Count Robert De Saint Germain?

I have been wondering why the article from 2009 that I compiled from various sources on Count Robert de Saint Germain is getting so many readers now? Maybe people are doing more research on the Count de Saint Germain than before?

When I originally compiled this article from several sources I had been reading my copy of "The Comte de Saint Germain written I think in 1910 or 1911 or thereabouts by Cooper Oakley. I have a collector's copy from then. She visited family archives of people who actually knew the Count (Their ancestors) and read whatever they would let her of correspondence and letters between them and the count or recountings of their experiences with him. I also checked with other sources as well.

I think the problem is the further you move away from any historical thing the more confusion is going to arise about these things.

My illustration of this is the caricature people make of the 1960s (I was 12 in 1960) so I lived through this time with eyes wide open. And they were very different in some ways than they were depicted. It's not that everything they report didn't happen. But, these kinds of 1960s things didn't happen to everyone. So, most people over 30 just sort of said things like, "We don't understand." when a lot of these things happened.

And even after many things happened I didn't understand as they were happening. Let me give you an example. There was a Love IN at Griffith park in Los Angeles where Buffy St. Marie and the Youngbloods (they called themselves the Flying Burrito brothers at this time) in the Fall of 1969 that I went to because it was all the buzz. I was 21 at the time and a lot of my friends wanted to go see all the groups perform for free in Griffith park at this love in. However, when I got there the police were there too. So, it was a little scary because they were at the edges of the concert looking kind of angry and mean. And as soon as the concert ended most of us just ran as the police started beating people with billy clubs for no reason at all.

So, even though I witnessed this there was no real warning before people were beaten bloody who were too out of it to run. I enjoyed the concert and my friends and I ran and were okay. Many were not as lucky as we were. So, this is the kind of craziness back then. Then it would go on the news and people would say things that weren't true at all. So, the way people reported things and what we all experienced often were two different things.

The same is true of all historical events. People report stuff but unless you were there it's really hard to know what was actually going on. Even then you can't really climb inside the heads of all those present to actually know what they were really experiencing either.

The main reason I went to the Love In was to hear the original Youngbloods Sing (When you come home to San Francisco better wear some flowers in your hair) which was a theme of the 60s about then. Donovan and the Youngbloods and Buffy St. Marie were very big then. However, I think the police were angry because they were likely anti-war groups then too. So, maybe that's why they beat everyone up. I don't know. They just didn't warn anyone they just started hurting people out of the blue. So, this is why the 1960s were pretty insane mostly. If you didn't know when to run you were dead whether it was in Viet Nam or at a Love In in Griffith Park.

Many of the people there were veterans from Viet Nam dressed up like Hippies with wigs and stuff or they had been home out of the service long enough to grow their hair long already. So, some of the people beaten bloody were veterans. So, you see just how paradoxical all this was.