Back to Buccaneering and the Jolly Roger?

This article was first published in New  View magazine 3rd Quarter Summer 2015


I am myself. I “identify” with myself and am responsible to and for myself and my actions and for the care of my body. I am also a member of the human race, the extended human family or community, and identify as such. I am aware of the body of the world, which supports my earthly existence, and I also feel a responsibility to that. I know that I have responsibilities to the rest of the human race and to the planet’s environment through my economic activity (my consumption, for example) and my political activity, insofar as I support or do not support what my government and other governments do abroad. Between this centre point of my personal identity and the periphery of my global identity, I also recognise that I share something with the members of a particular community, within the broader human community: I share a language and within certain broad parameters, a history and a culture. This is usually called nation or people. My own genetic family exists within this nation or people and has shared a destiny with this nation or people, and as I have got older, I have come to realise that I have spent more than just this one life on this island, now called ‘Britain’. Of the Germanic Angles, Jutes, and Saxons who came to this island in the fifth century, first as settlers, then as invaders, the Angles and Jutes came from what we now call Schleswig-Holstein (in northern Germany) and Denmark respectively. By 700 these three peoples had conquered most of what came to be called ‘England’, were gradually ‘christianised’ and established seven kingdoms, but from the 790s, a new, more aggressive wave of invaders began to arrive from what was then still pagan Denmark – Danish Vikings so that by, say, the year 864, the Anglo-saxon kingdoms were in danger of being overwhelmed by these pagan Danish invaders. An English leader then emerged, Alfred of Wessex (849-899), later called Alfred the Great, who stemmed the Danish invasion and saved Christian England. His son Edward and grandson Athelstan created the first united English kingdom.

BBC TV has recently been showing a Danish historical drama called simply “1864″, set in the time of the war of that year between Denmark versus Prussia and Austria It was the most expensive Danish TV series ever made to date (23 million Euros). A key character in the storyline is a modern Danish teenager, very alienated and angry, not least because of the death of her brother, killed in some unnamed war (most likely Afghanistan). She meets an elderly, crotchety blind man who lives alone in a large decaying country house. Gradually, this odd couple get to know each other through her reading to him a journal of his ancestor’s activities before and during the war of 1864. Eventually, they realise they are related to each other; they have something to do with each other, and they realise this through their shared experience of their (national) community’s history, its story, into which their own personal stories are interwoven. It is not said but is perhaps inferred that there is even a karmic connection between the couple; certainly, the drama has certain other ‘supernatural’ elements to it. The drama caused a furore when it was first shown in Denmark last year because of its historical inaccuracies and also because its presentation of the war of 1864 challenged various aspects of the Danes’ traditional sense of their national identity. It sparked “who are we?” debate, as the characters in the drama wrestled with questions of personal and national identity. It is noteworthy that Denmark, which joined the EU at the same time as Britain in 1973, has, like Britain, seen much Euro-scepticism. The British government has tended to see the Danes and the Dutch as Britain’s closest western European allies within the EU.

Obviously, since the time of the Angles, Jutes and Vikings (and the Normans too had originally largely been Danish Vikings) there have been some close historical connections between Britain and Denmark. King James I (1603-1625) was married to Anne of Denmark, and from that marriage was descended the later line of the Hanoverian dynasty (1714-1901). Shakespeare’s Hamlet was, of course, set in Denmark. Some would even say that the Vikings’ ‘enterprising’ habits (“we go where we want and we take what we want”) were carried on by later, and equally intrepid mariners, such as the Tudor ‘sea dogs’ under Queen Elizabeth – men like Sir Francis Drake and Sir Martin Frobisher, who both preyed on Spanish and Portuguese shipping, and also to the habits of 19th century British and American shippers illegally importing opium into  China. The 1864 war between Denmark and Prussia had a major impact on subsequent British history because the Prince of Wales (later King Edward VII) had just married Alexandra of Denmark in 1863 and her father, the new King of Denmark, Christian IX, had to witness his country’s overwhelming defeat in the first year of his reign, which made him very unpopular. As a result, his daughter Alexandra hated Prussians and Germans for the rest of her life, which had a marked impact on her husband, affecting his relations with his nephew, Kaiser Wilhelm II of Germany (1888-1918) and thus also Anglo-German relations in the period 1890-1914. Most summers from 1887, Alexandra and her British husband would holiday in Denmark, where they would meet her sister Dagmar, who was married to Czar Alexander III of Russia (1881-1894). Over time, these meetings helped to smooth the way towards an Anglo-Russian rapprochement, resulting in the Anglo-Russian Entente of 1907, a move aimed at Germany; seven years later, the three countries were at war.

From an anthroposophical perspective, the 1860s fell in the middle of the period Rudolf Steiner called “the War in Heaven” (1841-1879). This was a spiritual struggle waged between spiritual beings in the sphere between the Moon and the Earth for control of the transition period between two ages of ‘spiritual history’. ‘The age of Gabriel’, which according to Steiner, had begun c.1510 (1) was about to give way to the age of Michael. This meant that a period of history in which human beings were predominantly focused on the earthly, physical and even mineral aspects of their existence, including their attachment to their earthly locale (patriotism and nationalism) – a period in which natural science and technology made great strides (the age of Gabriel) – was about to give way to a period when human concerns would become more global, idealistic and spiritual (the age of Michael). In more poetic language, one could say, the age of the Moon and moonlight was about to give way to the age of the Sun and sunlight.

To put the Danish War in context, in 1864, the American Civil War was still raging, and at the beginning of the decade the British and French had waged a bullying war against China (usually called “the Second Opium War”) which resulted, amongst other things, in their vandalistic destruction and looting of the remarkable Imperial Summer Palace, a fact unforgotten by many Chinese. Intellectual war, meanwhile, was raging in England between the supporters and opponents of the ideas of the natural scientist Charles Darwin, whose epoch-making book “The Evolution of Species” had been published in 1859, while two years later, in the small town of Kraljevec (today Croatia), in what was still then known as the Austrian Empire, the man who would become a great spiritual scientist, Rudolf Steiner, was born. the War of 1864 was the first of the three successful wars fought by Bismarck’s Prussia in his effort to unite Germany under the leadership of the Prussian monarchy, so if the Danish David had defeated the Prussian Goliath, the consequences for world history might possibly have been very different from what they turned out to be. 

Now we are 150 years on from that forlorn Danish war and 136 years into the age of Michael. Internationalism, globalism and cosmopolitanism have become facts of our modern age, aided by natural scientific and technological developments. But three world wars, two ‘hot’ and one ‘cold’, have served to blunt and largely block the impetus of spiritual science that was brought by Rudolf Steiner in the 23 years of his public activity from 1902 to 1925. One result of this blocking was the apparent failure of the impulse of social threefolding, for example, which he introduced in 1917 and which could have done so much, after the First World War,  to heal what he called (in May 1914) “the social carcinoma” of modern socio-economic activity with its rigidities of class, gender and ethnicity and its predatory and inhuman economic ‘life’ based on unthinking overproduction and greed for profit. In Britain, supposedly the richest country on earth until the First World War, Rudolf Steiner, while showing great appreciation for various aspects of British culture, had expressed shock at the social inequality in Britain.

“…passing through Leeds  – the crowded factories, the black and dreary streets with back-to-back dwelling houses – Dr. Steiner kept looking out of the carriage window, expressing his horror at what he saw. ‘Do you not see these thought-forms?’ he exclaimed. ‘This is hell on earth!’ He made me feel that we in England, with our developed sense of political liberty, of tolerance, fair play and respect for adversaries, had been far too complacent towards the social miseries we tolerated. Here was social inequality and material degradation in a degree scarcely known in the countries from which Dr. Steiner came. As regards social conditions, Britain was anything but democratic at that time.”(2)

The horrors of Britain’s industrial cities existed and Britain’s economy was already in decline by 1900 because British investors in the 19th century had chosen to invest their money abroad, where they judged profits would be larger (e.g. railroad and mines on the northern and southern American continents), rather than in social and physical infrastructure in Britain itself. Just as Britain had hollowed out its economy and impoverished wide sections of its society by investing so heavily overseas in the 19th century and under-investing at home, so the US business elite, since the 1970s, has hollowed out the American economy and impoverished wide sections of its own society by corporate relocations overseas, the “exporting of American jobs” to Asia to profit from cheaper labour. In both cases the overriding motive was greater profit for the individual or individual organisation. The great economic issue in Britain’s Edwardian era (1901-1910) was protectionism, the proposal to establish a British Empire free trade area (then called ‘Imperial Preference’), which many Britons saw as the answer to the problems of the British economy and the way to resist foreign competition. In America today, many in the  US elite and media see the solution to America’s economic and geostrategic problems  in the proposals and negotiations – now well underway – to establish the two transcontinental free trade organisations Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP) and the Trans-Pacific Partnrship (TPP), through which transnational corporantions will be able to use the legal rules of the two new organisations to impose their will on member states by overriding national legislation. It is widely regarded that these two organisations are also intended to function within the larger geostrategic structure of US policy that is aimed at containing and undermining Russia and China.

Modern capitalist economies, notably those run on the so-called ‘Anglo-saxon’ model, in which features such as economic liberty (3), constant growth, hostile takeovers and private law practice are taken for granted, are Social Darwinist structures run on the primitive and animalistic ‘principle’ of ‘bigger beasts eat smaller animals’: eventually, after many takeovers, hostile or otherwise, economic sectors come to be dominated by a few oligarchical or near-monopolistic corporations which then often function in a cartel-like manner, mutually controlling prices and suppressing competition, as has been the case with oil companies, major banks, major media outlets, for example. This form of economic ‘life’ (some might call it more of a disease or virus) has spread to the huge, former communist states of Russia and China since the early 1990s. It is essentially a form of economic practice based on self-preservation, self-interest and self-aggrandisement, and historically, has led to countless wars over the centuries. The air-punching, breast-beating Tarzanesque self-assertion and pride of modern corporations is aped by modern media and politicians in both East and West. The influence of this Social Darwinist thinking and modes of behaviour on governments was prevalent in the Edwardian era as it is today. This is what Rudolf Steiner referred to as the ‘social carcinoma’:

“People are producing more and more goods; they are building factories without ever asking : how much will be needed?…regardless of actual consumption…the tendency is to produce goods by using the money markets, pile them up in warehouses and wait to see how much people will buy….the tendency will increase until it destroys itself. With this kind of production becoming part of social life, something will develop in the social context which is like a carcinoma in a human organism. Exactly the same – a cancer of our civilisation!” (4) 

China and ‘the West’

There has been little improvement in this regard since then. International business is still seen as ‘national competition’, a form of warfare, just as it was in 1914. German businessmen and media c.1900 gloatingly pointed out how the tired British economy was “finished” and that the future belonged to Germany’s efficient, competitive spirit, while the same arrogant elements in British society boasted of Britain’s racial, cultural and political superiority over the “immature, reckless and irresponsible” German State and of Britain’s determination to win out and if necessary, to go to war. Today, Chinese and Americans do much the same thing. China’s growing relationship with Russia, was notably conspicuous by its absence from any of the articles in this special issue of  Foreign Affairs. However, the writers would not have failed to note the fact that for the first time, military contingents from China and India marched in Red Square with the Russian armed forces on 9 May to celebrate Russia’s victory over Nazi Germany 70 years ago, while Vladimir Putin looked on, flanked by his guests Chinese President Xi Jinping and his wife, and President Nursultan Nazarbayev of Kazakhstan (the three countries are founding members of the Shanghai Cooperation Organization).  And from China itself comes a new book with the hardly original title of “The China Dream” by Professor General Liu Mingfu, “a leading Chinese military thinker and commentator who speaks with the voice of China’s military”:

Optimists say that a peaceful resolution of China’s rise as a great power is achievable. The economies of [China and America] are so enmeshed that a war sounds unthinkable. Such is the thesis of…, “The China Dream,’ by Professor General Liu Mingfu, ….According to Prof. General Liu, the days of America’s world domination, or hegemony, as he terms it, are just about over. By 2030, China will be the world’s largest economy in absolute terms (today it rivals the US in purchasing power parity), regaining the geopolitical primacy it formerly enjoyed until the 1500’s when it was the world’s leading economic power….Liu writes that America must quietly cede some of its power to China in the same manner that the British Empire did to the United States after 1900. The United States and China must share power and jointly rule the world as benign hegemons…..What’s more, Liu modestly asserts, China should lead world development since Chinese are more intelligent and cultured than any other people and heirs to a 5,000-year history! (5)

Hubris has apparently reached the point in China where the Chinese elite are allowing themselves  to think that America must quietly cede some of its power to China in the same manner that the British Empire did to the United States after 1900. This would be cloud-cuckoo land thinking. In 1900, many members of the British and US elites, such as Arthur Balfour, Alfred Milner, J.P.Morgan and Teddy Roosevelt already saw their countries as joined at the hip. Their elites shared the same language, religion in many cases (also Freemasonry), and many of the same cultural interests. Many of the two countries’ elites were even married to each other. Although there were some on the political Right of the British elite who were extremely unhappy about ceding global power to the USA, key figures such as Balfour and Milner were resigned to it, or even welcomed it. All this Anglo-American elite coziness is hardly the case between the elites of America and China, Rupert Murdoch and his ex-wife Wendy Deng notwithstanding.

On the contrary, the Chinese and American elites have increasingly been rattling their digital sabres at each other in recent months: “the Pentagon’s annual report to Congress this month cast China as a threat to regional and international peace and stability. China promptly retaliated by threatening a US spy plane during a routine overflight, while immediately thereafter the US retaliated at China’s escalation, and warned that building sea “sandcastles” could “lead to conflict.” (6) The “sandcastles” is  a demeaning reference to China’s seeking to expand reefs in the South China Sea into small islands which can carry airstrips amongst other things, a development that has been infuriating China’s neighbours in the region. The Chinese claim the reefs and islets are in their territorial waters, but their claim extends hundreds of miles beyond the normal 200 mile limit and right up to the territorial waters of Vietnam, the Philippines, Malaysia and Indonesia, all of whom feel the Chinese, with their ever expanding navy, are ‘muscling in’ on their area and seeking to monopolise undersea oil and gas deposits in the South China Sea. American columnist Eric Margolis comments:

Will Washington back off and allow China to be the master of Asia? It seems highly doubtful. But unless some kind of modus vivendi is found, a military confrontation is likely to follow, one that the US might very well lose. China would be fighting virtually at home or just off its coast. The US, by contrast, would fight thousands of miles across the Pacific from its distant bases. The US might even win, but China would undoubtedly come back for more.(7) Previously, the Chinese had tended to ignore US spy planes’ overflights. Now they’ve signalled they will do so no longer. The Global Times, a paper controlled  by the Chinese Communist Party’s official newspaper, the People’s Daily, recently declared that in an editorial that war was “inevitable” between China and the United States unless Washington stopped its demands with regard to China’s development work in the disputed South China Sea area centred on the Spratly islands: “If the United  States’ bottom line is that China has to halt its activities, then a US-China war is inevitable in the South China Sea. …We do not want a military conflict with the United States, but if it were to come, we have to accept it….The intensity of the conflict will be higher than what people usually think of as ‘friction’.(8) China was set on completing construction work in the South China Sea, the Global Times said, and called it Beijing’s “most important bottom line.”

Now one might dismiss such talk as sabre-rattling hyperbolae of the kind we are used to from N.Korea, but China is not N.Korea, and the Chinese leadership has until now shown itself to be far more responsible in international affairs than that of N.Korea. China is a  culture which has suffered much psychological and physical damage over the past 200 years. (“China suffered 470 foreign invasions within 65 years from 1840 to 1905,” – Gen. Liu Mingfu) China’s century of national humiliation began with the humiliations inflicted by the British – by sea. “Never again”, they think. Hence the naval build-up, the forward naval policy aimed at the US Navy and the tensions in the seas around China.

(Back to the Future) Options?

Today, economically, militarily, geopolitically, financially, the world is dividing into two massive blocs again (!) – the US and its allies/satellite states Canada/NATO states/ANZAC/Japan/S.Korea/Israel) vs Russia-China, with other countries in between, trying to decide which way to jump. Most of Europe is currently firmly ensconced within only one of these two blocs, whereas during the Cold War, Europe itself was divided between two blocs. The ‘EU project’ was devised from its very beginnings (1950) and steered by its ‘godfather’, the Frenchman Jean Monnet (1888-1979), to unite western Europe and bind it to the USA, and the project was seen as such by Monnet’s allies in the elites on  both sides of the Atlantic. The next phase of this ongoing project is the TTIP ‘free trade’ deal, which will lock together the USA and the EU economically, as the EEC and the EU have done the countries of western Europe. The corollary to this giant transatlantic free trade deal (TTIP) on the other side of the world is the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) which got underway in 2005 after 10 years of preliminary discussions. The USA and its global corporations is intended to be at the centre of both these two organisations TTIP and TPP.

Where does all this leave the British effort to either ‘reform’ the EU or withdraw from it altogether? A clue is given by the rhetoric of recently re-elected Prime Minister David Cameron. On the eve of his visit to China in Nov 2013 to promote British business there, Cameron said to the elite of the City of London at the annual Lord Mayor’s banquet that Britain “can’t simply try and rebuild the same type of economy that we had before the crash. We can’t just go back to how things used to be. We need to build something better. A vision of a new kind of economy where the benefits of growth are shared by all”. How to build this ‘new and better economy’? We need, he said, “a fundamental culture change, a culture…that values that typically British, entrepreneurial, buccaneering spirit”. Launching the Conservative Party manifesto in April 2015, Cameron spoke of Britain as …”this buccaneering, world-beating, can-do country – we can do it all over again.”(9) So is Britain to be once again to be a nation of pirates, robbers, looters, pillagers, and rapists as the Vikings were, as Queen Elizabeth I’s ‘sea dogs’ were, as the 19th century British opium merchants were? Has he forgotten who the 17th century buccaneers  actually were? Has he forgotten what flag they flew ? The skull and bones, the ‘Jolly Roger’! In 2013 he said: “We can’t just go back to how things used to be” and in 2015 he says: “we can do it all over again”. Back to buccaneering,  to the Empire, to the slave trade, to the rigid class system, to the endless bullying and bashing of foreigners in their own countries?

“But no”, you will say, “Cameron was only using a figure of speech. By ‘buccaneers’ he only meant we need a dynamic, get-up-and-go business people who energetically seek profit all round the world.” But profit for whom? For themselves of course, and therein lies the rub. In other words, Cameron (and all the other main political parties for that matter, even the Green Party) are not proposing to do anything to change, or to suggest the nation changes, its fundamental approach to economic life – the approach that this country pioneered (or perhaps that should be ‘buccaneered’?) and spread around the world. The approach based on the notion of economic liberty, the idea that each person should be perfectly free to manufacture, distribute and consume whatever he or she wants, export and import whatever and wherever, pollute as much as one can get away with, sack as many workers as one wants whenever one wants, pass on one’s business to one’s feckless offspring who may have no business acumen and employ private lawyers to defend and advance one’s commercial interests. All of this results when one applies the cultural and religious principle of individual liberty to the economic sphere, which ought to be governed by the principle not of individual self-aggrandisement but by those of service and cooperation, reflecting the actual basic reality of economic life. Another result of this wrong principle is the social carcinoma of overproduction, to which Rudolf Steiner referred in 1914 and which has led to our present ecological near-catastrophe. But the political parties go on calling for “more growth”. Because they see no way beyond the economic dogma of ‘economic liberty’, although a sound and healthy way was presented by Rudolf Steiner in 1917-22 in the threefold social organism. It was ignored, and as a campaigning movement it is today invisible, even though many of its inevitable features have actually manifested since Steiner’s time (e.g. consumer groups, economic associations, fair trade arrangements, the demand to remove money from politics).

David Cameron therefore wants the EU to row back from the shores of Ever-closer-union” and to steer instead, buccaneer-like, to destinations on the Asian Main to profit from the mega-markets of China and India even while Asian semi-slave labour produces so many of the goods and trinkets by which we here in Europe live. In other words, he wants  – so he says – the EU to be a purely trading organisation, and also one that can be fused via TTIP with North America – all of this for the sake of more…..’competition’, ‘prosperity’ and ‘jobs’ i.e. more ‘goods’. But where this is actually leading us is towards almost inevitable war with China and Russia, as the steadily growing tensions between the West and those two huge countries show only too well with each passing month. Inevitable, because the Chinese and Russians are operating on the same principle of economic self-aggrandisement that we in the West have ‘taught’ them over the past 200 years. In the West, it’s the economic self-aggrandisement of me and the company that I own or work for; in the East, it’s the economic self-aggrandisement of  our family that nurtures us and the nation and State that we serve. The two selfishnesses of East and West  – the egotism of the group and the egotism of the individual – are bound to clash again as they have several times already over the past 200 years.

Individuals’ Choices

What can individuals in, say, Britain, do in this situation besides watching themselves on TV, drifting ever closer to the edge of the waterfall? We can strive to a) understand how we got into this situation b) understand what social threefolding means and how it corresponds to modern reality c) realise that neither the increasing straitjacket of  ever tighter EU totalitarianism nor any back-to-the-future ‘buccaneering’ model is going to prevent us going over the waterfall. Instead, completely new thinking is required to address the issues of relations within Great Britain and within Europe and between global East and West, between North and South d) take a good look at ourselves and ask: do we really want to see our future in terms of constant fighting, beating and competing against colleagues at work, against other companies, against other countries. Is that what human life should be about essentially – competing, fighting, battling? Is it what the British people want their country to be about? If there is a place for competing, fighting, and battling in our lives, should it not rather be within ourselves? But unless and until people can conceive of another form of economic activity than the animalistic one we have at present, the competing, fighting, and battling look set to go on and will lead to more inevitable wars and conflicts. In Nov. 1921, at the time of the Washington Naval Conference, Rudolf Steiner said:

As long as the Europeans and the Americans only entertain an economic interest with the Asians, there will be no trust on the Asians’ side….and the great war between Asia and the West will be brought about in spite of all the disarmament conferences, if something does not enter in, if the Asians do not see something coming from the West that is the true spirit of the West that can enlighten, something they can trust out of their own spirituality which has fallen into decadence. On the understanding of this situation rests the peace of the world, not on conferences fostered by the external leaders of humanity. (10)

The true, enlightening spirit from the West could come in the form of the threefold social impulse that Rudolf Steiner tried to realise in 1917-1922 – the clear separation of the cultural, political/legal and economic spheres of society so as to prevent damaging mutual interference between the three and their reconnecting and reintegration in a healthy way, much as the human body’s three physiological systems are each separate but also inter-relating: the cultural sphere relating to the initiatives of the ‘I’ and the principle of liberty; the political/legal sphere relating to the I/you relationship and the principle of equality and mutual respect; and the economic sphere relating to ‘we’ and the principles of cooperation and service. This would avoid a centralist British union dominated by London; it would prevent an increasingly totalitarian European Union from imposing uniformity on a diverse continent or multinational corporations using expensive private lawyer to manipulate TTIP to impose their will on national states and local communities, because in a threefold society there would be no private lawyers or private law firms; indeed, as long as these exist, as long as the rich can afford to hire the most competent or the most unscrupulous lawyers, there can be no real equality before the law; finally, threefold societies would also make impossible a world war between competing national economic interests because in threefold societies there would be no economic interests that are competitive and national, only economic interests that are cooperative and international.  

In 1938 in Stuttgart, one of Steiner’s esoteric pupils, Clara Michel, led a study group at which she presented notes she had taken from Steiner’s lectures – she had been a careful stenographer. She recorded he had said at the end of the threefold work (so probably sometime in the second half of 1922), that ‘the threefold commonwealth is completely done for in this [20th] century; it cannot become a reality. It will again be possible at the beginning of the coming century when a window of the spiritual world will open in order to make it possible.” ‘What one can do until then is, of course, to thoroughly think the matter through so that in that moment, threefolding will be made possible, much more possible than without it.’ (11) The year 2017 will be 100 years on from 1917 and the Bolshevik Revolution. But 2017 will also be 100 years on from the beginning of Rudolf Steiner’s impulse of the threefold social organism, or threefold society. Will that be the window of which Steiner spoke? Certainly, the vacuity of macro-social ideas at present, in Britain at least, would seem to suggest that the times cry out for a new, constructive impulse. Is the window opening, and if so, will we be able to manifest something of that healing threefold impulse in this new century?


(1) Steiner’s dates differed slightly from those of the mediaeval esotericist Trithemius of Sponheim. Steiner saw the age of Gabriel beginning in 1510, Trithemius in 1525. Both agreed the age of Michael began in 1879.
(2) “A Man Before Others  – Rudolf Steiner Remembered” (Rudolf Steiner Press, 1993), p.22.
(3) By ‘economic liberty’ is meant the principle of personal freedom applied to the economic sphere e.g. an individual’s freedom to manufacture whatever s/he wants.
(4) The Inner Nature of Man: And Our Life Between Death and Rebirth (Rudolf Steiner Press, 2013) pp. 147-148.
(7) See n.5.
(10) Rudolf Steiner’s Millennium Prophecies (ed. H.H. Schöffler, Henry Goulden Books 1999), p.37.
(11) Rudolf Steiner’s Millennium Prophecies (ed. H.H. Schöffler, Henry Goulden Books 1999), p.36.