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

For Stephen

Expand Messages
    ... Hi Stephen As I posted ( see below) a week ago, can you give some ref. about your statement on Adolph Hitler? Stephen: You find the best always last when
    Message 1 of 2 , Nov 2, 2004

      ----- Original Message -----

      Hi Stephen
      As 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

       I asked:
      Pls Stephen,
      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.


      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.


      --- In
      anthroposophy_tomorrow@yahoogroups.com, wdenval@a... wrote:
      > Dear Ivan,
      > Sorry-I did not see your entire post
      and responded too soon,
      though I would
      > much appreciate it if you
      could expand on the idea of the Great
      > This is by itself
      enough to me. If I only give some food for
      thought and some
      > one
      seriously enough goes through it, Iâ?Td be happy. What I came
      to see I
      > would rather not believe â?" my standpoints. I am not happy
      what I found out. I
      > am not attached to my world view of the
      > I think I am kind of attached to my worldview, honestly. I
      happy with
      > it-it serves me and I can find my place in the world
      through it.
      Plus there's the
      > huge intellectual, emotional, financial
      investment of years
      > psychoanalysis followed by years
      studying psychosynthesis to
      > This thing bothers me a
      lot. I didnâ?Tt want to believe it myself,
      I was
      > depressed, upset and
      helpless. The whole atmosphere around us is
      full of demons.
      > This
      looks 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
      are saying
      > that you are alive, conscious of this fact and the fact that
      everyone else
      > doesn't exist as an ego-being.
      > I
      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 strategy
      against â?" Ahriman.
      But did not the
      > Apostles do the thing and were
      they not advised by Our Lord, â?obe
      cunning like
      > snakes and mild as
      pigeonsâ? (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.)
      > I've got
      nothing against fighting Ahriman with ahrimanic forces
      hence we are
      > You say,
      > I agree with you on all your examples of
      smoke and mirrors. I
      think my point
      > of departure is the causal nature
      of them. It seems to me that you
      are saying
      > the fake image, etc. are
      the manifestation/reflection/presentation
      of an
      > egoless human being.
      Why egoless? Why not asleep, anesthetized,
      > suppressed,
      depressed, oppressed, compressed, hypnotized,
      poisoned, MIS-educated, mis
      > directed, lost?
      >  I say, please, check and recheck.
      Iâ?Td be happy if Iâ?Tm wrong.
      > Yup, they are definitly in
      there-under deep, deep cover-lots of
      blankets and
      > layers, bundled
      > Use your empathic capacity to enter their center of
      motivation, of
      > Empathy is a fascinating word, I
      think. Came into the language
      just this
      > century, right? Carl Rodgers
      began 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
      to encounter
      > and I was only successful after a period of several years of
      > association. Center of motivation, for me is another thing,
      you are right, can be
      > behind, in front, beside the person
      definetly not ego-driven or
      identity driven.
      > This is not the same for
      me as them not having an ego-identity.
      > But what about those that
      der Doktor names as belonging to the
      great ancient
      > Chinese
      civilization that couldnâ?Tt develop further because they
      hadnâ?Tt had
      > the seed of the ego implanted in time of Atlantis? And there
      > civilizations, tooâ?¦ That means quite a few fellowsâ?¦
      running around without egos.
      > I hope that Bradford or
      Stephen or someone else who can speak much
      > eloquently on this
      topic will address this.
      > Okay, you can call it sleep. Some sleep
      so intensely that the
      demons overtake
      > their physical body, their
      etheric body, and astral body. Donâ?Tt
      we come to
      > the same
      > I didn't say that I differed with you in perception of
      said I think
      > the difference in opinion is what is
      > You say,
      > We hold these truths to be
      self-evident, that all men are created
      > Well, exoterically I
      always thought this meant that we hold all
      men to be equal
      > under the
      > I say, I didnâ?Tt. I heard it only from Dr Steiner. I was
      enough to
      > think we are equal as humans
      > I
      never thought we were born into this world with equal potential
      or equal
      > capacities. I was never taught that. It seems to be a more
      thought if you
      > don't mind me asking how old are you? I am
      > I say compare people to one another.
      > I say
      connect what is alive in me with what is alive in them and
      learn to see
      > I to I. This is instructional for both parties.
      > Look
      at Nicole Kidman or Delta Goodrem (Aussie singer). Look them
      deep into
      > their eyes. Into the â?osoulâ?. Tell me if you start
      headache in between
      > your eyebrows. If you start loosing your
      sense of identity.
      > Now see, this sounds like an inversion of
      what I'm saying above.
      No, I am not
      > going to lose my sense of
      identity and it sounds like you are
      assigning power
      > to a non-entity
      over an ego being. Now, yeah I might get really
      angry or
      > dispare or
      have 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.
      > I say,
      > What you
      call â?osubjectivelyâ? is the same as what I call
      > And this is already a good example of
      distortion of language.
      > So, you as a subject, subjectively view
      you ego (â?oyourselfâ?)as
      an object â?"
      > this is
      >  I say tomato you say tomaato... okay, I get
      > You say,
      > I think I would have to rely on the
      views of others or a mirror
      image seen
      > outside myself to view myself
      as an object. So there is the
      question of the
      > viewer that has
      occupied much better minds than mine. Emerson
      comes to mind here
      > and
      when he dealt with this question, as I recall he just came to
      the fact that
      > he was either good essentially or not.
      > I
      > 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 perform
      self-criticism in words
      like, � much
      > better minds than mine� is
      that not facing yourself? No matter
      that you under
      > evaluate yourself.
      Are not able to reflect on your deeds or say if
      they are
      > good or
      > I can, I do, I find myself lacking. But I cannot evaluate
      nature as a
      > spiritual being by my material deeds. I have to take
      for granted
      the essential
      > nature of my being-that is my point
      regarding Emerson.
      > I think when we don't take up our space,
      Ivan, when we don't
      develop the
      > individuality that we leave ourselves
      open for other beings to
      preside, reside,
      > inhabit, otherwise occupy
      the space. So I agree with you on your
      perception that
      > there are all
      these Arhimanic entities surrounding you-I see them
      > too-billions and
      billions-a regular swarm.  This is a hard thing
      and a painful reality
      > that you speak of. The even harder thing, in my experience,
      been to see
      > through them to glimpse the human being.
      > I
      say, now we came so close to each other that it makes no sense
      discriminate further between our standpoints!
      > As I said in the
      beginning there may be but one degree of
      > I might
      say that there is a â?oglimpse of the human beingâ?. We
      might disagree
      > in our definition of what the minimum requirement is for one
      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 become
      > I see both. Both exist in every person as a
      > But I see no point in further discrimination. On the
      other hand I
      see someone
      > else, YOU, see the same as I
      > Close but not the same.
      > What they themselves
      are is really diffuse, or like a black hole
      that wants
      > to suck in
      your personality. They actually do so. I came to their
      identity by
      connecting this experience with what Dr Steiner said of asuras.
      â?oSo it could
      > only be them�.
      > I have seen the black hole-I have
      seen it sucking in all life
      forms around
      > the person. I came to the
      understanding of this phenomenon through
      > contemplation, thought, and the
      inner working to understand how it
      could be so within the
      > worldview I
      hold. I was in a situation once where many encountered
      the same
      phenomenon at the same time. Many chalked it up to the individuals
      > possessed by Ahriman. I came to a different
      conclusion after some
      > And when looking around we see we
      have are spiritual sisters and
      brothers â?"
      > what does it matter if
      *they* have ego or not? After all, are we
      not free do
      > chose? Were we
      not free to chose?
      > Well, as the saying goes, timing is
      everything. I think this may
      be what our
      > differences come to. It
      sounds like you are saying sometime during
      a previous
      > incarnation we
      chose and then we are retarded as a result. I think
      that's true
      > but
      that we still maintain the potential, the capacity to choose
      > better. And it's not all equal-some have much
      greater burdens or
      baggage to
      > bear. But yeah, I believe we ARE free
      to 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:

    • wdenval@aol.com
      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
      Message 2 of 2 , Nov 2, 2004
        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
      Your message has been successfully submitted and would be delivered to recipients shortly.