THE GENERAL "HOUSE BUILDING PROCESS"
Is it possible to understand what this process is the expression of, from an anthroposophical perspective? 
        Yes. With the realization of the basis for the "first pillar" - the "Single Market" during the first 6-year period after 1986, and the effort to realize the "second" and the "third pillar" in their present form as expressions for the "state functions" as such during the second 6-year period after 1986 with EU - a process has been started, that implicates five more phases, not yet described, but implicit in the "building-process".
        These stages it is possible to describe, as the seven stages constitute the classical stages of the basic building of "houses" into living, functioning "bodies", filled with life, soul and spirit. 
        During the first stage of the "EU-process" a legal "body" has been built for "economical life" in all its aspects proper of the social organism in the form of the Single market.
        During the second stage of EU, a "body" has now also been built for the social and legal life between humans as a basic legal order, in the form of the European Union.
        During the third stage in the building of social "houses" a "body" is built for the soul, for cultural life for the future of the house, of the organism. 
        And during the fourth stage in the building of social "houses", a "body" is built in some form for the "spirit" - for the "I" - of the house, of the organism. 
        This "I" that lives in this "egobody" of the organism then penetrates and transforms that which has been built during the first three stages. 
        During the fifth stage, this "I" penetrates and transforms that which has been built during the third stage as a "body" for the soul, and tries to develop it into something new as a free cultural life for the future. 
        During the sixth stage, this "I" penetrates the social order that has been built as a "body" for the social and legal life during the second stage as the "Old Law " and tries to democratize and christianize it into something new for the future as the "New Law".
        And during the seventh stage finally, this "I" penetrates what has been built as a "body" for economy during the first stage and tries to transform it into something new for the future as an ever more "brotherly", altruistic economical life. 
        This is the general pattern of the building process for social houses, social organisms - described in very short and principal terms. 

(click on the picture to get a bigger one)

The Ur-drama of the first seven mythical Roman Kings
You find it described already by Livy in his picture of the first seven mythical Roman Kings, as the founders of the Roman Empire. 
        The first was Romulus, who was raised to heaven as the god "Quirinius" (not completely unlike Jacques Delors). 
        The second king; Numa Pompilius embodied social order, he brought laws for ordinary living. 
        The third king, Tullus Hostilius, represented the passions. Under him, the attacks against divine nature began, causing discord, struggle and war, through which Rome became great. 
        The fourth king, Ancus Martius, developed the arts. 
        The fifth Roman king however; Tarquinius Priscus, was not engendered out of the Roman organism, but was introduced into Roman culture from the Etruscan culture, as also the last two. 
      The sixth king; Servius Tullus, transformed the social order founded by the second king; Numa Pompilius, and represents the canon of the law. 
        The seventh king; Tarquinius Superbus, the "most exalted" one, however was overthrown, as he was not able to maintain the high level of the social system. 
        The seven mythical kings of the first phase of the Roman Empire represent the Ur-drama of the building of social "organisms", that also now comes to expression in the building of Europe into a "house" - during a special phase of its development - out of the economical sphere since 1985. 

THE WAY FORWARD 
The three "pillars" - seeds to a differentiated European development
Is it possible to come to a picture of a possible proper continuation of this house-building process? 
        How can the EU-process be transformed in a "proper" way into something good? 
        Many people already try to come to different conceptions of what a humanised Europe within the frame of EU should look like. 
        One possible starting point is the "three pillars" in the work of classical house building tradition, that constitutes the roots of "the system of three pillars" of EU. 
        In the EU-process they stand out in a form, strongly directed towards the development of Europe into a federal, unified superstate. 
        In their original form, they are described already by among other Pherekydes during the 6th century BC. He describes them as "Chronos" - as an expression of "moral strength" to do the good, "Zeus" - as an expression of "inner beauty", and "Chton" - as an expression of "wisdom". 
        In the human being, these qualities are connected with the possible goals for her will, her life of feelings and her thinking.
        In society, they are connected with and an expression of the possible future goals for the economical life, the legal and social life and for cultural life.
        One later finds them described again by Plato, but now in a reduced form, in his picture of the groups of the ideal society as he sees it and describes it in his work "The Republic". He there describes how these groups are - not three but - two main groups; "craftsmen" and "the guardians" - those who take care of the state functions proper. 
        This second main group; the "guardians", however - according to Plato - consists of two subgroups; "the warriors", who protect the state against hostile powers and "the philosophers", who are the real rulers in his ideal "state". These "philosophers" constitute the elite in his ideal state, and to the questions that Plato treats in "The Republic" belong how this elite is to be educated to fill its functions to rule society "in the best way" out of their insights. 
        Another starting point is the actual separation of the work of EU between the so far allembracing Commission in Brussels, and the work of a Parliament that has so far been reduced to a an instancy of remitment, in another city; Strasbourg; two organs in a clear imbalance with one another in a way that has euphemistically been termed the "democratic deficit" . 
        A third starting point is the so far "wandering cultural city of Europe" - the election by the Commission of a city in Europe to be "The cultural capital of Europe" for one year.

THE "FIRST PILLAR" AND THE EU-COMMISSION
With these starting points, one sees that one of the problems with the EU, the first and central, basic task, is to transform the Commission to what it is in its essence and bears in itself as a seed to become; an actual, factual organ of cooperation on a European level for the main parties of economy on an equal basis, concentrated on and limiting its work to the initiation and implementation of legislation in the field of economy.
        At present, the Commission, with its construction and direction, its 24 General Directorats (26 as DG I is divided into I A, I B and I C) and its monopoly in initiating and implementing legistlation for the first pillar of EC/EU, is almost completely characterised by the perspectives and interests that flow from the leaders of the great industries and capital interests through ERT; "European Round Table of industrialists" and CEPS; "the Centre for European Policy Studies" . 
        ERT consists of 45 leaders for European industries with totally three million employees and a turnover of about 500 billion "Euros" per year. It constitutes one of the most influential lobby groups of the EU. 
        CEPS was founded in 1993 by about 40 transnational companies and banks in Western Europe in cooperation with different foundations. Later, American and Japanese interests have also joined CEPS. CEPS is a part of the political establishment of Europe through its history, through being economically independent and through having strong personal bonds with the top level of the Commission, of NATO and of WEU. 
        If one looks at the Commission, it is clear that it contains many wefts of a "Round Table" -character and dialogues with representatives of many more or less transnational groups in Europe, before different propositions for legistlation are put forth in different areas. 
        But its work is also based on "the four freedoms" for a producer-oriented economy. These are what the builders of EU - from their perspective - view as the proper expression for the "tools" , with which one in the classical house-building tradition builds the "first pillar" of "houses" . 
        This "Mars"-character of the economy still corresponds to and is an expression of the development of the human being up to the present time. 
        But if you look forward, you also see that this one-sided and strong orientation towards the interests of the producers and bankers belongs to the past. In the future we have to develop much more of the "Mercurial" cooperation in the field of economy, "brotherly" directed as much, if not more towards the interests and needs of not ourself, but of all our fellows. 
      For this the EU stands before the long term task to step by step deconstruct the remaining "hierarchical" character of the Commission, still dominated by the interests of banking, industry and business through ERT, CEPS and other well financed and powerful lobby groups, and develop it in its essence into an ever more "brotherly" "Round table"-organisation that in an institutionalised way and on an equal, "brotherly" basis comprises all parties that in different ways take part in the production and circulation of goods. 
        Is this possible? 
        Yes, if you take your start in an understanding of the essence of all "economy"; the circulation of goods. If you look at it, you see that the circulation of goods in human society comprises four stages. 

THE FOUR MAIN STAGES OF THE CIRCULATION OF GOODS 
The first stage is the "production" of goods out of matter taken from the earth. The counterpole to this production of goods is the "consumption" of them. To the consumer some of the main interests are the quality, the availability and the price of the goods. 
        Between these two interests the different "business"-actors mediate, from the wholesale dealers to the shop at the corner, who transport the goods from producers to consumers, helping the producers to find markets and the consumers to find the right goods and getting them at a reasonable, fair price. 
        But there is also a fourth stage of the circulation. It consists of the way of the used rests of the goods, the residues, back to and through a new stage of "nature". The feeling of the responsibility for not taking out more from the Earth than it can give and not to poison it in such a way that it will die "before its time has come" also has its main representatives who can be found in the enviromental movements and the green parties around the world. 
        Together, the producers, the traders, the consumers and the green movements and parties represent the responsibilities for the four basic stages of the process of circulation of goods;

1. to make things out of nature that we need to build our lives on Earth, 
2. to distribute them, 
3. to build our culture through and by using and and consuming goods, and 
4. not to take out too much of the Earth or poison it with the left-overs of our culture. 

TRANSFORM AND DEVELOP THE COMMISSION! 
To the most important questions and tasks in the work to reform the EU in a longer perspective belongs the task to rebalance the work of the Commission. 
        If the EU shall be able to develop in a proper, timely, human, socially and ecologically responsible way, the EU faces as the main, central task to decide on an enlargment of the Commission, in pace with the East- and South-enlargement of EU. 
        To meet the needs of the near future, the Commission will have to institutionalise new General Directorats, except for those that exist for questions of economy, production, transport and trade, for also workers, consumers and "environmental interests" on an equal, brotherly level with the economy-production and transport-trade parties.
        The 10-15 new necessary General Directorats that should in time be instituted to deal more actively with the problems of unemployment, for small scale business on a cooperative basis, for consumer-, and not least the many important environmental problems, correspond well to the number of expected new member-countries of Eastern and Southern Europe, and could also be institutionalised in a natural way one at a time with a new Commissioner from every new country that becomes a member. 
        At present, the "Commission" is slowly, but steadily developing into ever more of an also formal "Government" for the whole of the EU.
        This development is understandable and has deep roots, but is - today - completely wrong and untimely. It would be totally wrong finally to institutionalise the Commission as a sort of also formal government for the whole of EU, with the Council of Ministers as a sort of "senate" and "first chamber", superior to the the EU-Parliament as a sort of "second chamber" for the populase.
        The Commission should be rebalanced to include General Directorats for all the four stages of the circulation of goods on an equal and brotherly basis in its structure - including coworkers, consumers and environmental interests - and thereafter stick to and cultivate its task as a legislating-initiating and -implementing organ in the field of the the "first pillar"; the economy. Doing such an objective thing would make it into something really good in the face of the future development of Europe and a source of inspiration for also other parts of the world. 
        To the tasks for the Commission also belongs the further development of the "brotherly" relation to Eastern Europe, that strong forces are already trying to realize. An important measure in this direction would also be to fuse DG IV ("Competition") with the mixed DG XXIII to a new Directorate dealing as much with questions of cooperation and of Cooperatives as with competition into the near future in the field of economy. 

"1998", EMU AND A "EUROPEAN CENTRAL BANK" 
In this context, the forced work to establish a single currency for the whole of Europe in 1998 and the establishment of a European Central Bank as an independant instrument for the steering of the economy of all of Europe feels very troubling. 
        In its present planned form the bank is meant to be essentially totally separated from, independant of and retracted from all and every external influence and regulation from organs like the EU-Commission, the EU-Parliament and the Council of Ministers, even though its in the beginning of May 1998 appointed Dutch chief Wim Duisenberg has promised to keep up a regular dialogue with the European Parliament. It is also meant to have as its primal goal the minimal inflation and the stable currency, a goal to be put before every other consideration and problem, like the enviromental, human or social concerns, or the comprehensive unemployment. 
        Developed in this way, the economical life will not only get a to a certain extent necessary independence, but will also finally be given the absolute superiority over every other social process in a potentially disastrous way in the face of the further development of Europe. 
        How important different quarters consider this central steering organ to be for the total further development of Europe, is shown by the fact that it, facing its third and last "fixation stage" - like the "Federal Reserve Act" when it was taken by only three senators on the Christmas Eve in 1913 and signed by President Wilson the same night, and like the TEU when it was formed in 1991 - was "protected" from the "danger" of having to be discussed during the IGC 96 and thereby included and subordinated under a somewhat more democratically steered part of the EU. 
        The pushing through of the third stage of the EMU before the "Sacred" date of "the 1st of January 1999", that is "1998", is the last "necessary" to necessitate the transformation of The Commission into an also formal, but improper "Government" over all of EU. As such, it is the "eye of the needle" for the possibility to either steer the development towards the by some wished for, powerful "(American-)European Empire", or away from this Dinosauric/Tyrannosauric dream, towards the necessary differentiation that the "pillar system" has laid the foundation for. 

THE ROLE OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE TWO SIDES PROPER OF THE "SECOND PILLAR" 
- "FOREIGN POLICY" AND "HOME POLICY" 
To the second main task in the reformation of EU belongs the decision to strongly limit the tasks for the Directorat on "External Political Relations" (DG IA). 
        The work under the present "second pillar" for questions of Foreign and Security policy should be strictly limited to the "Petersberg tasks" and completely transferred to a very much strengtened and developed OSCE; the Organisation for Security and Cooperation in Europe, as its proper forum. "The work under the "second pillar" proper of EU should instead be reduced to the work that has so far been carried out under the "third pillar" and be kept on an "inter-national"; confederative level, suggestibly in the following direction.
        The European Parliament and the Council of ministers should develop an ever more intimate cooperation with the corresponding organs of the Council of Europe.
        The present right for the Commission to initiate legistlation in other fields than those that directly concern economy and the circulation of goods should be liquidated and transferred out of the work of the Commission.
        The right to initiate legistlation in some fields should be transferred over to the EU-Parliament, the national Parliaments and the Council of Ministers and the corresponding organs of The Council of Europe, for which procedures will have to be developed - and the implementation of the legistlation should be transferred to the Council of Ministers and the national Governments. 
        To the questions the joint organs of EU and The Council of Europe should cooperate around on a confederative level belong especially all questions that have to do with the purely social life between humans and the coordination and cooperation on questions concerning home policy (like part of DG V: "Social Affairs" ). 
        The Council of Ministers and the EU-Parliament must also, as more democratically chosen organs, retain respectively get the possibility to review and reformulate the frames for the work of the Commission and the European Central Bank, and have as the main task to defend and secure the right of every human to live a humanly dignified life in peace with his or her fellow humans, regardless of his or her nationality, gender or possibility to contribute to the production and distribution of goods and services. Here the parliamentarian democracy still stands out as a model for the work.
        The present system of jurisdiction, with the forms of decision reduced to the planned three for legistlation under the "first pillar" of EU also stands out as something good for the time being. 
        With time, the Commission and the EU-Parliament/Council of Ministers could also be more clearly separated from one another, by moving the EU-Parliament clearly more into Central Europe. 

THE BUILDING OF THE "THIRD PILLAR" PROPER FROM 1998; THE "CULTURAL PILLAR" 
At present, the picture of the three pillars of the European house depicts the "third pillar" as the pillar for questions of Home Policy.
        This picture corresponds to the "reduced" and "ruler-oriented" picture of society described by Plato in his "Republic". But it also depicts the reduced picture of man that was "decided" to be the "proper" one at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinopel in 869.
        Before this meeting, in Christianity one had viewed man as composed of "body", "soul" and "spirit". At this church meeting it was however decided to view the spiritual in man, not as something independent and existing in itself, but only as a quality of the soul. Thereby, man was reduced to a "body", and a "soul" even if with some spiritual qualities.
        This reduced picture of man reflects Plato´s reduced picture of the "ideal state" and today appears again in the present picture of the "three pillars of EU".
        The "Ur-picture" for all good building work of the Temple tradition is the building of the Temple of Solomon, according to the legend built as a three part drama between Hiram, Solomon and Balkis, the queen of Sheeba. Viewed as a "social house construction" in this perspective, the EEA-phase between 1986 and 1992 stands out as the phase of Hiram, the Master of the Craft. The second; EU-phase between 1992 and 1998 stands out as the phase of Solomon, the Architect. 
        Against this background, the third phase in the building proper of Europe as a "house" between 1998 and 2005 stands out as the phase of Balkis proper, "the woman of star wisdom".
        A mirror of this picture can also be found in the symbol of EU with its 12 stars, with its roots in the picture of the "heavenly woman", dressed in the sun, with the moon under her feet and her head surrounded by twelve star, ready to bear her child, mediated by the Apocalypse (12:1-3). This will undoubtedly constitute the basis for some drama around the turn of the Millennium. 
        As a counterweight to these dramas and the third main task for the EU - and in the longer perspective - one can see the choice and institutionalisation of a more permanent European cultural Capital in the Western Slavic area - Prague is a very good one - except the wandering and free one, as a seed and forum for the development of a free, spiritualised European cultural life for the future and as an important bridge to Russia and the Eastern Slavic area. 
        Here belongs also the transfer of all questions concerning the multicultural life of Europe out of the EU and over to a from EU totally independent, European cultural organ, with its centre in Prague (like the present DG X for "Information, Communication, Culture and Audiovisual" and DG XXII for "Education, Training and Youth" ). 
        This has been meant only as some short indications. But they stand out as some of the things that have to take place and will take place sooner or later, and our only possibility to do them peacefully is to do them consciously now, if they shall not in 15-20 years begin forcing their way by more uncontrolled, violent means, as the disastrous 100 years war between England and France of the 14th century, the long and many European wars of the 17th century and the two World wars during this 20th century, resulting from immature - if understandable - ways of handling other, related problems. 

A "counter-threefoldment" 
One counter form to this necessary differentiation of Europe is however also already developing (Brzezinski, Int Herald Tribune 2.5.94, Kolankiewicz, Int Affairs 3.7.94). It consists in the formation of an axis, comprised of the three states of France, Germany and Poland, with France and Poland as wings holding a strong and central Germany in place and fixed in the function as the economic "motor" of the development of Europe into the future, as a "mechanical heart", instead of as part of the "spiritual heart" of Europe that it bears as a task to be.
        This development in every way misses the central points in the task of Central Europe, but will undoubtedly be more or less carried through.
        With the Single European Act, the Maastricht Treaty and the Amsterdam Treaty, a constitution for EU is now developing, that will put its mark on the whole future of the present "European/West-European" cultural epoch, starting with the Renaissance, in its development of a free, spiritualised cultural life as an expression of the conscious and responsible human being, and for which the central European idealistic tradition and the cultural impulses and life of Eastern Europe are crucial and absolutely necessary.
        We are now heading for the next crucial act/treaty of the EC/EU-process around 2004/5, concerned with the questions of the fourth phase of the process, its turning point.

TURNING POINT ... 
The time between about 2005 and 2011 during the EU-process that is being developed between 1986 and 2030, will probably display the culmination of the forces and strivings that want to make Europe into a federation, with the strife to finally institutionalise the "Presidency" of the Union on top of the pyramid. 
        This "Precidency" will then constitute a form of "Ego-organisation" for Europe. For what "I" for Europe do those, that are now developing it in stages, build it as a "body" to incarnate in? 
        The "I" of Europe can not be materialised as authority for power for a "president" in one human being. It lives and weaves in the social life between the peoples of Europe, in the conscious warm interest we show our fellow humans, independently of who they are and where they come from. 
        The attempt to build an external symbol as a social and legal "body" in the form of the "Presidency" for EU is a potentially bad omen, if it is not being handled in the proper way. 
        The forth basic problem of the EU-process consists in handling this problem, having to do with the relation between the "economic" life of Europe and its organ (the Ecosoc, the Commission and its "President" ), the common "legal" life of the countries of Europe and its organs (the national parliaments, EU-Parliament and the Council of Ministers and the corresponding organs of the Council of Europe) and the "cultural" life of Europe and its organs (with their center in the future European cultural capital of Prague). 
        The problem is dealt with among other already in the story by Goethe of "The green snake and the lily". An elementary model for the solution of this problem will possibly be the presidency of Bosnia, with three "presidents", the President of the Commission, the President of the Parliament and the President of the Council of Europe working together as a council.

... AND TRANSFORMATION 
Between about 2011 and 2030 we will then - viewed from the "mechanical" historical perspective of the leading Western groups described in the beginning - be facing three difficult tasks, as a possibility, "fighting" against or supported by the new constitution for EU. 

(click on the picture to get a bigger one)

The first of these tasks; the cultural task
"2011 - 2018" 
will be to transform the not yet visible "humanistic power impulse" for Europe - in the spirit of Lyndon LaRouche, and Sorat, the second monster of the Apocalypse as one inspirational and challenging quality also behind the EMU - as well as the "spiritual power impulse" for Europe - in the spirit of the "Catholic Church" - that one can intuit will come to expression during the coming years, into further possibilites for a free, timely cultural life, that trancends both that which is "technically necessary" as well as that which is "spiritually necessary" into that which is truly humanly freedom creating. 

The second task; the democratic task
"2018 - 2024" 
to transform the external "Presidency" of EU, "lift out" the remains of "governmental power" in other fields than economy from the Commission, and transform the "European State" that has been impulsated as a "Union" into a true, democratic, equal legal life, built on social justice and human compassion.

And the third task, the economic task
"2024 - 2030" 
the most difficult one; will be to transform that which has been impulsated as a "Single market", built on competition between strong producers, into an ever more altruistic economy, built on brotherhood, in all our common responsibility for the future of the Earth. 

THE LONG TERM TASK FOR EUROPE 
The different "Architects" and constructors of EU are now building a "legal body" as a "house" for the future Europe out of the perspective of economy, in a way that they think is right.
        Above, I have tried to show how this process looks in a somewhat wider perspective. 
        The house is very consciously built. But it must not remain the tool for power of the benevolent elite, that it has very much been, even if understandable, so far. 
        It must be transformed out of that element which is good in it, so that it becomes a house for all the peoples of Europe, also those that today, mostly in Eastern Europe and Russia, have been put on the street as a result of "economical necessities" . 
        The role of Europe in world history has been central since the Renaissance - for better and worse - and it will surely continue to be important far into the future. But it must into this future consist in dissolving all striving for external power and all external power instruments, as also many have expressed in their struggle against the nuclear tests, that one member of EU has considered necessary to be able to develop nuclear arms further into the future. 
        Europe should instead cultivate its task as a mediating factor and a bridge between "East" and "West" and as a possible cultural inspirator "with a heart" - with not only the culture of Western Europe but also of Eastern Europe, and into the future ever more also of Russia, as a great inspirational well, but with a great respect for the role of all cultural groups of humanity. 
        In that work we are all responsible to form and build the "European house" to an inspiration for a humanly dignified life, as a part of all our common responsibility for the future of mankind and for the earth. 
        Only such a "good house" can also be generous and open to those that do not live in it, to visit freely and take part in. 

BIBLIOGRAPHY

1. BAIGENT M, LEIGH R, LINCOLN H: The Holy Blood and the Holy Grail. London: Corgi Books 1982 
2. - The Messianic Legacy. London: Corgi Books 1987
3. - The Temple and The Lodge. London: Corgi 1996
4. BOWLE J: A history of Europe. London: Pan Books 1982 
5. BORCKARDT K-D: European integration. The origins and growth of the European Union. Luxembourg: Office for the European Communities 1995 
6. BOULANGER J-L, MARTIN D: ''Resolution on how the Treaty on European Union is functioning - implementation and development of the Union''. Luxembourg: European Parliament (A4-0102/95) 1995 
7. BRZEZINSKI Z: Between Two Ages: America´s Role In The Technetronic Era. New York: Viking Press 1970
8. ECKHOFF H (ed): Europa und sein Genius (Europe and its spirit). Dornach: Verlag am Goetheanum 1984 
9. ERNST J W: Das Schicksal unserer Zivilisation und die kommende Kultur des 21. Jahrhunderts (The destiny of our civilisation and the coming culture of the next century). Freiburg: Die Kommenden 1977 
10. HALL M P: America´s Assignment With Destiny. The Adepts In The Western Esoteric Tradition, Part Five. Los Angeles: The Philosophical Research Society 1979 
11. HARTVEIT K M: De skjulte brödre (The hidden brothers). Oslo: Ex Libris 1994 
12. HEISTERKAMP J: Weltgeschichte als Menschenkunde (World history as knowledge of Man). Dornach: Gideon Spicker 1989 
13. HEYER K: Geschichtsimpulse des Rosenkreutzertums (Historical impulses of Rocicrucianism). Kressbronn (Bodensee): Private printing by the author in 1959 
14. ICKE D: ... and the truth shall set you free. Cambridge: Pendragon Press 1995 
15. ISSACSON W, T E: The Wise Men: Six Friends And The World They Made. New York: Simon and Schuster 1986
16. LIEVEGOED B: Mysterienströmungen in Europa und die Neuen Mysterien (Mystery streams in Europe and the new mysteries). Stuttgart: Freies Geistesleben c. 1978 
17. MORIZOT P: The Templars. London: Anthroposophical Company 1960 
18. Preparing Europe for the 21th Century. Report by the Commission of the European Union on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union. Brussels/Luxembourg: ECSC -EC-EAEC 1995 
19. QUIGLEY C: The Anglo-American Establishment. NewYork: Books in Focus 1981 
20. Report on the functioning of the Treaty on European Union. Brussels: Council of the European Union, General Secretariat 14 March 1995 (SN 1821/95) 
21. RIEMECK R: Mitteleuropa. Bilanz einer Jahrhunderts (Central Europe. Summing up a century). Freiburg: Die Kommenden 1977? 
22. SCHMUNDT W: Der soziale Organismus in seiner Freiheitsgestalt (The social organism in its freedomform). Dornach: Phil-Anthr Verlag am Goetheanum 1977 
23. SOLOVIEV V: The Antichrist. Edinburgh: Floris Books 1982 
24. STEGMAN C: Das andere Amerika (The other America). Dornach: Verlag am Goetheanum 1991 
25. STEINER R: Die Tempellegende und die Goldene Legende als symbolischer Ausdruck vergangener und zukünftiger Entwickelungsgeheimnisse des Menschen (The Temple Legend and the Golden Legend as symbolic expressions of past and future evolutionary secrets of man). GA 93. 1904-14. 
26. - Die Apokalypse des Johannes (The apocalypse of St John). GA 104. 1908. 
27. - Lecture held on the 7th of March 1914 in Stuttgart on the Temple impulse in relation to every Millenienum.
28. - Towards Social Renewal. London: Rudolf Steiner Press 1977 
29. - The inner aspect of the social question (Lectures held the 4th and the 11th of February and the 9th of March in Zürich 1919. In: GA 193). London: Rudolf Steiner Press 1974
30. STUMCKE I, KLOCKENBRING G: Der Impuls von Lérins. Spuren eines johanneisschen Christentum im 4. Jahrhunderts (The impulse of Lérins. Traces of a Johannite Christianity in the 4th century). Stuttgart: Freies Geistesleben 1977 
31. WESTENDORP C: Progress report by the reflection group on the 1996 InterGovernmental Conference 1996, BC-TEXT-IGC-REPORT August 24, 1995 
32. VIERECK G S: The Strangest Friendship In History: Woodrow Wilson And Colonel House. New York: Liveright 1932
33. YATES F A: The Rosicrucian Enlightenment. London: Paladin 1975 

This page was last modified on May 31, 1998

Go to the home page of this site.