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

A little more to whom it may concern

Expand Messages
  • petegregory@talktalk.net
    Steiner spoke about Bolshevism being not of Russian origin, but a creation of the Western Brotherhoods (in, I believe the lecture cycle published under
    Message 1 of 5 , Dec 3, 2006
    • 0 Attachment

      Steiner spoke about Bolshevism being not of Russian origin, but a creation of the Western Brotherhoods (in, I believe the lecture cycle published under 'Challenge of the Times').

       

      The word 'Bolshevik' translates roughly as 'the Greater' or 'Maximalist' and was an invented term.  Because the concept of an elite is somewhat taboo in Socialism, it could not be admitted that this is what 'Bolshevik' actually meant.  Yet any decent encyclopaedia will tell you that Lenin's contribution to Socialism was that a revolution cannot occur through the natural will of the people but must be led by a professionally trained elite or vanguard.  This was first suggested in his pamphlet entitled 'What is to be done?'.  The problem with the concept of an elite is that, once this becomes realised, democracy – as an expression of the popular will of the people – is effectively dead.

       

      Although Nazism might have appeared as the polar opposite to Bolshevism, in fact it bore this same essential characteristic.  If the elite in Bolshevism were defined by its idealism, the elite in Nazism were defined by blood purity.  A pure blood race was to govern on behalf of all mankind, and if it had been successful, once again democracy would have been dead.  In the final years of the Second World War, almost all of Europe was under this kind of rule.

       

      For those in Britain who find satisfaction at being excluded from this period of history, I beg you to reconsider.  Steiner also pointed to the very questionable nature of the British Empire; at how this was an attempt to circumvent the right expression of democracy which had been born out of British culture.  What is interesting is that in each example – Bolshevism, Nazism and the British Empire – an attempt was made to govern by an unelected elite.

       

      While it is possible that this cannot be done openly in the Twenty First Century, it would be foolish, to say the least, to think that this approach has been abandoned.  That is why recent events in Russia are of interest to anyone mindful of how politics can be used for decidedly unhealthy ends.  If the accusation made by Alexander Litvinenko is right – that the Russian apartment bombings were orchestrated to get Putin elected as President – then the model of a governing elite has merely been refined.

       

      Anyone for the illusion of democracy?


      ---- Msg sent via Talktalk WebMail - http://www.talktalk.net/
    • Tarjei Straume
      ... Yep, that lecture series was my major source when I wrote the article The Secret Lodges of the West and their sinister plans with the world population
      Message 2 of 5 , Dec 4, 2006
      • 0 Attachment
        petegregory wrote:

        >Steiner spoke about Bolshevism being not of
        >Russian origin, but a creation of the Western
        >Brotherhoods (in, I believe the lecture cycle
        >published under 'Challenge of the Times').

        Yep, that lecture series was my major source when
        I wrote the article "The Secret Lodges of the
        West and their sinister plans with the world population" ten years ago:

        http://uncletaz.com/seclodg.html

        In its present form, this article includes a
        later add-on about Islam and occult history,
        which is its weakest link because my knowledge
        and grasp on this subject was extremely limited.
        And then, during the babydays of "Anthroposophy
        Tomorrow" three years and one month ago, in early
        November 2003, I was reminded of the lecture
        series "The Book of Revelation and the Work of
        the Priest," among the very latest of Steiner's
        lectures before he became too ill to continue
        speaking. These lectures contained some very
        interesting observations by Steiner about Sorath, 666, 1998, and Islam.

        But back to "Challenge of the Times" and the
        manipulation of world politics by secret lodges
        in English-speaking countries. The lecture that I
        quoted most extensively throughout that article
        of mine a decade ago, was entitled "The
        Mechanistic, Eugenic and Hygienic Aspects of the Future" (December 1, 1918):

        *******************************************************************************************
        "Now the fact that must be taken into
        consideration in connection with these things is
        that, in regard to certain fundamental laws of
        world evolution, nothing is actually known in a
        comprehensive way such that this knowledge is
        brought into external application anywhere except
        within certain secret societies of the
        English-speaking peoples. This is something that
        is important to observe. Secret societies among
        other peoples are fundamentally only a matter of
        empty phrases. Secret societies among the
        English-speaking peoples, on the contrary, are
        sources from which truths are acquired in certain
        ways by means of which things can be guided
        politically. I may speak of them some time, but
        it would take us too far afield today. Thus we
        may say that those forces flowing from these
        secret societies into the politics of the West
        move actually in accordance with history. They
        reckon with the laws of historic evolution. It is
        not necessary that in external matters everything
        shall be correct even to the dotting of the last
        "i". What matters is whether the person proceeds
        in accordance with historic evolution in an
        objective sense, or whether he proceeds as a
        dilettante following his arbitrary notions.

        "The politics of Central Europe, for example,
        were predominantly amateur politics, utterly
        without relation to any historical law. The
        politics that were not amateurish, that followed
        the facts - or, if I may use a crass expression,
        professional politics - were those of the
        English-speaking peoples, the British Empire and
        its annex, America. This is the great difference,
        and this is the significant point that must be
        clearly seen. Its importance lies in the fact
        that what was known in those circles is actually
        flowing into the world of reality. It also flows
        into the instincts behind those persons who
        occupy positions as political representatives,
        even if they act only out of political instincts.
        Behind these are the forces to which I am now
        referring. You need not inquire, therefore,
        whether Northcliff or even Lloyd George is
        initiated to one degree or another into these
        forces. This is not what counts. The decisive
        question is whether or not there is a possibility
        that they may conduct themselves in accordance
        with these forces. They need to take up in their
        instincts alone what runs parallel with these
        forces. But there is such a possibility; this
        does happen, and these forces act in the general
        direction of world history. This is the essential
        point, and it is possible to act successfully
        within the interrelationships of world history
        only when one really takes up into one's
        knowledge what is going on in the manner of the
        world. Otherwise, the other person, who is acting
        knowingly in accordance with world history, or
        causing such action, always has the power, while
        the one who knows nothing of it is powerless. It
        is in this way that power may master
        powerlessness. This is an external occurence. But
        the victory of power over powerlessness in these
        things depends, in the last analysis, upon the
        difference between knowing and not knowing. It is
        this that must be clearly grasped."

        *******************************************************************************************

        The state of affairs described by Rudolf Steiner
        exactly eighty-eight years ago appears to be
        still in force, with some modifications, some
        external shifts. Instead of "English-speaking
        peoples, the British Empire and its annex,
        America," we would say today, "English-speaking
        peoples, the American Empire and its annexes,
        Canada, the UK, Australia, and New Zealand." In
        his own day, Steiner spoke of a shift of
        epicenter with regard to global politics and
        economy, from the Atlantic to the Pacific. With
        the current rise of China, accurately predicted
        by Richard Nixon to become THE dominant world
        superpower in the 21st century, this is coming
        into full force, but as we can see, the politics
        of the Asia-Pacific region are heavily dominated
        by the English-speaking nations. Those who feel
        this pressure most strongly under the iron heel
        of so-called "globalization," which translates
        into a condition where indigenous peoples are
        robbed of their natural resources controlled by
        multi-national corporations and thus kept in
        extreme poverty. The natives of various islands
        in the Pacific are a classic example. The
        annexation of Hawaii as the 50th state of the
        union was nothing less than a plain old-fashioned
        colonization to the detriment of the natives.

        On a Democracy Now special November 23 about the
        struggles of native Americans and other
        indigenous peoples, Hawaiian indigenous activist
        and lawyer Mimilani Trask spoke among other
        things about the US invasion of Hawaii. She
        pointed out that in Hawaii, they have only two
        industries: Tourism, which is the structural
        program under globalization and the structural
        adjustment program of the World Bank, and and the
        other industry is militarism, the making of war.
        Militarism is the primary vehicle that is used by
        developed countries to enforce globalization
        worldwide. 15 years ago, as result of some quiet
        and secret negotiations in Washington, DC, Hawaii
        was identified to be the lead location to host
        research and experiments relating to the genetic
        modification of life-forms. The United States has
        approved over 4,000 open air and lab tests and
        experiments relating to the genetic modification
        of life-forms. As a result of this, Hawaii now
        holds the largest number of trans-national
        corporations in the world that are patenting and
        claiming ownership of the food and of the plants
        and resources. The major impacts of globalization
        in the Pacific at large have been 1) rapid
        increase in extreme poverty, 2) destabilization
        of government. these policies have resulted in
        the Pacific region now being on the world map of
        politican and economic troublespots, which is
        apparently how the Dark Lords want things to be;
        they probably have their reasons. On Fiji and
        other islands the governments of the Pacific are
        falling apart because of the onslaught of
        trans-national corporations and globalization.

        The threat to the ecology and to the diversity of
        animal and plant life in the Pacific is due to
        increased foreign control and extensive
        exploitation of the indigenous territories by
        trans-national corporations from outside the
        region. This happens because a globalized
        structure is being imposed by the two dominantly
        "white" powers in the region: Australia and New
        Zealand. Among the global initiatives moving in
        the Pacific that have had a negative and
        detrimental impact, is the APEC Plan of 2004. One
        of the problems with APEC is that no indigenous
        nation in the Pacific is allowed to be a member,
        although the plan of 2004 is about "equal share"
        of all the natural resources in the area. So why
        are the primary inhabitants, the indigenous
        peoples, excluded? The members of APEC in the
        Pacific are the two dominant powers New Zealand
        and Australia, and the other member nations that
        participate now in the race for the ocean marine
        resources in the Pacific are Canada, China,
        Indonesia, Japan, and the United States.

        When it comes to the shift
        from "English-speaking peoples, the British
        Empire and its annex, America," as Steiner put
        it, to "English-speaking peoples, the American
        Empire and its annexes, Canada, the UK,
        Australia, and New Zealand," what is interesting
        to see is how the UK is being reluctantly dragged
        into America's military adventures. This
        reluctance is not necessarily shared by people in
        power, but by the general population of the UK, a
        people weary of empire who are not as easily
        manipulated and spooked into full-fledged wars as
        many Americans turn out to be. The British are
        trapped through a Devil's Agreement with the US
        dating back to Churchill and FDR. Churchill, an
        arch-imperialist, detested Mahatma Gandhi. When
        Gandhi had led India to independence from British
        rule, Churchill cringed about "that half naked
        fakir being invited to London's inner circle".
        And India was lost, which meant a serious blow to
        the prestige of the British Empire, which would
        be followed by all colonies falling like a house
        of cards in the fifties and sixties.

        So through the rise of the US in the 20th
        century, culminating in 1945, Churchill saw a
        redemption, a rescue, of empire through this
        former colony by conceding "the power behind the
        crown" so to speak, to the descendants of exiled
        convicts on the other side of the pond. And this
        is why, during the short period when America held
        monopoly on the atomic bomb and had successfully
        obliterated two cities, Winston Churchill
        exclaimed: "God Almighty has willed the atomic
        bomb to the United States and the United States
        alone." (My oh my, there's almost something
        sinister occult in that authentic statement, in a
        religious fanatical sort of way. It wouldn't
        surprise me if Churchill is reborn as an Iranian Ayatollah.)

        This statement about the atomic bomb by Churchill
        is somewhat uncharacteristic for a British
        statesman, but it illustrates the Devil's
        Agreement between the UK and the US. It's a
        well-known and frequently mentioned fact that
        ever since WWII, the intelligence services of UK
        and the US (the British Secret Service, the CIA &
        NSA etc) have been so exceptionally intimate that
        it's justified to call it a marriage contract,
        sharing everything and hiding no secrets from
        each other. This touching monogamy, this romance
        of 50-60 years can bring tears to your eyes. And
        this marks the difference between the Western
        Establishment at Steiner's time in the first part
        of the 20th century, and the same Establishment
        in the second half of that century, when the
        United Kingdom became, as Harold Pinter put it in
        his Nobel lecture a year ago, America's servile
        dog on a leash. So in this marriage contract, the
        US was the bridegroom and the UK the bride
        agreeing to obey her husband with unquestioned loyalty.

        The United States of America, however, has plenty
        of additional dogs, cats and other pets, like
        canaries a la Norway. And immediately after WWII,
        the NATO alliance (=North Atlantic Treaty
        Organisation) was established to defend Western
        Europe against Soviet agression, to deter such
        aggression. Not surprisingly, the "Supreme Allied
        Commander" in NATO is always an American general.
        According to this alliance agreement, an attack
        against one member nation is to be regarded as an
        attack against all NATO nations: The now famous -
        or infamous - Article 5. The problem with this
        article is its present abuse by the US, after
        9-11. The idea behind such an alliance, at least
        to my understanding, is that if a nation, say,
        like Russia, should attack a NATO member and try
        to invade it, all allied members would
        participate in a counter-attack in order to
        thwart such an invasion, to protect the victim
        country from being annexed by a bully.
        Immediately after 9-11, the US called on Article
        5 to get European troops into Afghanistan, where they still are.

        The problem with 9-11 is that it's not a war in
        the sense conceived by the NATO drafters, so it's
        not really comparable to Pearl Harbor although
        both catastrophes entailed the same number of
        casualties, the same shock and surprise and so
        on. Pearl Harbor was a military attack against a
        military target. The assassination of JFK in
        Dallas is an equally valid comparison to 9-11,
        although the president was the only immediate
        casualty. The point is that the US did not just
        "reach out and bomb someone" in a knee-jerk sort
        of way in 1963. Of course, JFK's assassin(s)
        could have had accomplices in all kinds of global
        networks, but waging conventional wars and
        invading other countries wouldn't have
        accomplished anything, and at that time the
        political leaders apparently understood this.
        Today, however, the United States is courting and
        bullying Europe into sending troops and personnel
        wherever they demand assistance, collecting the
        debt of gratitude from its vital role in
        liberating the continent from Nazi state terror.
        (So far, Norway has refused point blank to send
        troops into battle on the ground, but they're still sending bombing pilots.)

        The European Union is not something that has
        arisen by itself through natural socio-political
        evolution. It was pressured into existence by the
        dominance of economic progress through US-owned
        corporations with branches in Europe. This
        observation prompted the French to open
        discussions with the Germans and the British in
        the 1950's and 1960's about a European "common
        market" in order to match and compete with
        American capitalist forces which threatened to
        colonize Western Europe economically,
        politically, and militarily. This was how the
        European Union came into existence, a union which
        in essence is an alien element imposed upon the
        European peoples. At the same time, this union
        led to federalism and common borders against
        countries on the outside, comparable to the multi
        billion dollar high-tech wall now being built
        along the US-Mexican border by the Bush
        administration against indigenous migrant workers
        from the south, in order to please right wing
        nuts like the Minute Men, who feel entitled to
        shoot "undocumented aliens" on sight because they
        regard them as felons for defying INS red tape.

        This development has resulted in a new European
        map that's hard to fathom while it's still in the
        making. But if we take Rudolf Steiner's exposé
        about the secret lodges of the West in earnest,
        we should pay very close attention to what he
        said about such maps. One of his most startling
        claims, in my view, was that he could prove that
        the new map of Europe imposed upon Europe in
        1918, had already been in existence in England 20 years earlier, in the 1890's:

        Rudolf Steiner:
        "You will recall that I drew a map here two years
        ago that is now becoming a reality, and I did not
        show this map only to you. I presented the map at
        that time to explain how the impelling forces are
        moving from a certain side, since it is a law
        that, if we know these impelling forces, if we
        take cognizance of them, if we grasp them in our
        consciousness, they may be corrected in a certain
        way and given a different direction. It is
        important that this should be comprehended."
        ("The Mechanistic, Eugenic and Hygienic Aspects
        of the Future" - December 1, 1918)

        I've seen such a map myself, not the one Steiner
        talked about, but close - one resembling the map
        resulting from the division of Europe after WWII.
        The map I saw in some library book dating back
        to the 1920's as far as I remember, showed a
        division between East and West going straight
        through the Scandinavian peninsula, dividing
        Norway from Sweden. Fortunately for the Swedes,
        and for the Finns as well, the actual border was
        pushed further east: The border between the rich
        and the poor, between masters and slaves, where
        opposing political systems and ideologies, the
        external rationale for the Cold War and the Iron
        Curtain, was just a smokescreen.

        Rudolf Steiner:
        "The really important fact is that in groups in
        the West who keep their knowledge secret the
        greatest pains are taken to see that things shall
        develop in such a way as to insure under all
        circumstances the mastery of the West over the
        East. Whatever people may say today on the basis
        of their consciousness, the goal striven for is
        to establish a caste of masters in the West and a
        caste of economic slaves in the East, beginning
        with the Rhine and extending eastward all the way
        into Asia. This does not mean a caste of slaves
        in the ancient Greek sense, but a caste of
        economic slaves organized in a socialistic way to
        take up all sorts of impossibilities in the
        social structure that then shall not be applied
        among the English-speaking peoples. The essence
        of the matter is to make the English-speaking
        peoples into a population of masters in the world."
        (ibid)

        And yet, all these political-historical analyses
        and considerations I've touched upon so far elude
        the most important intentions behind the Western
        Lodges, where politics are secondary, no it ranks
        third or fourth, after consciousness and culture.
        The primary concern of the Lodges is to
        manipulate the evolution of human consciousness
        and culture, especially with regard to what kind
        of ideas people evolve in relation to the
        spiritual - religion, theology, philosophy In
        this context, politics is just a tool, not a goal
        in itself. The Lodges are not interested in
        wealth, but in greed with wealth or the promise
        of wealth as a tool. By the same token, they're
        not interested in fostering poverty as a goal in
        itself, but as a tool to promote despair,
        superstition, and hatred. Yes, hatred:

        Rudolf Steiner:
        ****************************************************************************
        "For example, in the case of the people of the
        Central countries and the Eastern lands it is an
        important hindrance to the evolution of these
        capacities, especially their evolution in a
        knowing way, when strong antipathies against the
        people of the Western countries are active within
        them. Then these things cannot be viewed
        objectively. This is a hindrance in the evolution of these capacities.

        "But the potentiality of developing another
        occult capacity is also even strenghtened in a
        certain way if it is developed out of a certain
        instinct of hatred. This is a strange phenomenon.
        We often ask ourselves, and we are dealing here
        with something that must be considered quite
        objectively, why such senseless abuse has been
        practiced in the Western countries. This also
        comes out of the instinct leading toward these
        capacities. For what constitutes the profoundest
        impelling forces in Western occultism is fostered
        by nothing more powerfully than by the
        development of feelings that are untrue but are
        sensed as in some way holy, and that can
        represent the people of the East and especially
        those of the Central countries as barbarians. the
        potentialities of material occultism, for
        example, are fostered by the attitude of mine
        constituting the so-called crusading temperament
        in America. This consists in the feeling that
        America is called to spread over the whole earth
        freedom and justice and I know not what other
        beautiful things. Of course, the people there
        believe that. What I am saying here has nothing
        to do with fault finding. The people believe that
        they are engaged in a crusade, but this belief in
        something false constitutes a support working in
        a certain direction. If a person should
        consciously make an untrue statement, he would
        not have this support. For this reason, what is
        now happening is tremendously helpful on the one
        side and a hindrance on the other in the
        development of those capacities that we must
        assert to be still latent at the present time in
        the case of most individuals who bear within
        themselves the will toward evolution in the
        future and are destined to influence profoundly
        the social structure of humanity.

        "Just think how everything that is happening at
        the present time is rendered luminous and
        transparent with understanding and insight when
        you fix your attention upon those backgrounds,
        and realize clearly that the subconscious
        instincts dealt with in our reflections lie back
        of everything that is constantly uttered today in a conscious way.

        "The most important fact in this connection,
        however, is that it is precisely the
        English-speaking peoples who, by reason of quite
        special evolutionary processes, possess occult
        centers where these things are known.
        ****************************************************************************
        (ibid)

        For this reason, I posted three relevant lectures
        from the cycle "Individual Spirit Beings and the
        Undivided Foundation of the World" (Dornach, November, 1917 (GA #178):

        http://uncletaz.com/indspir/

        Rudolf Steiner:
        "What is it that such initiates desire, these
        initiates who know quite well that the human soul
        is a purely spiritual being, a spiritual being
        fully independent of corporeality? What do these
        initiates desire who, in spite of knowing this,
        shelter and cultivate the materialistic thinking
        of human beings? These initiates desire that
        there should be as many souls as possible who
        here between birth and death absorb only
        materialistic concepts. Through this, these souls
        are prepared to remain in the earthly sphere.
        They become to a certain extent fastened to the
        earthly sphere. Picture to yourself that
        brotherhoods are established that clearly know
        this, that are thoroughly familiar with these
        circumstances. These brotherhoods prepare certain
        human souls so that they remain in the realm of
        the material. If these brotherhoods then arrange
        - which is quite possible though their infamous
        power - that these souls come after death into
        the region of the power-sphere of their
        brotherhood, then this brotherhood grows to
        tremendous strength. These materialists
        therefore, are not materialists because they do
        not believe in the spirit - these initiate
        materialists are not so silly; they know full
        well the spirit's position. They induce souls to
        remain with matter even after death, however, in
        order to make use of such souls for their own
        purposes. From these brotherhoods, a clientele of
        souls is thus produced who remain within the
        realm of the earth. These souls of the dead have
        within them forces that can be guided in the most
        diverse ways, with which one can bring about a
        variety of things and by means of which one can
        come to special manipulations of power in
        relation to those who have not been initiated in these things."
        (Individual Spirit Beings and the Undivided Foundation of the World: Part 1)

        Bradford wrote innumerable long, rich, and
        fascinating posts to this group about present-day
        politics, and he always related this theme to an
        occult context with Steiner's insight as a
        backdrop. These posts can be read in the web
        archives. My critique of this, however, is that
        if one puts too much one-sided emphasis on US
        foreign policy and the demonic aspects of Bush
        and Cheney, even all the way down to analyzing
        the colors of Cheney's decadent aura(!), one
        loses sight of the most important things with
        regard to such lodges, namely the manipulation of
        human consciousness for the reasons described by
        Steiner in the last quote above.

        You also wrote:

        >The word 'Bolshevik' translates roughly as 'the
        >Greater' or 'Maximalist' and was an invented
        >term. Because the concept of an elite is
        >somewhat taboo in Socialism, it could not be
        >admitted that this is what 'Bolshevik' actually
        >meant. Yet any decent encyclopaedia will tell
        >you that Lenin's contribution to Socialism was
        >that a revolution cannot occur through the
        >natural will of the people but must be led by a
        >professionally trained elite or vanguard. This
        >was first suggested in his pamphlet entitled 'What is to be done?'.

        Alexandr Solzhenitsyn knew people in his youth
        who had been close to Lenin, and his conclusion
        was that Lenin was a very, very evil man, a
        cold-blooded and ruthless monster who tolerated
        nothing less than total agreement and
        unquestioned obedience from all his co-workers.
        Any aberration from this course was lethal.

        >The problem with the concept of an elite is
        >that, once this becomes realised, democracy –
        >as an expression of the popular will of the people – is effectively dead.

        And that's how it's always been. Democracy is
        indeed an illusion, it has never existed, and
        Rudolf Steiner was keenly aware of this. He
        pointed out how the economists, the financiers,
        had acquired all political power during the last
        couple of centuries, power previously possessed
        by royalty, gentry, and clergy. Steiner also
        pointed out how the ballot box befogs people into
        believing that they participate in
        decision-making, that they're pulling the
        strings, and because of this deception of the
        ballot they don't notice that they are the
        marionettes, the puppets, whose invisible strings
        are being pulled by the puppeteers, the elite, the oligarchy.

        >Although Nazism might have appeared as the polar
        >opposite to Bolshevism, in fact it bore this
        >same essential characteristic. If the elite in
        >Bolshevism were defined by its idealism, the
        >elite in Nazism were defined by blood purity. A
        >pure blood race was to govern on behalf of all
        >mankind, and if it had been successful, once
        >again democracy would have been dead. In the
        >final years of the Second World War, almost all
        >of Europe was under this kind of rule.

        During the chaos and social upheaval that
        characterized Germany in the years prior to 1933,
        there was no difference between the browhshirts
        and the reds except that the brownshirts used
        outstretched arms and the reds used raised
        clenched fists. These two groups often fought
        each other in the streets, and the fascists won
        because the German banks invested in them, hoping
        they would bring order and end to chaos. The
        Nazis were also helped into power by investments
        from Wall Street and various financial
        institutions in America, to the best of my recollection.

        >For those in Britain who find satisfaction at
        >being excluded from this period of history, I
        >beg you to reconsider. Steiner also pointed to
        >the very questionable nature of the British
        >Empire; at how this was an attempt to circumvent
        >the right expression of democracy which had been
        >born out of British culture. What is
        >interesting is that in each example –
        >Bolshevism, Nazism and the British Empire – an
        >attempt was made to govern by an unelected elite.

        No governing elite has ever been elected,
        although people are easily fooled into believing
        they've elected them and think everything is
        honky dory. Pythagoras believed that the true
        leaders of a society or culture (or state) should
        not own possessions, wealth. The working class
        should own possessions, because they needed it,
        but the leaders - the teachers, statesmen,
        priests etc. should be public servants and had no
        need for possessions because of their
        spirituality, wisdom, and education. In other
        words, Pythagoras suggested a poor elite and a
        wealthy working class, which is pure genius. As
        long as the elite holds monopoly on most of the
        wealth as well, democracy is pure bullshit. It's
        an abstraction and a distraction. Kark Marx said
        that religion is opium for the people. He was
        wrong. "Democracy" is opium for the people. You
        hear that word all day long over and over until you get dizzy.

        Cheers,

        Tarjei
      • Mike T
        A really well written piee of research - many thanks. Miek T ... _________________________________________________________________ Advertisement: Getting
        Message 3 of 5 , Dec 4, 2006
        • 0 Attachment
          A really well written piee of research - many thanks.
          Miek T

          >From: Tarjei Straume <straume@...>
          >Reply-To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
          >To: anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com
          >Subject: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Political history (was: A little more to
          >whom it may concern)
          >Date: Mon, 04 Dec 2006 19:59:13 +0100

          >SNIP
          >
          >Rudolf Steiner:
          >"What is it that such initiates desire, these
          >initiates who know quite well that the human soul
          >is a purely spiritual being, a spiritual being
          >fully independent of corporeality? What do these
          >initiates desire who, in spite of knowing this,
          >shelter and cultivate the materialistic thinking
          >of human beings? These initiates desire that
          >there should be as many souls as possible who
          >here between birth and death absorb only
          >materialistic concepts. Through this, these souls
          >are prepared to remain in the earthly sphere.
          >They become to a certain extent fastened to the
          >earthly sphere. Picture to yourself that
          >brotherhoods are established that clearly know
          >this, that are thoroughly familiar with these
          >circumstances. These brotherhoods prepare certain
          >human souls so that they remain in the realm of
          >the material. If these brotherhoods then arrange
          >- which is quite possible though their infamous
          >power - that these souls come after death into
          >the region of the power-sphere of their
          >brotherhood, then this brotherhood grows to
          >tremendous strength. These materialists
          >therefore, are not materialists because they do
          >not believe in the spirit - these initiate
          >materialists are not so silly; they know full
          >well the spirit's position. They induce souls to
          >remain with matter even after death, however, in
          >order to make use of such souls for their own
          >purposes. From these brotherhoods, a clientele of
          >souls is thus produced who remain within the
          >realm of the earth. These souls of the dead have
          >within them forces that can be guided in the most
          >diverse ways, with which one can bring about a
          >variety of things and by means of which one can
          >come to special manipulations of power in
          >relation to those who have not been initiated in these things."
          >(Individual Spirit Beings and the Undivided Foundation of the World: Part
          >1)
          >
          >Bradford wrote innumerable long, rich, and
          >fascinating posts to this group about present-day
          >politics, and he always related this theme to an
          >occult context with Steiner's insight as a
          >backdrop. These posts can be read in the web
          >archives. My critique of this, however, is that
          >if one puts too much one-sided emphasis on US
          >foreign policy and the demonic aspects of Bush
          >and Cheney, even all the way down to analyzing
          >the colors of Cheney's decadent aura(!), one
          >loses sight of the most important things with
          >regard to such lodges, namely the manipulation of
          >human consciousness for the reasons described by
          >Steiner in the last quote above.
          >
          >You also wrote:
          >
          > >The word 'Bolshevik' translates roughly as 'the
          > >Greater' or 'Maximalist' and was an invented
          > >term. Because the concept of an elite is
          > >somewhat taboo in Socialism, it could not be
          > >admitted that this is what 'Bolshevik' actually
          > >meant. Yet any decent encyclopaedia will tell
          > >you that Lenin's contribution to Socialism was
          > >that a revolution cannot occur through the
          > >natural will of the people but must be led by a
          > >professionally trained elite or vanguard. This
          > >was first suggested in his pamphlet entitled 'What is to be done?'.
          >
          >Alexandr Solzhenitsyn knew people in his youth
          >who had been close to Lenin, and his conclusion
          >was that Lenin was a very, very evil man, a
          >cold-blooded and ruthless monster who tolerated
          >nothing less than total agreement and
          >unquestioned obedience from all his co-workers.
          >Any aberration from this course was lethal.
          >
          > >The problem with the concept of an elite is
          > >that, once this becomes realised, democracy ���
          > >as an expression of the popular will of the people ��� is effectively
          >dead.
          >
          >And that's how it's always been. Democracy is
          >indeed an illusion, it has never existed, and
          >Rudolf Steiner was keenly aware of this. He
          >pointed out how the economists, the financiers,
          >had acquired all political power during the last
          >couple of centuries, power previously possessed
          >by royalty, gentry, and clergy. Steiner also
          >pointed out how the ballot box befogs people into
          >believing that they participate in
          >decision-making, that they're pulling the
          >strings, and because of this deception of the
          >ballot they don't notice that they are the
          >marionettes, the puppets, whose invisible strings
          >are being pulled by the puppeteers, the elite, the oligarchy.
          >
          > >Although Nazism might have appeared as the polar
          > >opposite to Bolshevism, in fact it bore this
          > >same essential characteristic. If the elite in
          > >Bolshevism were defined by its idealism, the
          > >elite in Nazism were defined by blood purity. A
          > >pure blood race was to govern on behalf of all
          > >mankind, and if it had been successful, once
          > >again democracy would have been dead. In the
          > >final years of the Second World War, almost all
          > >of Europe was under this kind of rule.
          >
          >During the chaos and social upheaval that
          >characterized Germany in the years prior to 1933,
          >there was no difference between the browhshirts
          >and the reds except that the brownshirts used
          >outstretched arms and the reds used raised
          >clenched fists. These two groups often fought
          >each other in the streets, and the fascists won
          >because the German banks invested in them, hoping
          >they would bring order and end to chaos. The
          >Nazis were also helped into power by investments
          >from Wall Street and various financial
          >institutions in America, to the best of my recollection.
          >
          > >For those in Britain who find satisfaction at
          > >being excluded from this period of history, I
          > >beg you to reconsider. Steiner also pointed to
          > >the very questionable nature of the British
          > >Empire; at how this was an attempt to circumvent
          > >the right expression of democracy which had been
          > >born out of British culture. What is
          > >interesting is that in each example ���
          > >Bolshevism, Nazism and the British Empire ��� an
          > >attempt was made to govern by an unelected elite.
          >
          >No governing elite has ever been elected,
          >although people are easily fooled into believing
          >they've elected them and think everything is
          >honky dory. Pythagoras believed that the true
          >leaders of a society or culture (or state) should
          >not own possessions, wealth. The working class
          >should own possessions, because they needed it,
          >but the leaders - the teachers, statesmen,
          >priests etc. should be public servants and had no
          >need for possessions because of their
          >spirituality, wisdom, and education. In other
          >words, Pythagoras suggested a poor elite and a
          >wealthy working class, which is pure genius. As
          >long as the elite holds monopoly on most of the
          >wealth as well, democracy is pure bullshit. It's
          >an abstraction and a distraction. Kark Marx said
          >that religion is opium for the people. He was
          >wrong. "Democracy" is opium for the people. You
          >hear that word all day long over and over until you get dizzy.
          >
          >Cheers,
          >
          >Tarjei
          >

          _________________________________________________________________
          Advertisement: Getting married? Tell us why to WIN @ LetsShop
          http://a.ninemsn.com.au/b.aspx?URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eletsshop%2Ecom%2FCompetitions%2FLetsMarry%2Ftabid%2F549%2FDefault%2Easpx&_t=751480117&_r=HM_tagline_letsshop_wedding&_m=EXT
        • Mike helsher
          Tarjei wrote: ... Wow! We had this noble idea in the service groups that i used to attend: our leaders are but trustd servents, they do not govern .
          Message 4 of 5 , Dec 4, 2006
          • 0 Attachment
            Tarjei wrote:

            <snip>
            > >
            > >No governing elite has ever been elected,
            > >although people are easily fooled into believing
            > >they've elected them and think everything is
            > >honky dory. Pythagoras believed that the true
            > >leaders of a society or culture (or state) should
            > >not own possessions, wealth. The working class
            > >should own possessions, because they needed it,
            > >but the leaders - the teachers, statesmen,
            > >priests etc. should be public servants and had no
            > >need for possessions because of their
            > >spirituality, wisdom, and education. In other
            > >words, Pythagoras suggested a poor elite and a
            > >wealthy working class, which is pure genius. As
            > >long as the elite holds monopoly on most of the
            > >wealth as well, democracy is pure bullshit. It's
            > >an abstraction and a distraction. Kark Marx said
            > >that religion is opium for the people. He was
            > >wrong. "Democracy" is opium for the people. You
            > >hear that word all day long over and over until you get dizzy.
            > >
            > >Cheers,
            > >
            > >Tarjei
            > >

            Wow!

            We had this noble idea in the service groups that i used to attend:

            "our leaders are but trustd servents, they do not govern".

            The idea of true "service" is articulated well (if memory serves) In
            HKHW. the whole process of "preperation" is a clearing away of, by
            realization and the ability to truly THINK, the mountain of personal
            stupidity ingrained in our indoctrinated souls, and rests firmly (for
            me) in the moment of meaning contained in "Father forgive them, for
            they know not what they do" and the monumental event that happened
            after those last words...

            I was thinking real hard a little while back about the idea of a
            truly "free deed", and wondered if I might ever be able to actually
            create one someday; realizing that most all of my actions are
            governed by potential reward. But as RS stated in "Love and it's
            meaning in the world" (paraphrased form memory) a deed of true Love
            bears no reward. A paradox that baffles the intellect to no end.

            The whole Epic of Gilgamesh comes to mind, which can be summed up in
            the old sufi saying:

            "that which you seek, cannot be found by seeking...But...only seekers
            find it"

            With Hope for a truly free deed someday

            Mike
          • Tarjei Straume
            ... Here s an update: Fiji just had its fourth coup in twenty years. Tarjei
            Message 5 of 5 , Dec 7, 2006
            • 0 Attachment
              I wrote:

              >On Fiji and other islands the governments of the Pacific are falling
              >apart because of the onslaught of trans-national corporations and
              >globalization.

              Here's an update: Fiji just had its fourth coup in twenty years.

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