posted May 05, 2007 04:54 AM              

she explained why war isn't necessary...she explained why our lives can be rich beyond measure, if we will open our eyes and 'see'....she gave us a peek behind the veil.

one of the ways she did this was to provide a reading list filled with the treasure of this wisdom. one her favorite authors is Rudolf Steiner.

a lot of people here in LG land scoff at the idea that the world, and politics, are anything other than what our multi-media culture and official text books would have us believe. but Linda Goodman knew better, and she shared her understanding with us.

and here i have my new book by Rudolf Steiner, called Secret Brotherhoods...evidence that LG knew well that of which she spoke.

about the book ~

Book Description (from amazon.com)

In the age of the internet and the proliferation of "conspiracy theories," ideas that secret groups are trying to gain control of humanity are no longer rare. But this was not true in 1917 when Rudolf Steiner spoke of such matters in the extraordinary lectures contained in this book. His unique contribution to this controversial topic is not based on abstract theories; it arose from exact research methods that use advanced forms of perception and cognition.
Using the firsthand knowledge available to him, Steiner takes us behind the scenes of events in outer history and contemporary culture to reveal a dark world of secret elitist brotherhoods that are attempting to control the masses through the forces of economics, technology, and political assassinations. These hidden groups, he explains, seek power through the use of ritual magic and suggestion.

Among his many topics, Steiner speaks about the geographic nature of the American continent and the forces that arise from it; the nature of the double (or doppelganger) and the dangers of psychoanalysis; the spiritual origin of electromagnetism; the abuse of inoculations and vaccinations; the meaning of Ireland for world development; confused ideas about angels in relation to higher beings and divinity; and, above all, the need for clear insight into world events based on spiritual knowledge.

Never before available in English as a complete volume, the text of this book has been freshly translated for this edition.

-------------------------------------------------

Steiner is amazing.

posted May 05, 2007 07:06 AM            

When it comes to conspiracy theories, though, they are seemingly infinite and most are pure conjecture. There are so many theories circulating nowadays that it's shocking. That's not to say none have merit ... though the few that do have merit would be more like conspiracy realities instead of theories, then. Always a fan of Steiner and one of the most important things he stressed was not relying merely on abstract theory alone but trying to find "proofs" before believing anything. That's why he referred to his methods as Spiritual Science along with Anthroposophy. Truly an amazing man.

Linda said the same ... ie, never to accept even her words as truth until you had tested the theories for yourself and found that they proved themselves to you as real.

That is perhaps one of the greatest lessons they ever shared, imo.

They both also stressed the dangers of "false prophets" and there sure seem to me to be many "enlightened" or "spiritual" people hell bent on having others believe in their theories at face value ... otherwise these disbelievers are all manner of negative adjectives.

It's funny to me, and I know I've mentioned it in LL before, that the great "evils" we are supposed to face are never to be recognized ... that all are to be fooled by "them", except perhaps those (very, very few) "initiates" who've been working on the other side of the veil, preparing for disaster. Frankly, the people/person who gain majority approval at this point in time and keep it for more than a couple of years are the ones to watch out for, imo. Yet, how many people do we see claiming to have the "real" truth and to be "real" prophets or prophetic and are outright indignant when questioned? Steiner welcomed questions and discussion, and even dealt positively with criticism, and was never one to get self-righteous when these things came up. Rather, he responded with cutting insight about the topics in question instead of insults and evasion, etc. I take that to mean in part that he, unlike so many others, actually knew what he was talking about. If you can't explain your subject to others clearly then you don't really know your subject, eg. teachers. And your explanation should hold up to proper scrutiny on its own without egoistic defense on your part.

It is fascinating that so many of Steiner's works have been published and I'm truly grateful. However, much of his words were not meant to be conveyed to the general public and/or those not trained in Anthroposophy, not out of some kind of elitism but because otherwise the concepts Steiner was trying to get across would be wholly misunderstood and misinterpreted. He fully understood that and mentions it in a number of his lectures. I believe that is sadly what we are seeing today.

Even in terms of Waldorf I've read/heard people say that the child rearing techniques are fantastic but the "philosophy" is a little "out there", as though the latter didn't lead to the former. Naturally, they have the right to their opinions but those opinions are based on ignorance of the subject at hand.

A real catch 22 situation we've got.

posted May 05, 2007 08:51 AM            

Just Curious

posted May 05, 2007 09:06 AM            

Here is an excerpt from another one of Linda's recommended books, You Forever by T. Lobsang Rampa.

quote:

---

Who has not, at some time or other, wondered, "What is the purpose of life on Earth? Is it really necessary to have so much suffering, so much hardship?" Actually, of course, it is necessary that there should be suffering and hardship and wars. We place too much store up on the things of this Earth, we tend to think that there is nothing so important as life on Earth. Actually, upon Earth, we are merely as actors upon a stage, changing our clothes to suit the role that we have to play, and at the end of each act retiring for a while, to return to the next act perhaps in a different garb.
Wars are necessary. Without wars the world would soon be overpopulated. Wars are necessary in order that there may be opportunities for self-sacrifice and for people to rise above the limits of the flesh in the service of others. We look upon life as it is lived on this world as the only thing that matters. Actually it is the thing that matters least.
When we are in the spirit we are indestructible. We are immune from hardships and illnesses. Thus, the spirit which has to gain experience, motivates a body of flesh and bone - a body which is but a lump of animated protoplasm - in order that lessons may be learned. Upon Earth the body is as a puppet, jerking and twitching to the orders of the Overself who, through the silver cord, commands and receives messages."

---

This is what is written in For the Pilgrim's Progress at the end of Star Signs about this book:

quote:

---

Other Rampa books are fascinating, but not nearly so helpful as this one, in my personal opinion.

---

posted May 05, 2007 11:38 AM              

i believe that children do not have to die as a result of the massive ego of warmongers. you do not, hence your endless propaganda to the necessity of such.

linda did say to discover truth for ourselves. i have done so, as much as you endeavor to show otherwise, simply because i do not explicate in detailed essay every meticulous moment of my effort. my presence here does not require that. most of Linda Goodman's truth revolves around striving to live at a level beyond our current one, including that of living in a world free from war. i find truth in her words. therefore i enjoy the opportunity to frequent a website dedicated to her. if i were to take her advice and subsequently discern no truth in her words, i would then frequent a website not devoted to her ideals, where i would not find it so strange to always be attacked in some way for mentioning them.

please feel free to disparage me in all the apersonal terms you wish. that you do not mention a person's name in your derisive words does not mean that your intention is not perfectly clear.

posted May 06, 2007 08:27 AM            

Wow.

Whether you believe me or not, I was not disparaging you with my posts. If that "intention" was "clear" to you, perhaps it was merely your perception? Perhaps something that I wrote applies to you personally and that makes you feel defensive? It could be many things ...

Sorry for that but I know my own mind better than you do and I know what I do and don't intend. I am also not a coward. If I have something disparaging to say to you or anyone, I don't have to hide behind "apersonal terms" or any sort of passive aggressive behavior.

I don't understand the reason for the tone behind your response at all. I made it perfectly clear that I believe in finding the truth as it applies to you. *I never judged you for your "truth" or anyone else for theirs. That you would assume I suggested negatives towards you over your beliefs is just that, your assumption and nothing more. I may disagree with your "truth" and you may disagree with mine ... the only judgement I'm interested in is that of the actual concepts involved.* (*edited for clarity)

And please, since you've made the point of mentioning it, quote me saying that I am "pro-war". That is only another one of your assumptions about me. Surprise! I was against this war from the beginning and never agreed with the way it was instigated. All my posts remain to prove that. The only thing I've said about this war that could possibly be misconstrued as "pro" would be that I don't believe pulling out at this point would do any good for the Iraqis or for the US but it would do a lot of good for the terrorists. I don't like the idea of beginning a war with a country for whatever reason, right or wrong, bombing cities and killing thousands of people, and then abandoning them without a stable government, without rebuilding and most especially with the terrorist threat to those people as large, if not larger, than it was before.

Whatever reason you had for pointing out that I "profit" from war is laughable. I'd say you attempted it as a catty remark though I know when others have called you on your PA behavior you've denied it to the bone. So whatever your reasons are supposed to be, I'm still .

I have no shame over the fact that my husband is in the military nor over the fact that I'm a stay at home mom and our only income is from my husband's military career, regardless of my beliefs about this war. And, again, I've clarified that my stance is only pro-war in your presumptuous imagination. Your "point" has a very broad application, though. With that same logic, you are equally "profiting" from this war just by living in this country, supporting a war-economy with your money, supporting the war effort with your tax dollars (assuming you work and/or pay taxes, of course), and benefiting or choosing to one day benefit from the programs our pro-war government provides you free of cost, etc. while all your freedoms here are defended by our government, military, and law organizations which, you know, are pro-war. Keeping with your logic, is that understandable, as well? I can't imagine profiting from something I find morally outrageous ... unless I am putting my own comforts first. (To anyone else who is reading this, please note the distinction between her logic and mine.)

Anyway ... feel free to take your self-righteous assumptions about my beliefs and put them where the Sun does not shine.

posted May 06, 2007 08:30 AM            

quote:

---

"Now let's analyze the Revolutionary War with England, our "mother country." Both the United States and England are, of course, in the Northern Hemisphere. London is north of, not only our capital, Washington, D. C., but also Boston, Philadelphia and Plymouth Rock. So what happened here? We won our independence from England, and we also won the infamous War of 1812 with Great Britain. Are we immune to this powerful and inflexible Universal Law of North-South dominance? Yes, we are. Does that surprise you?
To begin with, the real America was owned by our American Indian brothers and sisters. Following the North-South polarity law, they unfortunately but naturally lost the country to a handful of English people and a few Frenchmen who came over here and literally stole America from its rightful owners, accomplished through several brutal and violent wars with the red men - because London is north of America. The outcome could have been no different. In this case - of the American Indians losing their proud country to the English - the law was humming harmoniously, even though it may have sounded like sour notes and discordant chords to the unfortunate Indians.
Present-day descendants of those brave Indians may wonder why the shameful way they were robbed of their country was permitted by any kind of universal law or harmony, if the word "harmony" is synonymous with the word "peace." It's understandable that they should question the justice of such a law.
Could it be that the Higher Selves of both the American Indians and the Higher Selves of those English-born soldiers who fought them had a larger law in mind - that these Higher Selves of both knew the future of America, and knew that it was in the hands of a few Adepts and Avatars with the most glorious dream since the original dream in Eden?"

---

Can it be? Linda expressing her beliefs that perhaps, on a higher level than our earth bound minds can understand, there was a good reason for war? Say it isn't so! Hmmm ... where have I read something similar? Oh, perhaps an earlier post on this thread with writings recommended by Linda herself. However did that happen?

But wait! I believe she continues!

quote:

---

'The United States is still being divinely protected because of this original dream. Never mind the Teapot Dome scandal, Watergate and Irangate. So-called saints and saints of nations are continually being soul-tested. We are still the only country in the entire world where both clear-thinking men and women and misguided thinkers can speak their minds and say whatever they wish - either for or against our government - as can the media spokesmen and spokeswomen. America will continue to be divinely protected, as long as our First Amendment, guaranteeing Freedom of Speech remains intact. To keep it so is worth putting up with all manner of printed and spoken ugliness to protect that First Amendment. And it's worth remembering Voltaire's ringing declaration, "I may disapprove of what you say but I will defend to the death your right to say it."'

---

Aside from the obvious "pro-America propoganda", Linda is quoting Voltaire? Voltaire, writing about defending someone's rights to the death?!

Surely, that was a misprint ... or perhaps the NWO got hold of the Star Signs manuscript and submitted these false words to the co-conspirator publishers who then published them and Linda was somehow silenced by secret agents before being able to speak the truth! That simply must be what happened.

(Yes, the winky smiley is to suggest I'm joking.)

In reality, a lot of what has been written by these authors very clearly revolves around a lesser or personal understanding and a greater or universal understanding. It is the wisdom that is behind the seeming contradictions between their theories that killing is wrong but that war has a greater purpose. It's called by many names, but most often spiritual evolution or the returning to innocence. The idea that you as an individual soul must strive to higher ideals while understanding that as a species humans are growing and learning in many ways, including working through their anger and violence until that point when these attributes are conquered willingly by the individuals involved and thus no longer necessary. You know, that whole Free Will thing that doesn't seem to be applied across the board in the same manner that tolerance isn't applied either.

For an example of a "necessary" War, we often cite WWII. Now, some are quick to point out that the motives for the US getting involved were not initially humanitarian. Does that detract from what was accomplished? Or should no countries have fought against Hitler and his evil tyrrany? Should we have all turned a blind eye to the genocide and even allowed ourselves to be conquered in the end so as to not bloody our hands with war? After all, if war is unnecessary, if there is no greater plan that the rest of us cannot always clearly understand, we should've given up all hope of freedom after other more peaceful means had been exhausted. Too bad for the world and all of humanity that Hitler and his minions wouldn't sit down to a nice cup of tea to listen to spiritual/moral reason and cease their reign of terror.

posted May 06, 2007 08:34 AM            

quote:

---

First they came for the Communists, but I was not a Communist, so I said nothing. Then they came for the Social Democrats, but I was not a Social Democrat, so I did nothing. Then came the trade unionists, but I was not a trade unionist. And then they came for the Jews, but I was not a Jew, so I did little. Then when they came for me, there was no one left to stand up for me.

---

I've heard people quote those words as though he was somehow opposed to war. The reality?

"Martin Niemöller had been a World War I hero as a German naval lieutenant and U-boat commander. He was ordained as a Lutheran pastor in 1924. One of the earliest Protestant critics of Nazism, he and a few brave Lutherans formed a resistance movement called the "Confessional Church" of about 3,000 pastors. Dietrich Bonhoeffer, author of The Cost of Discipleship, came into contact with Niemöller when he joined the "Pastor's Emergency League," which was formed under Niemöller."

"As the methods of oppression by the Nazis grew worse, the resistance movement justified previously unimagined types of disobedience. For Niemöller and the resistance, the plan to assassinate a tyrant was a matter of obedience to God." http://www.forerunner.com/champion/X0006_5._Martin_Niemller.html

Now, please understand that I don't care if you disagree with Linda's own words here ... or Steiner's in many places or anyone else Linda recommended. I don't care whom you do or don't agree with other than to understand your point of view even if I may disagree with it. My point is not that your beliefs are "wrong" or "right" but rather that you are, as many others often do, taking other people's words out of the context of their own belief system/life in its totality and that this is easily seen by referrring to the author's works/personal history.

The "right" or "wrong" of your personal beliefs is of no importance to me other than to judge if I agree or not and why for myself, my own growth and my own understanding.

I hope that helps to clarify (1) what I actually wrote, (2) why I wrote what I wrote and (3) that it had nothing at all to do with you personally or any sort of judgement of you for your personal beliefs.

Naturally, it may not but at least anyone else reading this has a chance of seeing my explanation of my words instead of only your assumptions about them being presented as "truth".

posted May 06, 2007 01:50 PM              

Book explores eugenics' origins
By Dan Vergano, USA TODAY

Hard as it may be to believe, Adolf Hitler wrote fan mail, finding time in the early 1930s to express his admiration of the American leaders of a vaguely scientific movement called eugenics.

In his new book, War Against the Weak, investigative reporter Edwin Black makes the case that 20th century American proponents of eugenics — the belief that controlled breeding can improve humanity — had substantive ties to the architects of Hitler's racial extermination machine.

Black documents many links, such as the Hitler letters, between the American eugenicists and Nazi Germany prior to World War II, including how one prominent eugenicist's book, Madison Grant's The Passing of the Great Race, became Hitler's "bible."

Eugenics came into vogue in the early 20th century. With a name coined in 1883 by British anthropologist Francis Galton, who hoped to see arranged marriages improve mankind, the movement eventually led to racist laws, such as ones prohibiting miscegenation, in many U.S. states, and the sterilization of more than 60,000 mental and moral "defectives."

"It's startling how much Hitler idealized American eugenics," Black says. His book required two years of research by dozens of volunteers who culled records from about 110 archives, diaries of eugenicists, case records of their victims and research reports on removing the unfit from humanity. The research builds on Black's best-selling book, IBM and the Holocaust, which looked at Nazi use of data-processing technology to fill concentration camps.

In War Against the Weak, Black lays bare the veins of collaboration between American eugenicists and Nazi scientists. There was financial support of genetic research and travel by Nazi doctors from the Rockefeller Foundation, the Carnegie Institution of Washington, and Cold Spring Harbor Laboratory, a leading genetics research institute. There was research collaboration and reports on the Nazi efforts in respected journals like the Journal of the American Medical Association (JAMA). Black also describes:

• Biologist Charles Davenport, head of the Eugenics Record Office based at Cold Spring Harbor (N.Y.) Laboratory. He wrote eugenics textbooks widely used in universities and high schools and led drives for sterilization laws that eventually emerged in 33 states. He supported "racial hygiene" concepts.

• The lauding of eugenics by prominent Americans, including Alexander Graham Bell and Woodrow Wilson.

• The career of one Harvard-credentialed doctor, Edwin Katzen-Ellenbogen, an original member of the Eugenics Research Association created in 1913, who ended up as a physician prisoner and SS collaborator at the Buchenwald concentration camp.

Black says the labs and foundations he contacted, such as Cold Spring Harbor, were open to examining their past and are committed to legitimate scientific work today.

Science historian and geneticist Elof Carlson of the State University of New York, Stony Brook, argues that Black does not capture the scope of historical bigotry and global racism.

The author of last year's The Unfit: A History of a Bad Idea, Carlson says that "liberals, left-wing ideologues, social reformers, people of good intentions, scholars, and totally innocent scientists all contributed to the eugenics movement" — not just a few malevolent scientists. (Black does note that Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger was "a bigot if not a racist" who associated with eugenicists.) "Evil movements try to pick legitimate science to bolster their fanaticism," Carlson adds.

"As an editor today, it's embarrassing," says physician Catherine DeAngelis, editor in chief of JAMA, who describes her journal as unremittingly hostile to eugenics today. As far back as a century ago, she notes articles in her journal were critical of eugenics, alongside other reports extolling the movement.

And elsewhere, Carlson notes, influential geneticist Hermann Muller denounced the American Eugenics movement as racist, elitist and sexist at the 1932 International Congress of Eugenics. A "Eugenics manifesto" signed in 1939 by 15 leading geneticists denounced race and class-based Eugenics, as well as the atrocities carried out in Nazi Germany.

After World War II, as Nazi atrocities became more widely known, eugenics largely disappeared. For example, the journal Eugenical News, changed its name to Social Biology, still published today but devoted to genuine demographic heath trends research.

The U.S. history of forced sterilizations is becoming more well-known: Last year, North Carolina's eugenics past was widely reported, resulting in the April repeal of the state's involuntary sterilization law.

Black worries that genetic engineering today poses the same dangers, expressing concerns about insurance coverage failing people with suspect genes, and parents augmenting children with "superior" genes in coming generations.

But DeAngelis sees echoes of eugenics in the plight of uninsured Americans. The sense of entitlement that led the best and the brightest to call for removal of the unfit allows 40 million to go without health insurance now, she says. "We don't castrate people anymore, but by not providing them access to health care, we still mistreat the weak and the poor."

posted May 06, 2007 01:59 PM              

Everybody now knows how evil Nazi eugenics were: How all sorts of people were exterminated not because of anything they had done but simply because of the way they had been born. And we have all heard how disastrous were the Nazi efforts to build up the "master race" through selective breeding of SS men with the best of German women -- the "Lebensborn" project. Good leftists today recoil in horror from all that of course and use their "Hitler was a conservative" mantra to load those evils onto conservatives. But Hitler was a socialist. As he himself said:

"We are socialists, we are enemies of today's capitalistic economic system for the exploitation of the economically weak, with its unfair salaries, with its unseemly evaluation of a human being according to wealth and property instead of responsibility and performance, and we are all determined to destroy this system under all conditions." (Speech of May 1, 1927. Quoted by Toland, 1976, p. 306)

So it should come as no surprise that Hitler's eugenics were an intergral part of his socialism and that the great supporters of compulsory eugenics worldwide in Hitler's day were overwhelmingly of the Left. Left-influenced historians commonly blur the distinction between a belief in eugenic or dysgenic processes and actually advocating a state-enforced eugenics program but we can find the facts if we look carefully. And it was American Leftists upon whom Hitler principally drew for his "inspiration" in the eugenics field.

In the USA, the great eugenicists of the first half of the 20th century were the "Progressives". As it says here:

A significant number of Progressives -- including David Starr Jordan, Robert Latham Owen, William Allen Wilson, Harry Emerson Fosdick, Robert Latou Dickinson, Katherine Bement Davis, and Virginia Gildersleeve--were deeply involved with the eugenics movement.
And as we read further here:

The second stage in the development of the eugenics movement extended from 1905 to 1930, when eugenics entered its period of greatest influence. More and more progressive reformers became convinced that a good proportion of the social ills in the United States lay in hereditary factors....

An educator, biologist, and leader of the American peace movement, Jordan's main contribution as a major architect of American eugenics was to bridge the gap between eugenics and other reform groups. Like other progressives, Jordan subscribed to the Populist-Progressive criticism of laissez-faire capitalism. Jordan had faith in progress and in a new generation. Yet, this optimistic environmentalism of Jordan's contradicted his Darwinian-hereditarian outlook of the world. Ironically, a similar ambivalence - - a "love-hate" attitude toward environmentalism - - ran through most progressive ideology.

For Jordan, the first president of Leland Stanford University, education permitted society's better members to outlive inferior peoples. Jordan believed the twentieth century had no place for the weak, the incompetent, and the uneducated. In addition, Jordan urged an end to indiscriminate and sentimental charity, a major factor he believed in the survival of the unfit. Jordan, like most progressives, viewed the urban setting as detrimental and destructive to human life. He held the general progressive belief in the social goodness of the small town or farm. The progressive's romantic attraction to the countryside can be partly explained by the alien character of the urban population. An increasing number of city dwellers belonged to the "undesirable foreign element."
And who were the Progressives? Here is the same writer's summary of them:

"Originally, progressive reformers sought to regulate irresponsible corporate monopoly, safeguarding consumers and labor from the excesses of the profit motive. Furthermore, they desired to correct the evils and inequities created by rapid and uncontrolled urbanization. Progressivism ..... asserted that the social order could and must be improved..... Some historians, like Richard Hofstadter and George Mowry, have argued that the progressive movement attempted to return America to an older, more simple, agrarian lifestyle. For a few progressives, this certainly was true. But for most, a humanitarian doctrine of social progress motivated the reforming spirit"
Sound familiar? The Red/Green alliance of today is obviously not new. Hitler got his eugenic theories from the leftists of his day; Hitler's eugenics were yet another part of his leftism!

Both quotes above are from De Corte's "Menace of the Undesirable" (1978). Against all his own evidence, De Corte also claims that the Progressives were "conservative." But the book by Pickens (1968) sets out the connection between the Progressives and eugenics far more throughly than the few quotes here can indicate.

Eugenics, however, was popular science generally in the first half of the 20th century. As a scientific idea it was not confined to Leftists. But note the difference in the implementation of eugenic ideas (again from De Corte):

Even early social crusaders held similar illiberal views. Josephine Shaw Lowell, a leader in asylum reform, stated in 1884 that "every person born into a civilized community has a right to live, yet the community has the right to say that incompetent and dangerous persons shall not, so far as can be helped, be born to acquire this right to live upon others. Thus, strands of eugenic-style racism not only found their way into conservative philosophy represented by Sumner and other Social Darwinists but so did progressive reform ideals. Consequently, reformers began viewing the criminal, insane, epileptic, retarded and impoverished as more products of their heredity than of their social surroundings.

Whereas Social Darwinists desired to let nature take its course in eliminating the "unfit," eugenicists, on the other hand, felt Social Darwinism had not accomplished the task of guaranteeing the "survival of the fittest" quickly enough. For eugenicists, the "vigorous classes" should be encouraged to have more children, while the "incompetent classes" should be compelled to have fewer. Consequently, eugenicists in their distrust of laissez-faire concluded that "natural selection" must be helped along.
To state his message another way: conservatives wanted to leave well enough alone; left-wingers, in their usual way, wanted to introduce compulsion into the matter.

And in Great Britain, too, the leftists of the first half of the 20th century were outspokenly in favor of eugenics. As just one instance, that famous philosopher, peacenik and anti-nuclear camapaigner, Bertrand Russell spoke in favor of it. Writing in "Icarus Or the Future of Science" in 1924 he clearly approved of it, though he did voice doubts about its being employed for the wrong purposes. In a letter to his first wife, feminist Alys Pearsall Smith, about socialism and "the woman question," he wrote of eugenics in words that could well have been Hitler's -- even echoing Hitler's bad grammar:

"Thee might observe incidentally that if the state paid for child-bearing it might and ought to require a medical certificate that the parents were such as to give a reasonable result of a healthy child -- this would afford a very good inducement to some sort of care for the race, and gradually as public opinion became educated by the law, it might react on the law and make that more stringent, until one got to some state of things in which there would be a little genuine care for the race, instead of the present haphazard higgledy-piggledy ways." (Quoted here.)
Even when Russell came to realize that state-sponsored eugenics could very easily fall into the wrong hands -- a realization he expresses in Icarus -- he still clearly saw it as desirable at least in theory. Nor was Russell alone in Britain. As this author notes:

The fact is that eugenics was popular across the political spectrum for many years, both in England and in North America (e.g., Paul, 1984; Soloway, 1990). In England, many socialists supported eugenics. Even those viewed as critics, such as J. B .S. Haldane, Lancelot Hogben and Julian Huxley were not against eugenics per se, but came to believe that eugenics in capitalist societies was infected with class bias. Even so, some (see Paul, 1984), accepted the idea of upper class genetic superiority.

Not only were R. B. Cattell's eugenic beliefs commonplace in that milieu, but he was influenced by prominent socialists who supported eugenics, men such as Shaw, Wells, Huxley and Haldane, some of whom he knew (Hurt, 1998). Jonathan Harwood (1980) actually cited the example of Cattell to demonstrate that British eugenics was not a right-wing preserve in the inter-war years (although Keith Hurt, 1998, has noted that Harwood later characterised Cattell's 1972 book on Beyondism as a "right-wing eugenic fantasy").

Oppenheim (1982) claimed that American eugenicists were opposed by those in the Progressive Movement, juxtaposing the hereditarian reformism of the former with the environmental reformism of the latter. Actually many progressives were also eugenicists and incorporated the idea of eugenic reforms into their larger agenda (e.g., Burnham, 1977); there was a great deal of cross-over between the two movements (e.g., Pickens, 1968).
The few real critics of eugenics in the early 20th century were mainly conservatives and Christians like G.K. Chesterton who saw eugenic planning as just another arm of the wider campaign to impose a "scientific" socialist planning. In fact Chesterton subtitled his anti-eugenics tract "Eugenics and Other Evils" as: "An Argument Against the Scientifically Organized State."

As we see from all the quotes above, the racialist thinking of the eugenic socialists was quite "scientific" and progressive in it's day, much as "global warming" is seen as scientific and progressive today. And many of the eugenics true believers continued on postwar moving into campaigns for legalised abortion, planned parenthood and population control. In fact some conservative critics have highlighted the racist roots of much of the liberal pro-abortion movement.

And eugenics of a sort is back on the Left: The Zero Population Growth brigade are back with their "people are pollution" attitudes! Only this time they want to halve our population. And it does seem to be the old gang from the 1960's again -- including Paul Ehrlich. The abject failure of their earlier prophecies, e.g., that we would all be doomed by the 1970s, has not given them occasion for pause.

The Feminist connection

And are feminists conservative? Hardly. And feminists are hardly a new phenomenon either. In the person of Margaret Sanger and others, they played an active and prominent role in the USA in the first half of the 20th century, advocating (for instance) abortion. For her energetic championing of eugenics, Margaret Sanger won a public admirer in no less a figure than Hitler himself. Naturally, the American eugenicists were virulently racist, desiring to reduce the black population. They shared Hitler's view that Jews were genetically inferior, opposing moves to allow Jews fleeing from Hitler into the United States. If Hitler's eugenics and racial theories were loathsome, it should be acknowledged that his vigorous supporters in the matter at that time were leftists and feminists, and their opponents were conservatives.

The Green connection

As in America, Hitler's eugenics were merely one aspect of a larger "Green" theme -- a theme that continues, of course, as the Red/Green alliance of today. The Nazis were probably the first major political party in the Western world to have a thoroughgoing "Green" agenda. A good short summary of that has been written by Andrew Bolt. He writes:

Here's a quote which may sound very familiar -- at least in part. "We recognise that separating humanity from nature, from the whole of life, leads to humankind's own destruction and to the death of nations.

"Only through a re-integration of humanity into the whole of nature can our people be made stronger . . .

"This striving toward connectedness with the totality of life, with nature itself, a nature into which we are born, this is the deepest meaning and the true essence of National Socialist thought."

That was Ernst Lehmann, a leading biologist under the Nazi regime, in 1934, and he wasn't alone. Hitler, for one, was an avid vegetarian and Green, addicted to homeopathic cures. His regime sponsored the creation of organic farming, and SS leader Heinrich Himmler even grew herbs on his own organic farm with which to treat his beloved troops.

Hitler also banned medical experiments on animals, but not, as we know to our grief, on Jewish children. And he created many national parks, particularly for Germany's "sacred" forests.

This isn't a coincidence. The Nazis drew heavily on a romantic, anti-science, nature worshipping, communal and anti-capitalist movement that tied German identity to German forests. In fact, Professor Raymond Dominick notes in his book, The Environmental Movement in Germany, two-thirds of the members of Germany's main nature clubs had joined the Nazi Party by 1939, compared with just 10 per cent of all men.

The Nazis also absorbed the German Youth Movement, the Wandervogel, which talked of our mystical relationship with the earth. Peter Staudenmaier, co-author of Ecofascism: Lessons from the German Experience, says it was for the Wandervogel that the philosopher Ludwig Klages wrote his influential essay Man and Earth in 1913. In it, Klages warned of the growing extinction of species, the destruction of forests, the genocide of aboriginal peoples, the disruption of the ecosystem and the killing of whales. People were losing their relationship with nature, he warned.

Heard all that recently? I'm not surprised. This essay by this notorious anti-Semite was republished in 1980 to mark the birth of the German Greens -- the party that inspired the creation of our own Green Party.

Its message is much as Hitler's own in Mein Kampf: "When people attempt to rebel against the iron logic of nature, they come into conflict with the very same principles to which they owe their existence as human beings. Their actions against nature must lead to their own downfall."

Why does this matter now? Because we must learn that people who want animals to be treated like humans really want humans to be treated like animals. We must realise a movement that stresses "natural order" and the low place of man in a fragile world, is more likely to think man is too insignificant to stand in the way of Mother Earth, or the Fatherland, or some other man-hating god. We see it already. A Greenpeace co-founder, Paul Watson, called humans the "AIDS of the earth," and one of the three key founders of the German Greens, Herbert Gruhl, said the environmental crisis was so acute the state needed perhaps "dictatorial powers."

The "big government" connection

As they do today, the leftists of the 1920s and 1930s captured most of the intellectuals and much of the educated class of the day and this gave them access to the levers of government power, which is of course what leftists want above all. Once in power, a culture of death prevailed, to wit:

"President Woodrow Wilson signed New Jersey's sterilization law, and one of his deputies descended to greater fame as a Nazi collaborator at Buchenwald. Pennsylvania's legislature passed an 'Act for the Prevention of Idiocy,' but the governor vetoed it .... Other states, however, joined the crusade. ... Eventually, the eugenicist virus found a hospitable host in Germany. There... it led to the death chambers of Buchenwald and Auschwitz. Thanks to the Nazis, highly praised by eugenicists here, the movement eventually collapsed. But not before nearly 50,000 Americans were sterilized."
And someone from the past who is still something of a hero to the Left is the American jurist Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., who famously said: "When you pay taxes you buy civilisation." This was quoted approvingly recently by Simon Crean, Federal Parliamentary leader of the Australian Labor Party. Crean somehow failed to note that Holmes was also known for ordering compulsory sterilizations of the supposedly mentally ill: Yet another forgotten American inspiration for Adolf.

California was also one of the earliest supporters of eugenics laws and in fact provided the model for Hitler's laws:

Under the banner of "national regeneration," tens of thousands, mostly poor women, were subjected to involuntary sterilization in the United States between 1907 and 1940. And untold thousands of women were sterilized without their informed consent after World War II. Under California's 1909 sterilization law, at least 20,000 Californians in state hospitals and prisons had been involuntarily sterilized by 1964. California, according to a recent study, "consistently outdistanced every other state" in terms of the number of eugenic sterilizations....

California not only led the nation in forced sterilizations, but also in providing scientific and educational support for Hitler's regime. In 1935, Sacramento's Charles M. Goethe praised the Human Betterment Foundation for effectively "shaping the opinions of the group of intellectuals who are behind Hitler…." In 1936, Goethe acknowledged the United States and Germany as leaders in eugenics ("two stupendous forward movements"), but complained that "even California's quarter century record has, in two years, been outdistanced by Germany." In 1936, California eugenicist Paul Popenoe was asking one of his Nazi counterparts for information about sterilization policies in Germany in order to make sure that "conditions in Germany are not misunderstood or misrepresented." .....

California's eugenicists could not claim ignorance that Germany's sterilization program was motivated primarily by racial politics. For example, in 1935, the Los Angeles Times published a long defense of Germany's sterilization policies, in which the author noted that the Nazis "had to resort to the teachings of eugenic science" because Germany had been "deprived of her colonies, blessed with many hundreds of defective racial hybrids as a lasting memory of the colored army of occupation, and dismembered all around." Not only did California eugenicists know about Nazi efforts to use sterilization as a method of "race hygiene" -- targeted primarily at Jews -- but they also approved efforts to stop "race-mixing" and increase the birth rate of the "Northern European type of family." The chilling words of Progressive reformer John Randolph Haynes anticipated the Nazi regime's murder of 100,000 mentally ill patients: "There are thousands of hopelessly insane in California, the condition of those minds is such that death would be a merciful release. How long will it be before society will see the criminality of using its efforts to keep alive these idiots, hopelessly insane, and murderous degenerates. … Of course the passing of these people should be painless and without warning. They should go to sleep at night without any intimation of what was coming and never awake."
Another country that is to this day a model and inspiration to leftists everywhere is Sweden -- with its all-embracing welfare State. So what happened in Sweden? As we read here:

During the Nazi era in Germany, eugenics prompted the sterilization of several hundred thousand people then helped lead to anti-Semitic programs of euthanasia and ultimately, of course, to the death camps. The association of eugenics with the Nazis is so strong that many people were surprised at the news several years ago that Sweden had sterilized around 60 000 people (mostly women) between the 1930s and 1970s. The intention was to reduce the number of children born with genetic diseases and disorders. After the turn of the century, eugenics movements -- including demands for sterilization of people considered unfit -- had, in fact, blossomed in the United States, Canada, Britain, and Scandinavia, not to mention elsewhere in Europe and in parts of Latin America and Asia. Eugenics was not therefore unique to the Nazis.
So what exactly did happen in the USA? I am indebted to one of my fellow bloggers for a useful summary of one of the cases. Some extracts:

In the 1920's, the eugenics movement was ... popular. So popular in fact, that mandatory sterilization laws were passed in 34 states from the mid-1920's to mid-30's. Basically, these laws stated that sterilization was mandatory for socially undesirable persons. "The socially inadequate classes, regardless of etiology or prognosis, are the following: (1) Feeble-minded; (2) Insane, (including psychopathic); (3) Criminalistic (including the delinquent and wayward); (4) Epileptic; (5) Inebriate (including drug habitues)..." [etc]. So basically, if you were hyperactive, promiscuous, an alcoholic or drug addict, had cerebral palsy or Down's syndrome, were epileptic, (etc., ad nauseum), or exhibited ANY socially undesirable behavior at all, you were eligible for mandatory sterilization. And not you, nor your parents (if you were a minor) had any right to say "No."

In the mid 1920's, Carrie Buck, at the ripe old age of 17, fought the state of Virginia's mandatory sterilization statute. She was classified as a socially inferior woman, having born a child out of wedlock and her foster parents stated that she was "a handful". Carrie's mother had also been incarcerated in a state institution as a 'promiscuous woman'. And at the age of 7 months, Carrie's child, Vivian, was 'certified' as being 'deficient,' based on the 'history' of Carrie and her mother.

Carrie lost her case at the state court level, and it wound up in front of the Supreme Court in 1927. The prominent Supreme Court jurist, Oliver Wendel Holmes, wrote the opinion in Buck v. Bell. The decision was 8-1, Justice Butler dissenting. Here's what the majority opinion boiled down to:

"In order to prevent our being swamped with incompetents... society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind. The principle that sustains compulsory vaccination is broad enough to cover cutting the Fallopian tubes." ...

"It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or to let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind…Three generations of imbeciles are enough." — Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. (Buck v. Bell, 1927)

Five months after this decision, Carrie was forcibly sterilized. It later came out that her promiscuity was nothing of the sort. She'd been raped by the nephew of her foster parents, himself a violent (unsterilized) little scumbag. And her daughter's school records show that Vivian was a B student, receiving an A in deportment (behavior), and she was on the honor roll. Genetic tests later showed that neither Carrie nor her daughter had any genetic defects.
Conservative eugenics?

I should note that economist Steven Levitt's work suggests that the old leftist eugenics program of reducing the birth rate (via abortion) among the "lower classes" was not totally misconceived. Levitt's findings seem to show that making voluntary abortion available to poorer mothers reduces the crime rate years later. He is at pains of course to indicate that his empirical findings are not an endorsement of either eugenics nor abortion. Slate featured a three-day correspondence between him and Steve Sailer dealing with the issue.

Given the traditional conservative regard for individual liberty, it seems to me that the only eugenics programs that conservatives could justify would be voluntary ones, such as the large material incentives to reproduce that the Singapore government offers to highly educated Singaporean women. Christian conservatives, however, tend to regard all reproduction as God-given so would oppose even voluntary eugenic programs that limit reproduction, such as the Woodhill Foundation programs that pay crack-addicted mothers to undertake contraception.

Leftists, however, oppose the Woodhill programs because they are voluntary and privately-funded. They like such matters to be in the hands of the State (i.e., under their control).

And the problem of a self-perpetuating and substantially criminal underclass does not need to be addressed by eugenics. It can be addressed by addressing its major causes, such as the over-generous welfare system that the Left has created to thunderous praise.

And despite everything, there are useful and non-coercive eugenics programs in operation right now. Genetic screening in the U.S. Jewish community has now all but eliminated the awful hereditary disease Tay-Sachs.

Shifting the blame

Modern-day left-wingers hate it when you point out that it was they who inspired Hitler and in their reaction try to shift the blame, even to the most unlikely targets. A recent book has tried to lay the blame for the Left's eugenics of the early 20th century at the door of someone who opposed all compulsion. As the book reviewer says:

It has long been open season on Herbert Spencer (1820-1903). Perhaps because he was the 19th century's most prominent defender of individual liberty and critic of the violence of the state, Spencer has always been the object of hatred and distortion; indeed, it sometimes seems that no accusation is too bizarre to be leveled against him...

What common ground could there be between Spencer and the eugenicists? Both, to be sure, were 'Social Darwinists,' if that means that both thought there were important sociopolitical lessons to be drawn from evolutionary biology. But Spencer and the eugenicists drew opposite lessons. For the eugenicists, the moral of evolutionary biology was that the course of human evolution must be coercively managed and controlled by a centralized, paternalistic technocracy. For Spencer, by contrast, the moral was that coercive, centralized, paternalistic approaches to social problems were counterproductive and so would tend to be eliminated by the spontaneous forces of social evolution ....
It is a good comment on the dismal minds of leftists that they think that nothing can be accomplished except through compulsion. And accomplish a lot they have. And in the realm of eugenics, Adolf Hitler remains their most successful disciple.

References:

posted May 06, 2007 02:14 PM              

from Star Signs ~

"not killing is so basic it shouldn't even need to be mentioned. if you have formerly killed "in the line of duty," with the mistaken notion of "patriotism," forgive yourself. there's never a real reason for killing anything or anybody. there is always a way to solve a "dangerous," existential situation where your murder or another person's murder or another person's murder is threatened, without killing the aggressor. There is always a way to prevent the death of one person without killing another."

posted May 06, 2007 07:07 PM            

Yes, I do believe I addressed Linda referring to killing others, especially on a more personal level and particularly in that quote regarding individual karma. But, as Linda also clearly pointed out in her writings, war is altogether a different and more a human-general issue. Though it does indeed touch on individual karma, it has much to do with national, and what she called "racial" karma, as well.

And again, we all understand that war is not ideal.

I'm a big fan of the microcosm/macrocosm theory. Because I also believe in the theory of Free Will, then, I believe that as each person works towards their "higher ideals" that the negativity on a larger Earth scale will be transmuted, as well. It's a theory of tolerance for other people's individual paths and mistakes that I learned from Linda, Steiner and many others. You know ... how an individual's toxic feelings regarding themselves, other people or circumstances out of their control is, in the end, what seeps into our material reality to create such negative things as war in the first place. I have called it a collective human issue of inner toxicity ... and as Steiner has many times said, it derives from Ego. His theory that our world will not be saved by being political or anti-political but rather by each one of us overcoming our Egos is one I've taken to heart.

posted May 06, 2007 08:15 PM            

quote:

---

His theory that our world will not be saved by being political or anti-political but rather by each one of us overcoming our egos is one I've taken to heart.

---

Eleanore, I subed a lower case e in ego... don`t wanna give it an important shout out

------------------
~
What we do for ourselves dies with us. What we do for others and the world is immortal"~

posted May 07, 2007 12:04 AM              

War, from a spritual perspective, certainly is a difficult concept. Naiad, I can't help but admire your ability to remember the individual lives touched by war. We're taught to look away from this or, at best, consider the lives ruined or lost as merely "collateral damage". Anthroposophically speaking , that's Ahrimanic. On the other hand, I agree with Eleanore that war is also very much national and/or racial and tribal karma being played out, in addition to the individual element. It makes me sick to think that my son might grow up to kill or be killed in war. But I must acknowledge that his destiny, no matter how pleasant or unpleasant it might appear, is in the hands of the Almighty. Not a sparrow falls without his knowledge and leave.

posted May 07, 2007 01:40 AM              

quote:

---

you are equally "profiting" from this war just by living in this country, supporting a war-economy with your money, supporting the war effort with your tax dollars (assuming you work and/or pay taxes, of course),

---

yes...that would seem the reason there is so much supoort here for this war. for genocide, oil, racism, territory....we ALL profit....and find myriad ways to justify it. we are so very spiritual aren't we?

of course, those who don't support war, and question the motive of the military-industrial complex....well, we are just toxic people, i s'pose.

i think we should all give oursleves a big, proud pat on the back for being so utterly ego-less, and fighting for the rationale that allows us to bless ourselves and continue killing off the population so that we can keep on justifying our over-consumption of the planet.

posted May 07, 2007 02:11 AM              

quote:

---

Perhaps war is not what we should strive for and will one day no longer need, not because you or I or anyone else admonished people but because each individual evolved their own, free understanding of better ways of dealing with conflict and creating true peace and harmony? You know, on their own, through their own work on their own path making their own mistakes then correcting themselves and moving on until they reached where we all are headed?

---

so...why support the current war in the middle east...? why applaud with such vim and vigor WW2....? why not allow all those war-makers the spiritual opportunity to do their own work, make their own mistakes and then move on....why not allow them their own, individual evolved free understanding of better ways of dealing with conflict and creating true peace and harmony?

posted May 07, 2007 07:22 AM            

******

Tink! Very well said and, after all the times I and others have said the same, it's hard to believe that we are still misunderstood and/or misrepresented. Ah, well. At least being disagreed with doesn't get under my skin.

I remember first coming across that concept as a teen and my egoic mind blanking for a moment. Then the, "You mean I won't know the exact reasons behind everything one day?" moment. What freedom in surrender that was! Those moments always serve to inspire me even when keeping on a narrow road gets tricky. It may be narrow but it sure is long and winding with much overgrowth at times.

Anyway, I believe Tolkien worded it best when he spoke of the Valar each understanding a different part of Illuvatar's mind and some understanding more than others ... but none understanding it in its entirety. The same thread was followed in the music ... no matter how individuals try to disrupt it, we will find all our works only serve to make His original idea more beautiful.

But that requires much Faith.

I believe Linda said something along the same vein ... that no matter how sour things may seem, how much it may seem like the forces of good are losing strength, the closer we are to achieving a great step forward in spiritual evolution on Earth. She did reference it much, I believe ... darkest before dawn, history's eleventh hour, etc. And, like Steiner, one of her great messages was to not give up Faith, no matter how bleak things may seem to our earthly understanding. Evolving into Self. Living in the Now. And all that lovely jazz.

posted May 07, 2007 07:59 AM            

I guess you missed the part about that not being my logic. The words you quoted me on are just as ridiculous as your presumptions that I somehow "profit" from this war because of my husband's career. Which was the point to begin with.

Please, though, elaborate on exactly how I personally profit from this war since you seem to disagree with the fact that I don't.

Walking and talking, two entirely different things. At least, they are to me and many others.

Are we so very spiritual? I'm not overly concerned with judging people to be spiritual or not by my personal standards. Neither am I concerned with people disagreeing with my personal beliefs or with questioning the places others choose to frequent because of these differences. Rather, those appear to be some of your concerns in this thread.

At the very least, you appear to be enjoying your imaginary trip into other people's beliefs ... beliefs about which you very clearly know nothing but assume everything. I realize you don't see it that way, and probably won't even if people attempt to explain themselves to you any further.

I can't imagine who's been slapping you on the wrist. It may be a shock but not everyone is out to get you. Well, in your mental reality they may be but that's a different story.

I see you are clinging to your concept of apersonal terms. Your ambitions for status due to your newly learned way of insulting people to become popular, egoless, and spiritual ... well, good luck with that path if it's what you are choosing for yourself. Perhaps your efforts and achievements in this will be satisfactory to you and you will finally have what you truly desire, be happy and/or at peace with yourself and the world? I doubt it but then that's just my opinion. Imo, we are free to see the world as we choose regardless of "reality" so please don't let my opinion influence your quest.

I have nothing to do with allowing others to make mistakes or not. That's the whole Free Will thing I was talking about earlier. If I have the Free Will to be peaceful, so do you. If I have the Free Will to be antagonistic, so do you. If one has the Free Will to choose to murder innocent people then others also have the Free Will to choose to kill him and stop him from killing others. It's Free Will all around, assuming you believe in that concept, and it's not really as difficult as it seems.

posted May 07, 2007 08:13 AM              

the Universal Laws are immutable, and this karma, has been happening since the beginning, set into Motion, by actions...

9/11 happended, if we had not gone to War, how many more 9/11's would have occurred?

we're in Iraq, why, karma, set in Motion, every action, had a re-action, should we just walk away, and let the Middle East take Over the World??? Let the terrorists do whatever they want???

LOts of questions to be asked, a whole big picture, set into MOtion. ...

what do we do, we as humans, need to start with OurSelves, to undertake to do all with LOve, if everyOne did that, there would be no War... .

posted May 07, 2007 09:53 AM              

I vaguely recall suggesting several months ago that, this being a spiritually inclined site, a more esoteric perspective on world political events might do us all good. No one seemed interested.

I do support WW11 with vim and vigor because it is my belief that the attempted incarnation of the anti-Christ was thwarted. Were all motives of the Allies pure and noble? Hardly. But some were and given the choice between Churchill and Roosevelt or Hitler I'll gladly take the former. As an reader of Steiner, naiad, I can't honestly imagine you feeling differently.

quote:

---

what do we do, we as humans, need to start with OurSelves, to undertake to do all with LOve, if everyOne did that, there would be no War... .

but, people can't even do that here in LL, so, what are we going to do?

---

posted May 07, 2007 09:56 AM              

I vaguely recall suggesting several months ago that, this being a spiritually inclined site, a more esoteric perspective on world political events might do us all good. No one seemed interested. It's a worthwile subject, I think.

I do support WW11 with vim and vigor because it is my belief that the attempted incarnation of the anti-Christ was thwarted. Were all motives of the Allies pure and noble? Hardly. But some were and given the choice between Churchill and Roosevelt or Hitler I'll gladly take the former. As an admirerof Steiner, naiad, I can't honestly imagine you feeling differently.

quote:

---

what do we do, we as humans, need to start with OurSelves, to undertake to do all with LOve, if everyOne did that, there would be no War... .

but, people can't even do that here in LL, so, what are we going to do?

---

posted May 07, 2007 10:00 AM              

not sure I remember, but to Mind comes this...

In ancient times, the supreme power were Masters, initiated...today, we do not have
Masters in high positions. ...

posted May 07, 2007 10:54 AM              

quote:

---

it's hard to believe that we are still misunderstood and/or misrepresented.

---

you are not misunderstood in the least....as much as you attempt to misrepresent and twist things around.

quote:

---

At least being disagreed with doesn't get under my skin.

---

really?...another example of your saying something when you mean the exact opposite. the large amount of snide and passive aggressive self-justification that you replied to me with, and generally do, illustrates it perfectly. yes, most of your superiority is cloaked in passive aggressvie, sacharin double-speak, then utter denial about it. you've spent volumes of words waxing on and on and on about the passive aggressive behavior of members here without ever mentioning anyone's name. apersonal, again. though it was very clear whom you meant. winky winky. even here you only reference what others have said about my being passive aggressive -- not that you'd ever stoop that low, to be sure. and how successful again you were at calling me passive aggressive without actually doing so. if you wish to call me that, i don't mind in the least; it is however, quite humorous to see you doing it in a such a passive aggressive way.

and if you're wrong, then i might or might not make the tiresome effort to say so. but it's quite evident that that is your typical m.o.

quote:

---

Anyway, I believe Tolkien worded it best when he spoke of the Valar each understanding a different part of Illuvatar's mind and some understanding more than others ... but none understanding it in its entirety. The same thread was followed in the music ... no matter how individuals try to disrupt it, we will find all our works only serve to make His original idea more beautiful.

---

again, such a pointed effort to illustrate your superiority, though of course you will deny it with much blustery protest....you of course being one of the elevated few who understands more than others....and no doubt, those who oppose the grand nobility of your precious war, though of course we can say that in not so many words -- or in your case lots and lots of double-negative speak....are the poor idiots who simply are trying to be disruptive. sigh.

oh but the best and the brightest among us have Faith...in spite of the low-spiritual quotient of those who question their superiority. oh and we all know whom we mean -- even without naming names of course....yet again.

quote:

---

I believe Linda said something along the same vein ... that no matter how sour things may seem, how much it may seem like the forces of good are losing strength, the closer we are to achieving a great step forward in spiritual evolution on Earth. She did reference it much, I believe ... darkest before dawn, history's eleventh hour, etc. And, like Steiner, one of her great messages was to not give up Faith, no matter how bleak things may seem to our earthly understanding. Evolving into Self. Living in the Now. And all that lovely jazz.

---

posted May 07, 2007 11:11 AM              

quote:

---

I guess you missed the part about that not being my logic. The words you quoted me on are just as ridiculous as your presumptions that I somehow "profit" from this war because of my husband's career. Which was the point to begin with.

---