----- Original Message -----
Hi StephenAs I posted ( see below) a week ago, can you give some ref. about your statement on Adolph Hitler?
You find the best always last when it comes to posts like these.
But, alas, and for good, Hitler is dead; snuffed forever into the.
Thus, the son felt no recourse except to end it all, on January
30,1889. Except he was murdered in reality; and made the subject of
a suicide in order to cover up the facts and allow his father to
continue to rule Austria in the nero-fashion that the son came to
one more time........
You are writing "asthonishing" things about a thread. Can you give us also
some references ( i don't want to write "evidences" at all..) on such an
important matter ?
A strictly personal remark.
In the past ten years I have met the necessity to try to divide truths
from halftruths and halftruths from falsehoods in the whole "Ravenscroft's
affaire" linked to Adolph's story. (" Not a second time" . played the
Beatles in 1963-64....)..
So since there was and there is a strong necessity to gain some clarity
about this crux matter in History,. I am asking you again to give the
list any possible ref or source about the above tale .
Tks in advance ,buddy.
Andreaanthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, wdenval@a... wrote:
Then he was born quickly again on April 20, 1889, in Linz, to a
brutalistic father who would ensure his rise to the Reichstaff's
official ruler; the reincarnation of the emperor himself.
Now, this was all planned, but not part of the Great Plan.
Nietzsche's spirit was involved, as well the spirit of the German
Empire that he so despised. It came down to the sister being the
betrayer of her brother for the chauvinist jerk, Bernhard Forster; a
high-ranking member of the black lodge which had evolved from
Weishaupt. The goal was to make the great philosopher himself into
the vehicle for the modern zarathustra, Hitler; but, he wouldn't
allow it and vacated his physical body instead, leaving Forster to
commit suicide in order to be the astral body for Rudolf's
reincarnation as Hitler.
And that is why Hitler is dead; and the black lodge is dead.
Because it all failed in the end; and all due to Nietszche's
insanity. He was a freedom-fighter, you know.
> Dear Ivan,and responded too soon,
> Sorry-I did not see your entire post
though I would
> much appreciate it if youcould expand on the idea of the Great
>enough to me. If I only give some food for
> This is by itself
thought and some
> oneseriously enough goes through it, Iâ?Td be happy. What I came
to see I
> would rather not believe â?" my standpoints. I am not happywith
what I found out. I
> am not attached to my world view of thekind.
> I think I am kind of attached to my worldview, honestly. I
> it-it serves me and I can find my place in the worldthrough it.
Plus there's the
> huge intellectual, emotional, financialinvestment of years
> psychoanalysis followed by yearsstudying psychosynthesis to
>lot. I didnâ?Tt want to believe it myself,
> This thing bothers me a
> depressed, upset andhelpless. The whole atmosphere around us is
full of demons.
> Thislooks like a horror movie. I have no choice then to pretend
Iâ?Tm Bruce Willis
> in The Sixth Sense ;) One should not lose humor.But Ivan, Bruce Willis was dead and didn't know it. I think you
> that you are alive, conscious of this fact and the fact thatmost
> doesn't exist as an ego-being.hated evangelism all my life and all the conversions and
>between the clans. Not to mention what they did besides to the
â?othird worldâ?. But
> we need to â?oadvertiseâ?, to do a lot of â?omarketingâ?if you
forgive me the
> concept â?" it might be ahrimanic strategyagainst â?" Ahriman.
But did not the
> Apostles do the thing and werethey not advised by Our Lord, â?obe
> snakes and mild aspigeonsâ? (just a paraphrases, I donâ?Tt
exactly remember the
>wording). (This concept reminds us of Quetzalcoatlo, the feathered
snake from the
> South American mythology, by the way.)nothing against fighting Ahriman with ahrimanic forces
> I've got
hence we are
>smoke and mirrors. I
> You say,
> I agree with you on all your examples of
think my point
> of departure is the causal natureof them. It seems to me that you
> the fake image, etc. arethe manifestation/reflection/presentation
> egoless human being.Why egoless? Why not asleep, anesthetized,
> suppressed,depressed, oppressed, compressed, hypnotized,
poisoned, MIS-educated, mis
> directed, lost?Iâ?Td be happy if Iâ?Tm wrong.
> I say, please, check and recheck.
>there-under deep, deep cover-lots of
> Yup, they are definitly in
> layers, bundledtight.
> Use your empathic capacity to enter their center of
>think. Came into the language
> Empathy is a fascinating word, I
> century, right? Carl Rodgersbegan using it-means something along
the lines of
> connecting with"the other". I have never had a situation where
there was not an
>identity to connect to however some have been extremely difficult
> and I was only successful after a period of several years ofclose
> association. Center of motivation, for me is another thing,and
you are right, can be
> behind, in front, beside the persondefinetly not ego-driven or
> This is not the same forme as them not having an ego-identity.
>der Doktor names as belonging to the
> But what about those that
> Chinesecivilization that couldnâ?Tt develop further because they
> the seed of the ego implanted in time of Atlantis? And therewere
> civilizations, tooâ?¦ That means quite a few fellowsâ?¦are
running around without egos.
>Stephen or someone else who can speak much
> I hope that Bradford or
> eloquently on thistopic will address this.
>so intensely that the
> Okay, you can call it sleep. Some sleep
> their physical body, theiretheric body, and astral body. Donâ?Tt
we come to
> the sameresult?
> I didn't say that I differed with you in perception of
said I think
> the difference in opinion is what iscausal.
>self-evident, that all men are created
> You say,
> We hold these truths to be
> Well, exoterically Ialways thought this meant that we hold all
men to be equal
> under thelaw.
> I say, I didnâ?Tt. I heard it only from Dr Steiner. I was
> think we are equal as humansnever thought we were born into this world with equal potential
> capacities. I was never taught that. It seems to be a morerecent
thought if you
> don't mind me asking how old are you? I am44.
>connect what is alive in me with what is alive in them and
> I say compare people to one another.
> I say
learn to see
> I to I. This is instructional for both parties.at Nicole Kidman or Delta Goodrem (Aussie singer). Look them
> their eyes. Into the â?osoulâ?. Tell me if you startfeeling
headache in between
> your eyebrows. If you start loosing yoursense of identity.
>what I'm saying above.
> Now see, this sounds like an inversion of
No, I am not
> going to lose my sense ofidentity and it sounds like you are
> to a non-entityover an ego being. Now, yeah I might get really
> dispare orhave some emotional reaction, I might get a "startled
deer in the
>headlights immobilzation" reaction-hasn't happened yet but it
could-I'm still going
> to know who I am.call â?osubjectivelyâ? is the same as what I call
> I say,
> What you
>distortion of language.
> And this is already a good example of
>you ego (â?oyourselfâ?)as
> So, you as a subject, subjectively view
an object â?"
> this isit!
> I say tomato you say tomaato... okay, I get
>views of others or a mirror
> You say,
> I think I would have to rely on the
> outside myself to view myselfas an object. So there is the
question of the
> viewer that hasoccupied much better minds than mine. Emerson
comes to mind here
> andwhen he dealt with this question, as I recall he just came to
the fact that
> he was either good essentially or not.say,
> This is how we are deluded to compromise our self
> Look. When you think of what youâ?Tve done the day before,do you
not think of
> yourself as an object? When you performself-criticism in words
like, â? much
> better minds than mineâ? isthat not facing yourself? No matter
that you under
> evaluate yourself.Are not able to reflect on your deeds or say if
> good orbad?
> I can, I do, I find myself lacking. But I cannot evaluate
nature as a
> spiritual being by my material deeds. I have to takefor granted
> nature of my being-that is my pointregarding Emerson.
>Ivan, when we don't
> I think when we don't take up our space,
> individuality that we leave ourselvesopen for other beings to
> inhabit, otherwise occupythe space. So I agree with you on your
> there are allthese Arhimanic entities surrounding you-I see them
> too-billions andbillions-a regular swarm. This is a hard thing
and a painful reality
> that you speak of. The even harder thing, in my experience,has
been to see
> through them to glimpse the human being.say, now we came so close to each other that it makes no sense
>discriminate further between our standpoints!
>beginning there may be but one degree of
> As I said in the
>say that there is a â?oglimpse of the human beingâ?. We
> I might
> in our definition of what the minimum requirement is for oneto
become a human
> being. What the ego exactly is.When you see something like a torn kid, a little no-one inside
someone â?" is
> that the ego, or something that will never becomeone.
> I see both. Both exist in every person as a
>other hand I
> But I see no point in further discrimination. On the
> else, YOU, see the same as Ido.
>are is really diffuse, or like a black hole
> Close but not the same.
> What they themselves
> to suck inyour personality. They actually do so. I came to their
>connecting this experience with what Dr Steiner said of asuras.
â?oSo it could
> only be themâ?.seen it sucking in all life
> I have seen the black hole-I have
> the person. I came to theunderstanding of this phenomenon through
> contemplation, thought, and theinner working to understand how it
could be so within the
> worldview Ihold. I was in a situation once where many encountered
>phenomenon at the same time. Many chalked it up to the individuals
> possessed by Ahriman. I came to a differentconclusion after some
>have are spiritual sisters and
> And when looking around we see we
> what does it matter if*they* have ego or not? After all, are we
not free do
> chose? Were wenot free to chose?
>everything. I think this may
> Well, as the saying goes, timing is
be what our
> differences come to. Itsounds like you are saying sometime during
> incarnation wechose and then we are retarded as a result. I think
> butthat we still maintain the potential, the capacity to choose
> better. And it's not all equal-some have muchgreater burdens or
> bear. But yeah, I believe we ARE freeto choose, that we are-each
of us able to be
> renewed and redeemed.And yes, that even goes for Hitler, even
------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
Make a clean sweep of pop-up ads. Yahoo! Companion Toolbar.
Now with Pop-Up Blocker. Get it for free!
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
- Stephen, you wrote:
Val, this is a big and complex story; but in definite respects, it
also hits at all the issues concerning Lucifer, Ahriman, and their
Soradtic progenitor. Andrea has asked for a fuller explanation, as
well, and I really appreciate these interests.
I understand it is probably quite complex and that you are busy out on the front. But behind the scenes-can you just tell me this-did this incarnation entail an egoless individual at one point or another? If so, it could explain the almost immediate reincarnation as well as the snuff-out. Thanks, Val