A Consideration from exoteric and spiritual scientific perspectives
in her introduction: what is public opinion?
I propose to deal with the topic in two parts. The I propose to deal with the topic in two parts. The first will be exoteric and the second will be from a spiritual scientific perspective. I do not want to go about it in an abstract and theoretical way, but rather introduce some symptomatic examples of what one can understand by the term “public opinion”.
Der hier neu zugängliche Pearl Harbor-Film von Roy Davies wurde 1989 vom BBC unter dem Titel «Sacrifice at Pearl Harbor» ausgestrahlt und später auch von deutschen TV-Stationen übernommen.
Er enthält authentische Aufzeichnungen und Dokumente und eine Reihe gespielter Dialoge aufgrund solcher Dokumente. Im Kern enthüllt er die bis heute von offizieller US-Seite verschleierte Tatsache, dass der japanische Angriff auf Pearl Harbor von der US-Administration provoziert und dank decodierter japanischer Botschaften in allen Einzelheiten im voraus bekannt war. Das in Washington bekannte Auslaufen der japanischen Flotte wurde aber den Befehlshabern auf Hawai verschwiegen, die tatsächlich vom Angriff in den Morgenstunden des 7. Dezember 1941 überrascht wurden. Präsident Rosevelt schaffte damit den nötigen Vorwand, um das amerikanische Volk für den Beitritt in den Zweiten Weltkrieg zu gewinnen.
Ein ähnlicher Vorwand für die Welteroberungspläne der US-Administration wurde am 11. September 2001 geschaffen. Dieses Ereignis wurde von offizieller Seite wiederholt mit dem «Überraschungsangriff» auf Pearl Harbor verglichen. Der Vergleich ist verräterisch. Er zeigt, dass Pearl Harbor als Präzendenzfall von 9/11 zu betrachten. In beiden Fällen wurden rund 3000 Menschen geopfert, um bestimmte Welteroberungsintentionen zu verwirklichen. Näheres dazu in Thomas Meyer, Der 11. September 2001 – Das neue Pearl Harbor.
The Seasons and the Seasonal festivals in the Southern Hemisphere
Geert Suwelack (1920–2003) was a priest of the Christian Community working in Sao Paolo. He investigated the question of seasonal realities in the Northern and the Southern hemispheres, based on numerous statements by Rudolf Steiner. We publish his üpionmeering work in this respect. It was first published 1979, 33 years ago.
“I sincerely believe . . . that banking establishments are more dangerous than standing armies; and that the principle of spending money to be paid by posterity, under the name of funding, is but swindling futurity on a large scale.” Thomas Jefferson1 Third President of the United States (1801 – 1809)
This article is a brief primer on the Federal Reserve System (the “Fed”), the central bank of the United States. It is not a comprehensive exposition of the whys, the hows, or the players who control this system, or its manifold influence in all areas of life. Materials covering such topics proliferate in hundreds, if not thousands, of books, newspaper and magazine articles, videos, blogs and websites. Only the basic structure of the United States banking system and the nature of money and its creation are summarily set forth, with references for those who wish to pursue the subject further. The nature and workings of the US Federal Reserve System are relevant for European readers, as in many ways the Fed functions as the central bank of the world.
For over a year a powerful wind has been storming across the globe: one demonstration has followed another. To demonstrate is a human right, a subjective right that is the same for each human being. The concept of human rights proceeds from the idea that all human beings have these equal rights solely on the basis of their human existence and that these rights are universal, inalienable and indivisible. The right to demonstrate proceeds from the rights to freedom of thought, conscience and religion, to freedom of opinion, the freedom to express that free opinion and the right of assembly. Weiterlesen »
See also Barrett’s review of Meyers book reality, Truht and Evil [Johannes, hier bitte link zur Rezension von Barrett unter ENGLISH einfügen] and the website of Barrett: Muslim-Jewish-Christian Alliance for 9/11 Truth – www.mujca.com
Notes on Wilde’s life and his posthumous writing De Profundis
The following contributions have been made on the occasion of the Oscar Wilde Conference organised by Marcus Schneider on 31 May/1 June 2008 at the Scala Basel, where the eurythmy ensemble, Eurythmiegruppe Stuttgart, (artistic director: Elisabeth Brinkmann) performed Wilde’s one-act play Salomé. The play was having its première in 1896 at the time when its author was serving his sentence in Reading Gaol. The following presentation has been edited and at some passages expanded.
The book Anthroposophie in Deutschland bears the characteristics of a political broadside by means of which the opponents – in this case Rudolf Steiner and Anthroposophy – are to be slandered. In order to accomplish this, the author employs various methods and “stratagems” such as, for example, de- contextualising quotations and thus changing their meaning, excluding facts or bringing unsubstantiated claims. Does this only concern a dissenter freely expressing his opinion? Perhaps there is more to it: If it is true that Zander qualified as a university lecturer on the basis of this treatise* then he would not stand alone when under public scrutiny—but also together with all the experts (that are needed in the course of a habilitation) and the faculty members involved, i.e. the „crème de la crème“ of the research community. In this case, the question would be: Is it possible that someone who presents a dissertation which so flagrantly disregards research criteria, nevertheless successfully clears all the academic hurdles and attains a university teaching qualification?
Dr. Jutta Schwarz, Zürich
* Ed. comment: The following statement is found in the epilogue of Zander’s book, pg. 1717: “Rüdiger von Bruch, historian at Humboldt University, Berlin, undertook the risk of assuming responsibility for part of this work as fulfilment of a postdoctoral thesis.” Zander does not indicate which part.
Helmut Zander’s publication Anthroposophie in Deutschland – Theosophische Weltanschauung und gesellschaftliche Praxis 1884–1945 (Göttingen 2007) [Anthroposophy in Germany – Theosophical worldview and its social practice 1884 – 1945] has aroused interest and has been met with approval in anthroposophical and other circles. The following analysis shows that Zander dismisses the scientific character of Anthroposophy, without himself having at his disposal a comprehensive, clear concept of scientific research and without himself having undertaken a genuine and serious study of the epistemological foundations of Anthroposophy.
For this reason, Zander’s work—despite a wealth of partially accurate, but also in part plainly incorrect, isolated fragments of information—has the character of a pseudo-scientific polemic against Steiner’s spiritual science. In November Der Europäer published a study by Dr. Peter Selg which provides carefully substantiated evidence that Zander’s representation of the development of anthroposophical medicine is characterised by allegations, half-truths and misjudgements.
Articles by Meyer and Selg can be downloaded here as PDF files (in German):
It is most unusual in our circles to find an author who writes a novel. Thomas Meyer, publisher of Perseus Verlag Basel, well known lecturer, and author of some outstanding biographies, such as that of Ludwig Polzer-Hoditz and D. N. Dunlop, brought out a novel relating to the end of the millennium, under the intriguing title «The Contract That Cannot Be Broken». It takes place in 1998.
The “scientific research” methods of present day opponents of anthroposophy
In connection with the repeated, rehashed claims that Rudolf Steiner’s writings contain racist and anti-Semitic comments, various opponents of Anthroposophy have recently put in the pillory yet again the following statement: “Judaism as such has long since lived itself out and no longer has legitimacy within modern national life. The fact that it has nevertheless preserved itself is a flaw of world history, the consequences of which could not be avoided”. This passage is taken from an essay written by Steiner in 1888 about Robert Hamerling’s epic poem, Homunkulus, in which he defends Hamerling against the accusations raised concerning anti-Semitism following publication of the epic.
Taken in context, the cited comment refers to nothing more than the idea of a self-contained national entity—rejected by many Jews at that time—versus the complete assimilation of the Jewish nation “into modern national life” which many Jews had accomplished previously, over the course of centuries. Already in March 2000, Der Europäer corrected the misinterpretation of this and other passages by Steiner.*
The methods employed by most opponents at that time and also today can be described with the following analogy: Someone writes down the name “Douglas”; someone else comes along and claims that this name must be “taken out of circulation” because every person called by this name would be offended—for the name contains the elements D, O and G which undisputedly spell “DOG”! Using precisely this method, passages of Steiner’s writings are arbitrarily cited out of context and presented as offensive. There is no difference in the level of operation. Those who work with such methods cannot claim scientific credibility or the right to censor Steiner’s writings.