Re: RS re true internationalism
- According to RS, Ahriman's physical incarnation will happen some time
during the first third of the 21st century, i.e. by 2333 at the latest.
But why wait if such exciting stuff ain't gonna happen in our own
lifetime? Apocalypse Now!
We have seen all kinds of varieties on this theme, that Ahriman
already incarnated back in the 1940s and what have you, that Rudolf
Steiner has reincarnated as a woman in America, and if not, he's
talking to certain cyber-anthros from the other side --
And I quess whether McCain or Obama gets the honor of being crowned
Ahriman or the Antichrist or the Beast of the False Prophet or the
Dragon depends, I guess, on the political prefereces of the
anthroposopher apocalypsia in question from the notorious Michael
School for initiates and select honor students of occult brainstorming....
Praise Lucifer and pass the acid, swallow some mescaline down with
tequila for the sake of psychedelic nostalgia.
--- In email@example.com, "Frank Thomas Smith"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Robert Mason
> <robertsmason_99@> wrote:
> > I've seen some talk that the active "rule"
> > of Ahriman will take place in the 42 months
> > leading up to Dec. 21, 2012. And I've seen
> > a suggestion that, considering that the
> > False Prophet might have been born 6 months
> > before Ahriman as the Baptist was born 6
> > months before the Luke Jusus, and postulating
> > that Ahriman was born in Feb. 1962 -- then
> > the charismatic False Prophet would have
> > been born in early August 1961. And take
> > that for whatever it's worth, but I wouldn't
> > do anything rash.
> Are you and newbie implying that Obama is the "false Prophet"? If so
> why not just come out and say so? But don't do anything rash!
- Dear Robert,
As I followed your posts about R. Powell's statements, there is
another book which maybe will provide some interesting aspects in
regard of these subjects.
Christ & the Maya Calendar
2012 & the Coming of the Antichrist
Robert Powell, Kevin Dann
Best regards, Dan
--- In email@example.com, "Robert Mason"
> --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "moniker_9"
> <moniker_9@> wrote:
> > Robert, there's something I'm unclear about here. That date in
> > February of 1962 for Ahriman's incarnation - was that from Willi
> > Sucher or Jean Dixon? - Larry
> Robert writes:
> Both, apparently. Here is a report from Robert
> In fact a definite date for the birth of Antichrist was communicated
> by the American clairvoyant Jeanne Dixon in her book My Life and
> Prophecies. In this book she refers to a vision she had of the birth
> of Antichrist at sunrise on February 5 1962, at a place in the Middle
> East - a matter of hours after a total eclipse of the Sun in the
> sidereal sign of Capricorn. There was indeed a most spectacular
> alignment of planets in Capricorn at this time of birth of Antichrist
> as indicated by Jeanne Dixon, with Saturn, Jupiter, Mars, Venus, the
> Sun, Mercury and the Moon aligned with the Moon's Node in Capricorn.
> The last time such a grand conjunction of the seven visible planets
> occurred was in 1524. If the future "World President"was actually
> born in 1962, then in 2010 he will be forty-eight years old, at the
> height of his power.
> In a conversation with Willi Sucher (1902 - 1985) some sixteen years
> ago, he indicated that he had done research into Jeanne Dixon's
> vision and found it quite plausible. Willi Sucher even identified the
> place of birth as Tobruk, Libya. When asked about the significance of
> the planetary alignment in Capricorn, he replied: "In antiquity
> Capricorn was called the 'gateway of the gods', and what better
> moment could Antichrist choose to be born than when all the planets
> are aligned in front of Capricorn, blocking the gateway to the
> spiritual world, in order to establish his rulership in a world of
> materialism, cutting off humanity from all spirituality.
> Whether or not Jeanne Dixon's vision is true remains to be seen.
> Robert M continues:
> Indeed; many of Jeanne Dixon's prophecies were
> proven to be false, while some apparently came
> true. And while much of what Powell writes is
> IMO very dubious, to put it mildly, I would
> assume that he can get the astronomical facts
> straight, and I wouldn't think that he would
> lie about Sucher. But still, we don't know
> exactly what Sucher said.
> Robert Mason