Fw: Re: Fw: Re: Fwd: Re: Menzer re AAG history - final?
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, "Frank Thomas Smith" wrote:
> --- In email@example.com, Robert Mason wrote:Hello and Happy New Year!
> > Frank wrote:
> > >>Btw, the A.S. constitution question is a dead issue.<<
> > Willy Lochmann apparently feels somewhat the
> > same way, but anyway, here is his latest and
> > apparently last comment. And BTW again:
> > for those who read German, here are some
> > links to more discussions with and about
> > Menzer -- with Saacke, Boegner, et al.
> > <http://lochmann-verlag.com/menzer_info.htm>
> > RM
> > --- On Mon, 12/29/08, info wrote:
> > > From: info
> > > Subject: Re: Fw: Re: Fwd: Re: Menzer re AAG history
> > > To: "Robert Mason"
> > > Date: Monday, December 29, 2008, 3:28 PM
> > > Dear Robert,
> > > Thank you for sending me this comment of Frank Thomas
> > > Smith, as well as two translations. I will not get in a
> > > discussion with F.T.Smith, as we have here a kind of
> > > religious problem, where is no way to change wrong opinions.
> > > Saacke has really founded a kind of religous group, where
> > > the members believe to be free in here thinking; but they
> > > are not. There is a kind of "okkulte
> > > Gefangenschaft", so there is no hope, as it goes into
> > > fanatism.
> > > We have everything printed for people who are honestly
> > > interested in the tragical matter. I will no longer waste
> > > time to discuss with people, who believe to have found the
> > > latest truth in these questions. Finally it was a criminal
> > > act in several steps and not only misunderstandings of the
> > > intentions of Rudolf Steiner. His plans were perfect, but he
> > > was linked by some anthroposophs like G. Wachsmuth.
> > > Best regards,
> > > Willy L.
> Well, that's what one says when he can't answer the facts that make
> his case crumble. Btw, I said "the A.S. constitution question is a
> dead issue" because the people who were trying to resolve it have more
> or less given up due to circumstances...which are: The present
> Vorstand finally recognized that what we said was factual. Their
> problem was that by doing so they were admitting that previous
> Vorstands didn't have a clue. But then in attempting to rectify the
> situation, they only made it hopeless. They said, ok, we'll resurrect
> the Christmas Conference Society, since it's not the one we have. They
> called it the "Anthroposophical Society - Christmas Conference" and
> changed the statutes of that Society to the extent that they were very
> similar to those of the G.A.S. or, let's say that they were a mixture
> of both Societies' statutes. The idea was then to merge the G.A.S.
> into this resurrected Society. This was obviously not legally possible
> because both the Vorstand and the members of the Christmas Conference
> were dead - and you can't have a dead people's Society. Several groups
> filed complaints with the Swiss courts and the first one the court
> heard was by a group (Living Christmas Conference) which wanted no
> change at all, and who insisted that the General Anthroposophical
> Society was in fact the Christmas Conference Society. They won the
> case - which cost the Society a lot of money - but not exactly because
> the Court agreed with their thesis. In essence, the court agreed that
> there had been 2 Societies, but that the A.S. of 1923 had been de
> facto absorbed into the G.A.S. over time and therefore no longer
> existed as a separate legal entity. Imo the only way the Vorstand
> could have rectified the situation is to have *refounded* the
> Christmas Conference Society instead of trying to resurrect it.
> One may well ask *why* Rudolf Steiner would want 2 societies. I would
> say because you can't have (or shouldn't have) thousands of members -
> many, well, some, who were and are kooks, deciding at General Meetings
> what should be done with the property (the Goetheanum, fe), funds,
> etc. of the Society. The G.A.S. in fact had few (about 20) trustworthy
> members. But now the status quo has been carved in legal stone and
> there isn't anything to be done about it...now. Certainly, however, a
> new generation will one day study the situation again and, maybe, try
This message from Frank leaves me wondering about the criteria
for deeming someone a kook (keeper of odd knowledge?) and also
about what constitutes a "trustworthy" individual. The topic of trust
seems to be a good one to think about at the beginning of a new year.
Here is one I came across earlier today, at another group:
"Without a very fundamental trust we are paralyzed.
Normally we think of trust as a faith that someone
will act in a manner consistent with our expectations,
but the trust Ramesh is pointing to goes far beyond this.
The trust he is talking about is a sense that the universe
is in perfect order; that even evil, misfortune, illness and
betrayal are part of the perfect order of things. To trust
in this way is to walk lightly on the earth. It is to know
serenity in the midst of calamity. It is to feel comfortable
being alive. The Living Teaching points to the Unity that
is all things. It encompasses all that is considered to be
good and all that is considered to be bad. It encourages
you to look beyond the surface and so know the Truth.
Once you see beyond the false claim of being a separate,
authoring entity, you will come face-to-face with the
Mystery that is the very basis of trust and ultimately
Well, anyway, it's just one of many *many* things to think about!
And the fact that it all comes back down to freedom seems also
to be in line with Rudolf Steiner's teachings. It is also interesting
that there are what seem to be various anthroposophical "societies"
in the online forums, and that some of these seem to encourage
(or at least permit) backbiting members of other societies/forums.
I am thinking about the message from Bradford that Frank linked
to in an earlier message. It would be nice to hear Bradford explain
here what was behind that, why he chose to post this in another forum
instead of here, since he is a member here also, where it can be talked
about openly with the people he accuses of "flunked out research skills"
(Tarjei) and of being "Antrho punks" (he includes Frank), for example.
What point is Bradford trying to get across? The one that *comes*
across is that he is disgruntled and doesn't feel that he is being heard.
- --- In firstname.lastname@example.org, Robert Mason
>And on the same page Herr Lochmann highly recommends ("a must read") a
> OK, not so final . . . .
> The first six parts of Menzer's historical
> article are now on Willy Lochmann's website, in
> (He also has some comments about Rudolf Saacke's
> recent contributions on the topic:
book by a conspiracy theorist named Tarpley
Freeman: Sie haben ein neues Buch vor wenigen Wochen veröffentlicht,
mit dem Titel:OBAMA THE POSTMODERN COUP - THE MAKING OF A MANCHURIAN
CANDIDATE. Was können sie uns darüber erzählen, um was geht es darin?
Your new book was published a few week s ago: OBAMA THE POSTMODERN
COUP - THE MAKING OF A MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE. What can you tell us
Tarpley: Ja, auf Deutsch bedeutet der Titel Obama der postmoderne
Staatsstreich das Erzeugen eines manchurischen Kandidaten", ein
Mensch der durch Gehirnwäsche zu einem Mordinstrument" umfunktioniert
wird, und genau das ist was wir in den USA jetzt erleben. Wir haben
die Kandidatur von Barak Hussein Obama, ein Mann der aus dem Nichts
kam, der eigentlich nichts vertritt, sein Lebenslauf ist ein weisses
Blatt, er hat nichts zustande gebracht, und trotzdem schaut es aus,
wie wenn er der Präsidentschaftskandidat der Demokraten sein wird.
Tarpley: ...a man who through brainwashing becomes an instrument of
murder, and that's what we are experiencing now in the USA. We have
the candidature of Barack Hussein Obama, someone who came from
nowhere, who represents nothing, his biography is a blank page, he has
accomplished nothing and nevertheless it looks like he will be the
Democrat's presidential candidate..." And so on with the most
ludicrous (but hateful)crap. Here's his website if you have a strong
I would say that Lochmann's website can - should - be safely ignored.