Re: Pete Diana phenomena
- 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."
"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
"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."
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.
"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
"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
"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
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
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
"...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."
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.
- 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.'
> At 17:40 30.04.2005, Bradford wrote:Oversimplified, Tarjei. The Christian Scientists have trained
> >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.
"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.
> 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.'
> Yahoo! Groups Links
- 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.
> 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.
- 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 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
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.
- At 14:03 02.05.2005, Frank wrote:
>Oversimplified, Tarjei. The Christian Scientists have trainedThank you, Frank.
>"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.
>From what I remember reading about MBE was that she claimed allFrank:
>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.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 sickYes - testimony to these healings are a central part of CS. And then
>people in order to show them how to believe that their problems are
>only in the mind - and it often works.
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 ofYes, that's it - "Science and Health With Key to the Scriptures" is
>their bible (Science and Health....no, I forget it's name, but it's
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.
- 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
> Christian Science holds that "false beliefs are the procuring causethe
> 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
> human mind and body are myths". (Science and Health, pp. 150-borrows
> 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
> its power from human faith and belief. The drug does nothing,into
> 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
> a big fat cigar. They all have the same flaws, the same errors andagainst
> 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
> the followers of those whacky beliefs. Now hard is that tonever
> 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
> Well no, my parents never heard of Spiritual Science and would
> have approached it if they did. Me, Wheaton Illinois was thedestiny
> location of my hot summers with my cousin David and John Belushi.that
> 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,
> Paul was strictly brought up, highly educated, to kick against thePaul
> pricks of his beliefs.
> For the entire roots of ones being rebels against the idea that
> heard a voice inside his spirit, or that the human being has thea
> 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
> new karmic inner standpoint. Or, as is stated by critcs, we are allsome
> 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
> "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
> saw as a cynical ploy to reap the rewards of Knapp's US $90 milliondeath. "Had
> bequest [Ost].
> However, a careful examination of the record shows that Mrs. Eddy
> often acted in direct contradiction to the tenets of her own
> 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
> they changed the felon's belief that he was bleeding to death,and
> 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
> lost all account of time. Believing that she was still living inthe
> same hour which parted her from her lover, taking no note of years,In
> she stood daily before the windo watching for her lover's coming.
> this mental state she remained young. Having no consciousness ofShe
> time, she literally grew no older. Some American travellers saw her
> when she was seventy-four, and supposed her to be a young woman.
> had no care-lined face, no wrinkles nor gray hair, but youth satunacquainted
> gently on cheek and brow. Asked to guess her age, those
> 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
- 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."
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!
"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-
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."
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.
- holderlin brought:
"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."
"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
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
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."
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.
- 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
Unless we have an awakened conscience, we cannot conceive of life's
> Bradford concludes;I would like some of this fuel please..
> 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 perfectthemselves
> quietly or bear the burden of those who continue to toss off thatto
> 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
> how much the bottom line and compassion and human freedom are onthe
> 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
The day-to-day nothingness will be the end of us.
As always, Bradford, your posts keep me going.........
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.
- "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-
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."
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.
"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
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
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
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
capitalist cowboycapitalist cowboycapitalist cowboycapitalist cowboy
"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
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."
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
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
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."
- 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
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
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
Paul Keating is a former Australian prime minister. This article first
appeared in The Guardian."
(from: "The Age" newspaper <
--- In email@example.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."
> 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.
> "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
> 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
> 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."
- At 09:23 05.05.2005, Bradford wrote:
>My friend Daniel Ellsberg once said that what's good about the AmericanWow, you know Daniel Ellsberg? The story behind the publishing of the
>people is that you have to lie to them. What's bad about Americans is that
>it's so easy to do."
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