                          in this picture – derived from the lesson of Nature's eliminating
                          the unfit. Survival of the fittest is learnt from Nature. This was
                          certainly not Darwin's purpose but that is not the point.
                          Furthermore Darwin was drawing on a number of observations drawn
                          from capitalism in order to arrive at his picture of evolution. He
                          also had pecuniary interests that belonged to the capitalist class.
                          I can go into this in much more detail for anyone who emails me.
                          Thus we have the situation where the practice of capitalism
                          contributes to a scientific picture which in turn reinforces or
                          justifies the practice of capitalism."

                          Amerika brings;

                          http://www.smirkingchimp.com/print.php?sid=20964

                          "The cat's finally out of the bag.

                          Having failed to attract much interest in his plan for privatizing
                          Social Security and killing it off more or less directly, President
                          Bush, in a rare, but typically scripted press conference at the
                          White House last week, declared his intention to convert the 70-year-
                          old retirement security program into a welfare program, pure and
                          simple.

                          Bush's latest scheme would see retirement checks slashed for those
                          earning as little as $36,000 a year (by 13 percent according to one
                          estimate).

                          Worse yet--and this is clearly the whole idea--once the program is
                          turned into a welfare scheme, in which the middle and upper middle
                          classes have no real stake, political support for the program will
                          dry up, benefits for the poor will be slashed, and the program will
                          eventually die or be killed off."

                          Bradford concludes;

                          We know that the platform of the Political Right Wing is to show
                          that God rewards the rich with wealth because wealth is good in
                          god's eyes. Now the argument of the poor, the needy and the welfare
                          state, as a democratic FDR jump point, finds the factors of the
                          article we have in discussion, in focus.

                          Capitalism has links to the etheric outline that the author of the
                          study indicated in the shorter link is stating that 2005 and GWB is
                          a puppet putting a nail in the coffin and we see some efforts here
                          by GWB to put the final nail in the coffin. On further study we hear
                          that Steiner thought Share holders opened the door to Ahrimanic
                          activity. But lets be real.

                          My position, unimportant as it is, has been that karma, the I AM,
                          even in Stephen Hawkings case, may appear handicapped or the current
                          phrasing, might be economically challenged, reveals that the forces
                          of compassion and human karma arise in humanity as load bearing
                          carriage of the Earth's Destiny. Stephen Hawking is really a twist
                          on this concept as he represents science and Newton's chair. A
                          shrunken universe without an I AM, like a dried prune, with no sap
                          of etheric life...but, leaving that aside, the mentally and
                          physically challenged, the poor have a short shelf life if
                          the "Gattica" world arises.

                          But who carries the burden of karma that I can't carry? Why, shucks,
                          it ain't some magical Christ Load Bearing Being, it is Christ in the
                          human spirit that is called upon to mature and ripen. In fact, if we
                          didn't have historical realities like St. Francis and Buddha, we
                          would have to invent them and call Steiner "the cosmic communicator".

                          But that does not eliminate the load bearing forces of karmic
                          wrecks, failures, Camphills of all stripes. Rather it is our job to
                          understand what elimination of the I AM concept means, as a survival
                          of the fittest idea in capitalism. We measure top 1% and we see an
                          ancient pyramid, with rulership at the top...We also look at the 14
                          amendment and Egregorical Global Corporation reach out distancing
                          the individual I AM of human reason, logic and common sense, that
                          this current GWB Washington Monkey House represents.

                          Karma must be carried and carried by man. It must be carried and
                          someone, a literal being, even the handicapped supply a working
                          relation to compassion that hides the concept of what kind of fuel
                          allows humans to spiritually and physically bear burdens and bear
                          them out of love. If we eliminate souls who literally have reached a
                          certain phase of evolution, where they can either perfect themselves
                          quietly or bear the burden of those who continue to toss off that
                          burden in destructive behavior, in failed use of power, and utter
                          selfishness....Well put it this way:

                          Humanity has stepped up to the plate to bear the burden of what is
                          in reality the burden of all humanity, of all Earth evolution. We
                          would have to look at the growth of our higher values in relation to
                          how much the bottom line and compassion and human freedom are on the
                          same page here. This would be tempting crucifixion forces of etheric
                          goodness in the human I AM...and it has very little to do with the
                          posturing of the GOP over the Terri Schiavo incident.

                          For a belief in the Spiritual World and allowing passage of the
                          human being into the spiritual world instead of using them as
                          political footballs, was all wrapped around the rally cry of Terri
                          Schiavo and Darwianian captialism.
                        • Jennifer
                          Bradford, I love reading what you have to say when I have the time to sit and digest it. You always dig deep into places sometimes unpleasant, yet I sense the
                          Message 12 of 27 , May 4, 2005
                          • 0 Attachment
                            Bradford, I love reading what you have to say when I have the time to
                            sit and digest it. You always dig deep into places sometimes
                            unpleasant, yet I sense the importance of where you're coming from
                            and where you might be going. Well, I'd just like to contribute this
                            (but first, will change the subject because it doesn't pertain
                            to "Pete Diana phenomena," whatever that might be):

                            I think I've mentioned here a book I'm currently reading, "The
                            Sociopath Next Door," by Martha Stout. (It was highly recommended by
                            my favorite cousin.) Stout claims that perhaps the most profound
                            trickery of conscience occurs in military matters. Because war must
                            be portrayed as sacred in order to ensure that people view the
                            mission as holy and right, thus absolutely necessary, "the high
                            calling that justifies the killing," authority figures promoting war
                            do exactly this.

                            Yet here is a sad diagnosis for the state of mind of many who
                            war: "Because its essence is killing, war is the ultimate contest
                            between conscience and authority. Our seventh sense demands that we
                            not take life, and when authority overrules conscience and a soldier
                            is induced to kill in combat, he is very likely to suffer post-
                            traumatic stress disorder immediately and for the remainder of his
                            life...."

                            Unless we have an awakened conscience, we cannot conceive of life's
                            true value.

                            Jennifer
                          • heather
                            ... I would like some of this fuel please.. If we eliminate souls who literally have reached a ... themselves ... to ... the ... Right, so where is this growth
                            Message 13 of 27 , May 4, 2005
                            • 0 Attachment
                              > Bradford concludes;
                              >
                              > Karma must be carried and carried by man. It must be carried and
                              > someone, a literal being, even the handicapped supply a working
                              > relation to compassion that hides the concept of what kind of fuel
                              > allows humans to spiritually and physically bear burdens and bear
                              > them out of love.

                              I would like some of this fuel please..

                              If we eliminate souls who literally have reached a
                              > certain phase of evolution, where they can either perfect
                              themselves
                              > quietly or bear the burden of those who continue to toss off that
                              > burden in destructive behavior, in failed use of power, and utter
                              > selfishness....Well put it this way:
                              >
                              > Humanity has stepped up to the plate to bear the burden of what is
                              > in reality the burden of all humanity, of all Earth evolution. We
                              > would have to look at the growth of our higher values in relation
                              to
                              > how much the bottom line and compassion and human freedom are on
                              the
                              > same page here.

                              Right, so where is this growth of higher values, because compassion,
                              daily compassion is nowhere to be found. I watch folks playing out
                              their personal 'movies' (myself included) of 'how do I look now?'
                              There (it appears to me) is no thought, or little thought to things,
                              anything outside each persons 'movie.' Or that ones 'movie' comes
                              first before all else. I don't see where there's compassion. Just
                              watching folks driving in their cars is proof of this.
                              Well, then again, I'm on the East Coast, deep in type-A, road rage
                              country:)
                              The day-to-day nothingness will be the end of us.
                              As always, Bradford, your posts keep me going.........
                              Thank you,
                              Heather

                              This would be tempting crucifixion forces of etheric
                              > goodness in the human I AM...and it has very little to do with the
                              > posturing of the GOP over the Terri Schiavo incident.
                              >
                              > For a belief in the Spiritual World and allowing passage of the
                              > human being into the spiritual world instead of using them as
                              > political footballs, was all wrapped around the rally cry of Terri
                              > Schiavo and Darwianian captialism.
                            • holderlin66
                              Because what I saw was a man who, while Britain s erstwhile leader, scorns his own country. That is, he scorns the union workers that wanted to keep filthy
                              Message 14 of 27 , May 5, 2005
                              • 0 Attachment
                                "Because what I saw was a man who, while Britain's erstwhile leader,
                                scorns his own country. That is, he scorns the union workers that
                                wanted to keep filthy coal mines open; he scorns the nostalgic blue-
                                haired ladies who wanted to keep the Queen's snout on their nation's
                                currency; he scorns his nation of maddeningly inefficient little
                                shops on the high street, of subjects snoozy with welfare state
                                comforts and fearful of the wonders of cheap labor available in far-
                                off locales.

                                Blair looks longingly at America, land of the hard-charging
                                capitalist cowboy, of entrepreneurs with big-box retail discount
                                stores, Silicon Valley start-ups and Asian out-sourcing.

                                Blair doesn't want to be Prime Minister. He wants to be governor
                                in London of America's 51st state."

                                http://makeashorterlink.com/?D1675440B

                                Bradford comments;

                                capitalist cowboycapitalist cowboycapitalist cowboycapitalist cowboy

                                Why study this text? Because once again you will look into the
                                mystery of the world and see just how this Iraq War and Bush's
                                poodle named Blair are whimpering, lying, prophets of the
                                Crucifixion of Christ in the etheric, by our text study. We look at
                                the well written text offered below and decode the election of GWB
                                and decode the election of Tony Blair and compare it to the text
                                offered above and we see layer upon layer of deception sponsored by
                                Ahriman's undead zombies. That little comment, undead zombies, is
                                designed especially for those naive, like Diana, who run screaming
                                back to their school yard that we believe in undead zombies. What we
                                believe in, is unraveling the hidden mystery of EYES WIDE SHUT that
                                Kubrick couldn't articulate but we can. Think Deeply Michael
                                Students, think deeply.

                                http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050405A.shtml

                                "Mark my words: Tony Blair won't be re-elected Thursday. However, he
                                will remain in office.

                                That's because Brits don't vote for their Prime Minister.
                                They've got a "parliamentary" system there in the Mother Country.
                                And the difference between democracy and parliamentary rule makes
                                all the difference. It is the only reason why Blair will keep his
                                job - at least for a few months.

                                Let me explain. The British vote only for their local Member of
                                Parliament. The MPs, in turn, pick the PM. If a carpenter in
                                Nottingham doesn't like Prime Minister Blair (not all dislike him,
                                some detest him), the only darn thing they can do about it is vote
                                against their local MP, in this case, the lovely Alan Simpson, a
                                Labour Party stalwart who himself would rather kiss a toad than
                                cuddle with Tony.

                                Therefore, the majority of the Queen's subjects - deathly afraid
                                of the return of Margaret Thatcher's vampirical Tory spawn - holds
                                their noses, vote for their local Labour MP and pray that an act of
                                God will save their happy isle. A recent poll showed the British
                                evenly divided: forty percent want Blair to encounter a speeding
                                double-decker bus and forty percent want him stretched, scalded and
                                quartered in the Tower of London (within a sampling margin of four
                                percent).

                                Why? Well, to begin with, Blair lies. A secret memo from inside
                                Blair's coven discovered this week made clear that Britain's Prime
                                Minister knew damn well, eight months before we invaded Iraq, that
                                George Bush was cooking the intelligence info on "WMD," but Blair
                                agreed to tag along with his master.

                                The Prime Minister's coterie sold his nation on the re-conquest
                                of their old colony, Iraq, by making up this cockamamie story about
                                Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction that could take
                                out London in 45 minutes. But Brits knew that was 'bollocks' (no
                                translation available) long before this week's shock-horror memo
                                story.

                                A greater blight on the Prime Minister's reputation: Blair likes
                                American presidents. While his habit of keeping his nose snug
                                against Bill Clinton's derriere was a bit off-putting, his
                                application to George Bush's behind makes Blair's countrymen retch.

                                I watched the machinery called Tony Blair up close as a Yankee
                                in King Blair's court (first as an advisor on the inside, then as a
                                journalist also on the inside, but with a hidden tape recorder).

                                And it was eerie. Because what I saw was a man who, while
                                Britain's erstwhile leader, scorns his own country. That is, he
                                scorns the union workers that wanted to keep filthy coal mines open;
                                he scorns the nostalgic blue-haired ladies who wanted to keep the
                                Queen's snout on their nation's currency; he scorns his nation of
                                maddeningly inefficient little shops on the high street, of subjects
                                snoozy with welfare state comforts and fearful of the wonders of
                                cheap labor available in far-off locales.

                                Blair looks longingly at America, land of the hard-charging
                                capitalist cowboy, of entrepreneurs with big-box retail discount
                                stores, Silicon Valley start-ups and Asian out-sourcing.

                                Blair doesn't want to be Prime Minister. He wants to be governor
                                in London of America's 51st state.

                                Britons know this. They feel deeply that their main man doesn't
                                like the Britain he has. And that is why the average punter in the
                                pub longs to be led by that most English of British politicians -
                                who is not English at all - Gordon Brown, the Scotland-born
                                Chancellor of the Exchequer.

                                And so they vote for their local Labour MP on that party's
                                quietly whispered promise that, shortly after the election, Gordon
                                Brown, defender of the old welfare state, union rights, and a
                                gentleman unlikely to invade forgotten remnants of the empire, will,
                                on a vote of his parliamentary confreres, take the reins of
                                government in his benign and prudent hands.

                                As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says, Tony Blair is
                                a man of principle. So was the Ayatolla Khomeini. Both were willing
                                to have others pay any price for their beliefs.

                                Luckily for Britain, Chancellor Brown won't let Blair put his
                                fanatic hands on the kingdom's cash or coinage. And herein is
                                another difference betwixt the US and UK. In America, the Treasury
                                Secretary is little more than the President's factotum. In Britain,
                                the Chancellor holds the nation's purse. Brown brilliantly controls
                                Britain's spending, taxing and currency. For example, despite Tony's
                                pleas, Brown presciently nixed England dumping the pound coin for
                                the euro.

                                And thus Brown, not Blair, has earned his nation's gratitude for
                                the island's steady recovery from Thatcherite punishments while,
                                across The Pond, real wages in Bush's America are falling.

                                Blair will hold onto office - for now - due only to a sly
                                campaign that relies on the public's accepting on faith that, sooner
                                rather than later after the vote on Thursday, Blair will do the
                                honorable thing and end his own political life, leaving the British-
                                to-the-bone Brown to inherit the parliamentary throne. Tony's
                                political corpse can then be mailed to Texas - wrapped in an
                                American flag."
                              • holderlin66
                                http://makeashorterlink.com/?D1675440B Bradford comments; capitalist cowboycapitalist cowboycapitalist cowboycapitalist cowboy
                                Message 15 of 27 , May 5, 2005
                                • 0 Attachment
                                  http://makeashorterlink.com/?D1675440B

                                  Bradford comments;

                                  capitalist cowboycapitalist cowboycapitalist cowboycapitalist cowboy

                                  http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/05/05/ana05013.html

                                  "Here it is. The smoking gun. The memo that has, "IMPEACH HIM"
                                  written all over it.

                                  The top-level government memo marked "SECRET AND STRICTLY PERSONAL,"
                                  dated eight months before Bush sent us into Iraq, following a closed
                                  meeting with the President, reads, "Military action was now seen as
                                  inevitable. Bush wanted to remove Saddam through military action
                                  justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WDM. But the
                                  intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

                                  Read that again: "The intelligence and facts were being fixed...."

                                  For years, after each damning report on BBC TV, "Isn't this grounds
                                  for impeachment?" Vote rigging, a blind eye to terror and the bin
                                  Ladens before 9-11, and so on. Evil, stupidity and self-dealing are
                                  shameful but not impeachable. What's needed is a "high crime or
                                  misdemeanor."

                                  And if this ain't it, nothing is.

                                  The memo, uncovered this week by the Times, goes on to describe an
                                  elaborate plan by George Bush and British Prime Minister Tony Blair
                                  to hoodwink the planet into supporting an attack on Iraq knowing
                                  full well the evidence for war was a phony.

                                  A conspiracy to commit serial fraud is, under federal law,
                                  racketeering. However, the Mob's schemes never cost so many lives.

                                  Here's more. "Bush had made up his mind to take military action. But
                                  the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his
                                  WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

                                  Really? But Mr. Bush told us, "Intelligence gathered by this and
                                  other governments leaves no doubt that the Iraq regime continues to
                                  possess and conceal some of the most lethal weapons ever devised."

                                  A month ago, the Silberman-Robb Commission issued its report on WMD
                                  intelligence before the war, dismissing claims that Bush fixed the
                                  facts with this snotty, condescending conclusion written directly to
                                  the President, "After a thorough review, the Commission found no
                                  indication that the Intelligence Community distorted the evidence
                                  regarding Iraq's weapons."

                                  We now know the report was a bogus 618 pages of thick whitewash
                                  aimed to let Bush off the hook for his murderous mendacity.

                                  Read on: The invasion build-up was then set, says the
                                  memo, "beginning 30 days before the US Congressional elections."
                                  Mission accomplished.

                                  You should parse the entire memo and see if you can make it through
                                  its three pages without losing your lunch.

                                  Now sharp readers may note they didn't see this memo, in fact,
                                  printed in the New York Times. It wasn't. Rather, it was splashed
                                  across the front pages of the Times of LONDON on Monday.

                                  It has effectively finished the last, sorry remnants of Tony Blair's
                                  political career. (While his Labor Party will most assuredly win the
                                  elections today, Prime Minister Blair is expected, possibly within
                                  months, to be shoved overboard in favor of his Chancellor of the
                                  Exchequer, a political execution which requires only a vote of the
                                  Labour party's members in Parliament.)

                                  But in the US, barely a word. The New York Times covers this hard
                                  evidence of Bush's fabrication of a causus belli as some "British"
                                  elections story. Apparently, our President's fraud isn't "news fit
                                  to print."

                                  My colleagues in the UK press have skewered Blair, digging out more
                                  incriminating memos, challenging the official government factoids
                                  and fibs. But in the US press ...nada, bubkiss, zilch. Bush fixed
                                  the facts and somehow that's a story for "over there."

                                  The Republicans impeached Bill Clinton over his cigar and Monica's
                                  affections. And the US media could print nothing else.

                                  Now, we have the stone, cold evidence of bending intelligence to
                                  sell us on death by the thousands, and neither a Republican Congress
                                  nor what is laughably called US journalism thought it not worth a
                                  second look.

                                  My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the
                                  American people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about
                                  Americans is that it's so easy to do."
                                • holderlin66
                                  http://makeashorterlink.com/?P27B6250B
                                  Message 16 of 27 , May 5, 2005
                                  • 0 Attachment
                                  • kmlightseeker
                                    Cutting article...I like it! :) Here s what a Blair supporter said recently in an article (but who also makes some good points): Tories gamble Churchillian
                                    Message 17 of 27 , May 5, 2005
                                    • 0 Attachment
                                      Cutting article...I like it! :)

                                      Here's what a Blair supporter said recently in an article (but who
                                      also makes some good points):

                                      "Tories gamble Churchillian legacy on race card
                                      May 5, 2005


                                      As in Australia, moral integrity is risked in Britain for electoral
                                      opportunism, writes Paul Keating.

                                      It has been one of the conundrums of Australian public life that, as
                                      Labor leader and former prime minister, I drew much inspiration from a
                                      British Conservative leader, Winston Churchill, and often said so.

                                      He sometimes expressed views on economic and social issues I would not
                                      endorse, but his moral clarity was a lesson to us all. It was that
                                      which informed his unshakable belief that Hitler was a psychopath, a
                                      racist and a criminal and that, unlike the view of most of the upper
                                      class in Britain at the time, Hitler could not be dealt with.

                                      Churchill bequeathed to his party a mantle of moral rectitude that
                                      remains to this day. All the greater the pity that its current leader
                                      fails to understand the importance of this inheritance - and is even
                                      prepared to shop and trade it.

                                      All the people who dabble in race, whether it be the Hitlers at the
                                      hard end or the Hansons in Australia on the soft end, have one subject
                                      in common - citizenship. And these days, for citizenship read
                                      migration. They seek to construct parochial and arbitrary distinctions
                                      between the civic and the human community. So some of us have a right
                                      to enjoy the sovereign benefits of security, sustenance and belonging
                                      while others are wayfarers and itinerants who are not entitled to
                                      inclusion with us.

                                      These appeals more often than not find a measure of uncritical
                                      acceptance in countries that formerly have been monocultures. But only
                                      the shabbiest of political figures has any truck with this stuff.

                                      Britain is a great state because it has always had solid values and
                                      has been prepared to fight for them. How wrong it is for Michael
                                      Howard's Conservative Party to tread the slippery and sleazy track of
                                      race to ingratiate themselves with that proportion of the electorate
                                      always susceptible to this malignant appeal.

                                      A national leader should always be searching for the threads of gold
                                      that run through a society, that lift us up and bind us together. The
                                      Liberal Party, Australia's Tory equivalent, has in recent years made
                                      an art form of the whispered word "race".

                                      In 2001, Prime Minister John Howard ran a despicable election campaign
                                      against asylum seekers. The campaign was successful but Australia was
                                      weakened by it. Its moral compass now lacks the equilibrium it had and
                                      the underlying compassion has been compromised.

                                      The Australian Tories' agents are now in Britain. The chief operator,
                                      Lynton Crosby, calls it "guerilla warfare" or "below-the-line
                                      campaigning". Michael Howard will know none of this, of course; he
                                      will be, like his namesake in Australia, hearing no evil and seeing no
                                      evil.

                                      But in his paltry opportunism, whether he understands it or not, he
                                      will be putting at risk his country's integrity. Churchill would
                                      regard the tactic as anathema and against every value he fought for.

                                      The economically strong country that Tony Blair and Gordon Brown have
                                      created has at its core a moral basis from which it derives its energy
                                      and purpose.

                                      People cannot have the wealth and the jobs while at the same time
                                      laying waste to the human spirit. The beating heart of the country has
                                      to be kept in good fettle.

                                      Michael Howard should be mature enough and decent enough, even at this
                                      late stage, to pull the rein on this expedient search for the
                                      dark-hearted.
                                      [in italics:]
                                      Paul Keating is a former Australian prime minister. This article first
                                      appeared in The Guardian."

                                      (from: "The Age" newspaper <
                                      http://www.theage.com.au/news/Opinion/Tories-gamble-Churchillian-legacy-on-race-card/2005/05/04/1115092560718.html?oneclick=true
                                      >)


                                      Thanks,

                                      Keith


                                      --- In anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, "holderlin66" wrote:
                                      > "Because what I saw was a man who, while Britain's erstwhile leader,
                                      > scorns his own country. That is, he scorns the union workers that
                                      > wanted to keep filthy coal mines open; he scorns the nostalgic blue-
                                      > haired ladies who wanted to keep the Queen's snout on their nation's
                                      > currency; he scorns his nation of maddeningly inefficient little
                                      > shops on the high street, of subjects snoozy with welfare state
                                      > comforts and fearful of the wonders of cheap labor available in far-
                                      > off locales.
                                      >
                                      > Blair looks longingly at America, land of the hard-charging
                                      > capitalist cowboy, of entrepreneurs with big-box retail discount
                                      > stores, Silicon Valley start-ups and Asian out-sourcing.
                                      >
                                      > Blair doesn't want to be Prime Minister. He wants to be governor
                                      > in London of America's 51st state."
                                      >
                                      > http://makeashorterlink.com/?D1675440B
                                      >
                                      > Bradford comments;
                                      >
                                      > capitalist cowboycapitalist cowboycapitalist cowboycapitalist cowboy
                                      >
                                      > Why study this text? Because once again you will look into the
                                      > mystery of the world and see just how this Iraq War and Bush's
                                      > poodle named Blair are whimpering, lying, prophets of the
                                      > Crucifixion of Christ in the etheric, by our text study. We look at
                                      > the well written text offered below and decode the election of GWB
                                      > and decode the election of Tony Blair and compare it to the text
                                      > offered above and we see layer upon layer of deception sponsored by
                                      > Ahriman's undead zombies. That little comment, undead zombies, is
                                      > designed especially for those naive, like Diana, who run screaming
                                      > back to their school yard that we believe in undead zombies. What we
                                      > believe in, is unraveling the hidden mystery of EYES WIDE SHUT that
                                      > Kubrick couldn't articulate but we can. Think Deeply Michael
                                      > Students, think deeply.
                                      >
                                      > http://www.truthout.org/docs_2005/050405A.shtml
                                      >
                                      > "Mark my words: Tony Blair won't be re-elected Thursday. However, he
                                      > will remain in office.
                                      >
                                      > That's because Brits don't vote for their Prime Minister.
                                      > They've got a "parliamentary" system there in the Mother Country.
                                      > And the difference between democracy and parliamentary rule makes
                                      > all the difference. It is the only reason why Blair will keep his
                                      > job - at least for a few months.
                                      >
                                      > Let me explain. The British vote only for their local Member of
                                      > Parliament. The MPs, in turn, pick the PM. If a carpenter in
                                      > Nottingham doesn't like Prime Minister Blair (not all dislike him,
                                      > some detest him), the only darn thing they can do about it is vote
                                      > against their local MP, in this case, the lovely Alan Simpson, a
                                      > Labour Party stalwart who himself would rather kiss a toad than
                                      > cuddle with Tony.
                                      >
                                      > Therefore, the majority of the Queen's subjects - deathly afraid
                                      > of the return of Margaret Thatcher's vampirical Tory spawn - holds
                                      > their noses, vote for their local Labour MP and pray that an act of
                                      > God will save their happy isle. A recent poll showed the British
                                      > evenly divided: forty percent want Blair to encounter a speeding
                                      > double-decker bus and forty percent want him stretched, scalded and
                                      > quartered in the Tower of London (within a sampling margin of four
                                      > percent).
                                      >
                                      > Why? Well, to begin with, Blair lies. A secret memo from inside
                                      > Blair's coven discovered this week made clear that Britain's Prime
                                      > Minister knew damn well, eight months before we invaded Iraq, that
                                      > George Bush was cooking the intelligence info on "WMD," but Blair
                                      > agreed to tag along with his master.
                                      >
                                      > The Prime Minister's coterie sold his nation on the re-conquest
                                      > of their old colony, Iraq, by making up this cockamamie story about
                                      > Saddam Hussein having weapons of mass destruction that could take
                                      > out London in 45 minutes. But Brits knew that was 'bollocks' (no
                                      > translation available) long before this week's shock-horror memo
                                      > story.
                                      >
                                      > A greater blight on the Prime Minister's reputation: Blair likes
                                      > American presidents. While his habit of keeping his nose snug
                                      > against Bill Clinton's derriere was a bit off-putting, his
                                      > application to George Bush's behind makes Blair's countrymen retch.
                                      >
                                      > I watched the machinery called Tony Blair up close as a Yankee
                                      > in King Blair's court (first as an advisor on the inside, then as a
                                      > journalist also on the inside, but with a hidden tape recorder).
                                      >
                                      > And it was eerie. Because what I saw was a man who, while
                                      > Britain's erstwhile leader, scorns his own country. That is, he
                                      > scorns the union workers that wanted to keep filthy coal mines open;
                                      > he scorns the nostalgic blue-haired ladies who wanted to keep the
                                      > Queen's snout on their nation's currency; he scorns his nation of
                                      > maddeningly inefficient little shops on the high street, of subjects
                                      > snoozy with welfare state comforts and fearful of the wonders of
                                      > cheap labor available in far-off locales.
                                      >
                                      > Blair looks longingly at America, land of the hard-charging
                                      > capitalist cowboy, of entrepreneurs with big-box retail discount
                                      > stores, Silicon Valley start-ups and Asian out-sourcing.
                                      >
                                      > Blair doesn't want to be Prime Minister. He wants to be governor
                                      > in London of America's 51st state.
                                      >
                                      > Britons know this. They feel deeply that their main man doesn't
                                      > like the Britain he has. And that is why the average punter in the
                                      > pub longs to be led by that most English of British politicians -
                                      > who is not English at all - Gordon Brown, the Scotland-born
                                      > Chancellor of the Exchequer.
                                      >
                                      > And so they vote for their local Labour MP on that party's
                                      > quietly whispered promise that, shortly after the election, Gordon
                                      > Brown, defender of the old welfare state, union rights, and a
                                      > gentleman unlikely to invade forgotten remnants of the empire, will,
                                      > on a vote of his parliamentary confreres, take the reins of
                                      > government in his benign and prudent hands.
                                      >
                                      > As New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman says, Tony Blair is
                                      > a man of principle. So was the Ayatolla Khomeini. Both were willing
                                      > to have others pay any price for their beliefs.
                                      >
                                      > Luckily for Britain, Chancellor Brown won't let Blair put his
                                      > fanatic hands on the kingdom's cash or coinage. And herein is
                                      > another difference betwixt the US and UK. In America, the Treasury
                                      > Secretary is little more than the President's factotum. In Britain,
                                      > the Chancellor holds the nation's purse. Brown brilliantly controls
                                      > Britain's spending, taxing and currency. For example, despite Tony's
                                      > pleas, Brown presciently nixed England dumping the pound coin for
                                      > the euro.
                                      >
                                      > And thus Brown, not Blair, has earned his nation's gratitude for
                                      > the island's steady recovery from Thatcherite punishments while,
                                      > across The Pond, real wages in Bush's America are falling.
                                      >
                                      > Blair will hold onto office - for now - due only to a sly
                                      > campaign that relies on the public's accepting on faith that, sooner
                                      > rather than later after the vote on Thursday, Blair will do the
                                      > honorable thing and end his own political life, leaving the British-
                                      > to-the-bone Brown to inherit the parliamentary throne. Tony's
                                      > political corpse can then be mailed to Texas - wrapped in an
                                      > American flag."
                                    • Tarjei Straume
                                      ... Wow, you know Daniel Ellsberg? The story behind the publishing of the Pentagon Papers in 1972 and the courtoom circus that ensued, resulting in a major
                                      Message 18 of 27 , May 5, 2005
                                      • 0 Attachment
                                        At 09:23 05.05.2005, Bradford wrote:

                                        >My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the American
                                        >people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that
                                        >it's so easy to do."

                                        Wow, you know Daniel Ellsberg? The story behind the publishing of the
                                        Pentagon Papers in 1972 and the courtoom circus that ensued, resulting in a
                                        major victory for freedom of the press against the Nixon administration, is
                                        one of the most fascinating - and bizarre - episodes in modern history!

                                        The way I understand it, Ellsberg was in Vietnam, where he stumbled scross
                                        the Penatgon Papers and sent them to the Washington Post. Catherine Graham,
                                        the owner of Washingrton Post (as well as Newsweek Magazine) decided
                                        together with the owners and editors of New York Times, to publish the
                                        Pentagon Papers, which were very damaging for Pentagon credibility,
                                        exposing their disinformation and deception of the public in broad daylight.

                                        So Chuck Colson, known in those days as "Nixon's hatchet man" before he
                                        became a born-again Christian, and White House Chief of Staff (?) Bob
                                        Haldeman, ordered a break-in into Daniel Ellsberg's psychiatrist's office
                                        in order to find something in those files that might discredit the messenger.

                                        One hell of a story. But then again, in July 2001 a very elderly but still
                                        going strong Catherine Graham died suddenly by some kind of accident; some
                                        object fell in her head on the street or something. Considering the fact
                                        that Mrs. Graham's death happened only two months before September 11, many
                                        Americans considered her death symbolic. She was indeed a champion for the
                                        First Amendment!

                                        Cheers,
                                      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.