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

Re: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Re: Pete Diana phenomena

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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 5 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 6 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 7 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 8 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 9 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 10 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 11 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 12 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 13 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 14 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 15 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 16 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.