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

Political history (was: A little more to whom it may concern)

Expand Messages
  • 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 1 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 2 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 3 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 4 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.