What Is Lucifer's Agenda for Humanity?

Here is the original post--- with a few snips taken out--- I made on May 5, 1998 to <Steiner98@intuition.org> concerning the subject of "Moral Behaviorism," which is my way of updating Rudolf Steiner's phrase for the agenda of Lucifer:, which he called: "Moral Automatism."

Moreover, you will get a taste of the "mud wrestling pit" as S98 is called, and I also include Joel Wendt's response to my post because in it, Joel actually declares that I have more hubris than our own peerless Jack Walker! Wow!!!

(Only a month previous to this repost, peerless Jack was innocently trudging through the woods, like Dante at age 35, towards his destiny, when he fell down the hole called Steiner98. But Jack managed to extricate himself from the mudhole with honor and live to tell about it. )


To: STEINER98@intuition.org
Subject: Joel's "moral behaviorism"
From: TEAM-PHYZZ@mail.utexas.edu (Tom Mellett)
Date: Tue, 05 May 1998

Anyway, what is important here is that you also revealed your particular "school" of therapy. I don't mean the actual label you put on it, but rather the archetype of the "school."

You are a "behaviorist," a la B.F. Skinner, and the primal archetype of that school is that you ONLY see the human being as if he or she were JUST an etheric body.

We know that the etheric body is also called the "formative force body," and that it carries our memories and our habits. Therefore, in the context of your particular school of therapy, Joel, I might also coin a new term for the etheric body and call it the "addiction body."

You provided the most important piece of the "puzzle of Joel" when you admitted to the List many weeks back that you have overcome an addiction but that this addiction will be with you for the rest of your life.

Once I read that, I had the "Aha!" experience. Of, course, whatever the substance is, (it really doesn't matter) you are identifying your ego being, your "I am" with the habit or addiction which is characteristic of your etheric body.

That means that whatever therapy you practice or receive, whatever spiritual path you take, be it anthropoposhy or Catholicism, all those ideals must become subservient to your etheric body. You become an "anthroposophical behaviorist," etc.

By identifying yourself with your addiction, Joel, you are essentially identifying yourself as a plant. A plant is unconscious, but Joel is conscious. So you see the problem. You know that you are more than a plant, but when you identify your ego with your addiction, you have to keep pulling yourself, like the tar-baby out of the sticky goo of the etheric which constantly threatens to submerge you in its unconscious sleep nature.

Now, if you read Steiner's "Theosophy," you will read that the next BODY up from the etheric BODY is the Astral BODY, followed next by the Sentient SOUL, which Steiner eventually merges into one.

That's why I referred to your becoming a Catholic as a regression into a Sentient Soul kind of state. Pope as head; church members as body--- the One-Fold Social Order of Ancient Egypt--- Pharoah as head; subjects as body of Pharoah. This behavior of yours was a big clue to me that you were stuck in "Skinner-type" behaviorism--- more exactly: "moral behaviorism."

[At this point I must refer to the definitive article on this analysis. It was written by David B. Black, the computer genius and ace astrologer who wrote: "Computers and the Incarnation of Ahriman." But David had worked for many years in a Loony Bin like you did Joel and he published this wonderful article called: "On the Nature of Psychology." It starts on page 29 of Clifford Monk's "ToWards" Magazine, Volume I, No. 7, Winter 1980-81 issue.]

[David shows how, for example, the neo-Freudian school with bio-chemistry sees the human being as ONLY mineral physical body; then B.F. Skinner & the Behaviorists see the human being as ONLY an etheric body; Jung sees the human being as ONLY an astral body, etc. Each school is valid within its own realm but the problem is the narrowing of the focus to exclude the other 3 bodies, thus missing the whole human being.]

Now, since you identify yourself with the "addiction body," then when you aspire to be therapist, you can only judge on the basis of a patient's outer behavior since outer behavior is determined by the etheric "habit" body. Christ, I should call it, YES! The "Behavior Body." That's the best name for our discussion.

How did B.F. Skinner proceed? He used stimulus and response. You know, shock the dog for bad behavior; reward it for good.

But with conscious and even some self-conscious people, it's a lot more subtle. It's harder to see the same reward-punishment scenario because it's not overt like food pellets for rats or electric shocks for dogs.

Instead, it's conformity to group standards or group ideals. (read good behavior, but unfree good behavior). And that is exactly your strategy here, Joel. You are obviously well-versed in some kind of "12-step program" method of enforcing group conformity. But it's pure behaviorism and does not touch even the SOUL of the human being, let alone the SPIRIT-EGO. It's actually extremely mechanistic in the sense that Steiner tells us Lucifer's agenda is to make us into "moral automatons." You practice "moral behaviorism," Joel. It is anything but free, and I like Liz Simons' term for it: "abduction of freedom."


I did not learn these techniques in college psychology class, nor even in theater. Rather, I learned them in the US Army when I was assigned to Military Intelligence, trained not only as a German linguist, but also as an Interrogator, down in Fort Huachuca, Arizona (near Tombstone) in the early 70's.

They taught us how to break down a large group of POWs (simulated of course. Many good military actors who knew what we students were supposed to do and graded us for the course) in order to isolate the individuals deemed easiest to get talking. The way to start was to make "cells" of no fewer than 8 or more than 12 prisoners.

The sergeant-teacher told us to treat them like alcoholics at an AA meeting. Why? Because good POWs are only supposed to give the name, rank and serial number. In a 12 step program, a person gets up, says his name and says; "I am an alcoholic." You want to establish first what I now know from Steiner as a "group soul consciousness" so you have sessions not unlike "group therapy" sessions, where the Interrogator comes in and sits everyone in a circle and goes round and round asking each POW questions to which they only respond with name, rank & serial number. No information yet, but what you establish is a feel for the group soul dynamic or tribal family consciousness which will be exploited later.

They leave you clues to pick up. For example, one POW might act very nervous or depressed and then you go through 1 on 1 sessions where you probe the weaknesses of each individual and bring them back to the group sessions. You look for the emergence of the "Alpha Male" who will stand up to you, the authority figure. He becomes a lightning rod for the others. But the key here is the size of the group. It needs to be of a big enough size so that there will very likely emerge another individual who will challenge the first Alpha Male. If you can sense this and exploit it, the intra-group squabbling will set up such internal polarities that some of the weaker prisoners will tell you information to spite their fellow POW who is polarized on the other side. Works like a charm every time! (And will get you a grade of A. I got a C-. I was a little too gullible then.)

Now, obviously, things are different in an actual group therapy session, but the group soul dynamic is the same, and I watched you try to challenge me as the Alpha Male of Steiner98. You [appealed] to the "group soul consciousness" in order to confront me. First you made a sarcastic post about worshipping me in the "Cult of Tom." But then you got down to covert business in the response to my "destructive writing" post. Look at the way you try to manipulate (your imagined) group soul consciousness against me. Here I quote excerpts from your posts with my emphases added.


JOEL: Thanks for a mostly non-excremental post. My main concern is whether you are actually open to the participation of OTHERS in such a deed, The tendency to approach such a quest lives strongly in you as a "ONLY I CAN DO THIS", - at least this is how it appears (to me) in your e-mail deeds.


TOM: Here you put yourself up as challenger, emerging from the group-soul of the "others"--- whoever they are. Then you disparage me as an individual, telling me that my view of things will not conform to the group view that you hope to get around to enforcing as your own view.


JOEL: How can WE ALL BE INCLUDED? How can WE FIND IN OURSELVES that individual insight that would support such work? Do you know how to let go yourself of this ideal that you pursue in such a way that IT BECOMES A GROUP ACT?


TOM: This is classic group dynamic extortion, Joel, just like the Mao's Chinese villagers would enforce group conformity if an individual would dare to ... be an individual. Also, read accounts of American POWs in North Korean prison camps during the Korean War.


JOEL: When YOU TAKE YOURSELF AND SUCH WORK SERIOUSLY, as the mood of your lost two posts indicate, I am a quite willing supporter, in spite of my personal need for the "deconstruction" of my "writer's conceit". (whatever that is)<G>


TOM: translation into sneaky "Joel-speak": "When you conform to the group consciousness that I decree when I, Joel, become Alpha Male of Steiner98, then I will support you because I will have then defeated you."


TOM: Well, Joel, be my guest. You want to keep taking me on? Jack was quite a challenge and I really admire the guy, because I had to pull out all the stops in my Interrogation techniques to get him to "spill his guts," so I'm in shape, Joel, and in good fighting form, now that Jack really strengthened me.

Your Alpha-Male in Christ,

Father Tom.


JoAnn replied on May 6, 1998:

You do know the true definition of behaviorism, don't you?
"When a dog salivates, a psychologist has to ring a bell."


I include Joel's response because he proves my point so eloquently about "Moral Behaviorism."

To: STEINER98@intuition.org
Subject: anthroposophical blarney, was: Joel's "moral behaviorism"
From: hermit@microweb.com
Date: Wed, 06 May 1998

Dear Tom,

Glad to be a foil for your phantasy life, Tom. Anytime you want, just free wheel away and express your anthroposophical blarney. I'll be here reading it (well, not actually, I just scan it when it flows like the post below).

Your belief in the greatness of your knowledge and your thought is really more hubristic than Jack's, which places it at a very high level indeed. When you actually have something to contribute it is nice, but right now the blarney is just boring boring boring!

I hope you enjoyed writing your rant. Someday, when you don't want to play these games anymore, we can be of service to each other.

your brother on the path to love,


Notice how Joel here makes use of Senses 10 & 11, the Language Sense and the Thought Sense in order to erect a barrier to Sense #12, which would lead him on to the Objective perception of my Ego, or if I may wax religious, the "Objective Christ in me." Instead, he uses concepts to retreat back into his own sense of self, "the Subjective Lucifer in him" (Senses #1 & 2, Touch & Life). Thus he projects on to me this false Luciferic love, calling me his "brother on the path to love." It's love all right, but in truth it is his own indulgence in (Luciferic) self-love which he then projects on to me as if it were some kind of real Objective Christ love.

And you can tell that I really "got his goat" ---(pun intended since Joel is a baby Capricorn)--- because he actually states unambiguously that I have more hubris than the King of Hubris himself, "Sterling" Jack Stirling Walker!

On the one hand, I feel very honored to be placed on a pedestal higher than Jack, but on the other hand, I realize that it's only due to Joel's 'foreshortened" perspective--- from squatting way down in his lower subjective body senses, he places me and Jack way up at the top of his Luciferic firmament.

(Truth to tell, it would take others of approximately equal hubris to determine whether it is really Jack or myself who is more hubristic than the other. Well, maybe we could take a poll.)


Further Pontifications from Father Tom

Return to Steiner98 Home