Comment below: **
--- In [email protected], Vaj <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > On Oct 14, 2007, at 6:06 PM, Angela Mailander wrote: > > > Yes, I totally agree. Hitler was used by those who still want to > > establish the New World Order. In fact, he was told in those exact > > terms, New World Order, that he would be "instrumental" in > > establishing it. He wasn't told that he'd only be a step along > > the way, though. He believed he was to be the big enchilada---the > > thousand-year Reich was to be sat-yuga. The antisemitism was not > > real in the same sense that the terrorists we're all afraid of > > today are not real. Hitler needed a single enemy to focus the > > people's attention on. There is even some evidence that Jews > > supplied him with the notion that they could be that single enemy. > > It's not conclusive evidence, but certainly the Warburgs were > > involved in it, in spite of the fact that Paul Warburg lost two > > close relatives in the death camps. a > > > Are there really significant parallels between the Third Reich and > Mahesh "yogis" spiritual movement though? And are these same ideas > being cloned onto splinter satsang groups? > > Rick posted a very interesting link to a video which purported to be > by an ex-KGB agent which claimed groups like the KGB were observing > the TMO for ideas in undermining nations. > **end** Hannah Arendt's books The Origin of Totalitarianism was a very powerful awakening to me of how the TMO and Maharishi operate, albeit (perhaps), unconsciously. The fundamental diagram of the leader at the very center of the movement, with concentric cells of followers around the leader, extending outwards from the font of the ideology to the general public at large, with each level at its own position on the gradient from closer to the leader to farthest away; from the inner circle to John & Jane Q. Public. What I really got from it was how the organization of "higher" levels within the movement allowed the leader to insulate himself (or herself) from the larger, consensual reality that the ideology was prepared to supplant. The first relational dynamic is just the leader and the rest of the world. Once the leader has followers there is a division (to one degree or another) between them and the "outside the ideology" world. What really got to me was how she described the totalitarian leader's natural organization of "levels" *within* the new movement and the setting of qualifications/bars to admittance to each new level; each new level or intimacy with the ideology (and/or the leader) requiring not only a greater commitment to the ideology but also a greater rejection of the outside world. In this model those on the outside levels are equally important to the organization, however, because they entirely interface with the greater social reality and function as conduits for resources from the outside world (money, for instance) as well as buffers from that world for those on the inner levels. With the establishment of each new level, Arendt says, the leader demands an increased personal commitment which some percentage cannot muster and so find themselves relegated to a lower, less powerful level (as perceived by the follower) as a new inner circle is created. Fanaticism is selected for and 'bred' into the movement; furthermore, it increasingly becomes the ideal strived for. It matched my experiences of the TMO. (As a total side note and not to draw a parallel with the TMO, Arendt points out how the first SS officers to run the first mobile gas chambers for the elimination of the Jews, were chosen from the very best and intelligent of the military. Their idealism and character was invoked as necessary to do what might be seen as despicable by the outside world; their integrity was needed to be sure that what they did was right and noble. It was a complete conversion of principle to justify unprincipled behavior.) Marek
