Thanks Peter. I won't stay here very long here, as I have other things to do.
However, to prove that the saying "search and thou shall find" works,
I would like to share with you part of a comment by Peter Mollenhauer
that I have found on a recorded lecture by Rudolf Steiner titled "The Ahrimanic Deception",
given in Zurich, on October 27, 1919. For those of you who are not Christian,
please read the word Christ as the Higher Self or Cosmic Consciousness...
Great views! Food for thought! Enjoy!
"One of Rudolf Steiner's lecture tours, May 6 through May 18, 1915, took him to
Vienna, Prague and Linz. In all three cities he stressed that the Christ figure in the
sculptured group would have to be portrayed as a being in equipoise between the
polar forces of Lucifer and Ahriman and that this being was symbol of, and model
for, man's own existence here on earth. The Linz lecture, which is here translated,
presents the group in a world-historical context and relates the significance of the
Lucifer-Christ-Ahriman configuration to the events surrounding World War I.
Steiner sees a parallel between Christ's central, but equalizing position and
Central Europe's mission in World War I. He implies that Germany's and
Austria's militarism and political intransigence alone did not lead to war against
the world powers in the East (Russia) and the West (France, England and, since
1917, the United States). According to Steiner, World War I was the earthly
expression of a struggle between luciferic forces in the East and ahrimanic forces
in the West, and it was Central Europe's destiny to mediate between these forces.
The fundamental polarization of East and West that Rudolf Steiner saw emerging
more than six decades ago is now a political reality. While most historians today
concede that World War II was in part caused by the circumstances surrounding
World War I, few would accept Rudolf Steiner's statement from his Linz lecture
that World War I was "destined by the European karma" or, to state it more
concretely, that it was unavoidable. If the war could not have been avoided, then
the question of who was to blame or who caused it is, as Steiner says, irrelevant.
Based on this position, Steiner suggests that only one question has relevancy:
"Who could have prevented the war?" This question seems to contradict Steiner's
statement that World War I was destined by the European karma. A quick glance
at the historical record may help to clarify what Steiner meant.
In suggesting that the Russian government and possibly England, could have
prevented the war, Steiner simply deals with possibilities outside the realm of
what had to happen according to European karma. Russia's instigation of the two
Peace Conferences in the Hague (1899 and 1907) was indeed self-serving and
hypocritical, for it was Russia that, in 1914, mobilized its armed forces without
considering British proposals for peace negotiations. Under these circumstances
and considering the political immaturity of the German leadership, it was not
surprising that the German Raiser and his generals over-reacted to the Russian
mobilization and interpreted it as a declaration of war. Kaiser Wilhelm II and
Czar Nicholas II, who were cousins, frantically exchanged telegrams in which one
beseeched the other to preserve the peace, but to no avail. The war machinery was
already overheated by the forces of chauvinism and materialism so that even from
this vantage point Steiner was correct in maintaining that war was unavoidable.
Regarding the possibility of preventing the war, a glance at the major Western
powers involved in the controversy, and at Germany, reveals the following
historical facts. France, for thirty years an ally of Russia, did nothing to prevent
the war because she did not attempt to delay the hasty Russian mobilization. Her
representatives said later that France regretted the Russian action, but there seems
little doubt that France was more interested in presenting herself as the innocent
victim of an attack. On the other hand, England's foreign secretary, Sir Edward
Grey, could have prevented the war if he had taken earlier measures to discourage
Germany's militarists from asserting themselves in their country, but in view of
the English tradition and the English Constitution, this was probably not possible.
Finally, the confusion in Germany itself was caused by a lack of understanding of
who had legitimate authority to make decisions. Eventually, the political decisions
were made by generals who managed to spread the belief that the fatherland was
in peril and that Germany herself was not the attacker, but the attacked. Thus,
theoretically, any one of these three powers could have prevented the war but that,
as Rudolf Steiner points out in the lecture, is not the real issue.
Furthermore, the war did not emerge out of a French or Russian moral conviction
that was responsive to Germany militarism. Rather, the goal of crushing German
militarism emerged well after the war had begun. The war could be interpreted, in
this sense, to be inevitable because it was not generated from a goal, but exploded
and then developed its goals. In this war of attrition, materialism camouflaged
itself with nationalistic sentiment and strove for absolute expression and triumph.
It is against such a background of perplexity and misguided fervor that Rudolf
Steiner's message to Central Europeans must be read. In rejecting the question of
who had caused the war, Steiner dismissed as equally irrelevant the question of
who was to blame for materialism. Materialism was there, as was Ahriman.
Steiner admonished the Central Europeans to counterbalance materialism by
adopting a spiritual perception of life and by striving for an encounter with the
Christ.
This profound spiritual responsibility that Steiner put on the Germans in 1915 was
disregarded and the challenge passed by. After World War I it was not the Christ,
but Adolf Hitler who, under the guise of "savior," emerged as Germany's Nemesis
and was thus catapulted into a central position. When Hitler was finally destroyed,
Central Europe broke up into two parts, one of which disappeared behind the Iron
Curtain, while the other aligned with the West.
As it stands today, Rudolf Steiner's call to instate the Christ in His central position
has yet to be fully received and responded to not only by the people living in what
is left of Central Europe, but also in the rest of the world.
- Peter Mollenhauer"
EU membership is the new new name of exploitation. After the Turks left Bulgaria, first Russians, then the Franco-German alliance, how nice to be colonialized 
