Re: R: [anthroposophy_tomorrow] Moltke, who wrote he started "initiated" WWI
- At 20:47 30.05.2004, Dottie wrote:
>Thanks Eric. So, do Antrhos say that some English/American conspiracy hasRudolf Steiner did. I have endeavored to treat this subject to some extent
>started the war?
in my article "The Secret Lodges in the West" at
A spiritualized understanding of history with special weight on the works
of RS should be a matter of course on an anthro-list. Call it anthro-babble
or religious faith or anything your like - that kind of rhetoric conveys
nothing but bigotry.
During the First World War and its aftermath, the whole world was occupied
with the question of guilt and of causes, so we're re-opening a Pandora's
box here. The war resulted from an extreme complexity of quarrels that had
been brewing for decades and culminated in stupid misunderstandings where
it looks as if all the nations started firing at each other almost
simultaneously. I just browsed through some of my history books, and
authors seem extremely reluctant about venturing opinions or theories -
much less alleged facts - concerning the actual cause of the outbreak itself.
Molkte's strategy, for which he became a legend, consisted of assuming an
aggressive position on his own territory - in his case, on German territory
- that would force the enemy to come to him, instead of invading *their*
territory. It's not the kind of strategy that initiates conventional wars
(The Bay of Pigs and the Cuban Crisis that resulted from missiles in Turkey
and on Cuba, are a different story.)
There was an article in a Norwegian anthro-magazine a few years ago - I'll
keep browsing through my shelves for it if I get the time - explaining how
Steiner wanted to publish some notes by Molkte which would explain the
causes of the war outbreak and get the heat off Germany at the same time,
but there were family members (of Molkte) or higher-ups or something like
that who vetoed this publication.
Personally, I don't have much time for historical research these days, I'll
have to leave it to historians (anyone onboard?), or to a more thorough
treatment of the topic at a later date.
Back to the English/American conspiracy starting the war:
On December 1, 1923, entitled The Mechanistic, Eugenic and Hygienic Aspects
of the Future, Rudolf Steiner spoke of a political map that had existed in
England in the 1890's. It was a map that matched the national borders after
the First World War.
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.
But no one in a responsible position has taken cognizance of these things,
or taken them earnestly in the real sense of the word. Present events
certainly show that they should have been taken earnestly.
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.
Tarjei Straume wrote:
Another clown is back with his one-track-mind about RS being ignorant about
who was responsible for the outbreak of WW I and about Andrea and myself
lying about his own posts.
I an AT message dated Tuesday, 05 Oct 2004, Eric told the following story
about the Goethanum and Anthroposophy Tomorrow:
"No wonder when I called the Goetheanum office ten minutes ago and after
being handed around twice, someone told me this list is considered by
Anthroposophists to be one for "crackpots" ! "
Thank you for letting us know what attracts you to this group. It takes one
to know one, obviously. But are you sure they didn't call *you* a crackpot
after handing you around twice as you say, and that you imagined they were
talking about someone else?
Gisele, didn't you visit the Goethanum right after that post was made and
expose the ramblings of this space cadet?
~~~~Yeah, I felt almost embarrassed by the looks they gave me like:"What is she on about?" - they had no idea of what Eric was talking about, never heard of this list either...
ALL-NEW Yahoo! Messenger - all new features - even more fun!