Theos-Talk Archives (November 2002 Message tt00010)

SUBJECT: 'WHITE' ARYANIST RACISTS... NETWORKED UNDER THE 'UNIVERSAL 
BROTHERHOOD' EUPHEMISM OF THEOSOPHY . . . . 

Brian/Brigitte quotes an anonymous correspondent who writes about 
those "Theosophists" who are "racists." I quote only a portion of 
the text:

----------------------------------------------

"HER [Blavatsky's] RACE THEORY IS THE THREAD TYING ALL OF THESE 
ELITISTS TOGETHER. RACISTS IN INDIA, PERSIA, SRI LANKA, THE 
MIDDLE EAST (THROUGH MAYAVADI SUFISM), EGYPT (MORE 
MAYAVADA SUFISM), JAPAN, EUROPE, RUSSIA AND THE 
AMERICAS...ALL AROUND THE WORLD, 'WHITE' ARYANIST RACISTS ( 
AND THEIR 'HIGHER'-RACES CO-CONSPIRATORS) NETWORKED UNDER 
THE 'UNIVERSAL BROTHERHOOD' EUPHEMISM OF THEOSOPHY. 
EVERYWHERE THEY DENIED RACISM, BUT WHAT IS THE RESULT OF 
THEIR INFLUENCE ? "BY THEIR FRUITS YOU SHALL KNOW THEM". I 
PERSONALLY MET THEOSOPHISTS IN JAPAN, SRI LANKA, INDIA AND 
NEPAL, IMPERSONALISM, ANTI SEMITISM , AND 
CONSIDERING 'BLACKS' TO BE ANIMALS WAS COMMON TO ALL OF 
THEM. 
***
SECRET DOCTRINE INDEX
SD INDEX Sinhalese 
heirs to giants of Lanka II 407-8 
regard Veddhas as animals II 286-7 

VEDDAS ARE THE INDIGENOUS NEGROS OF SOUTH INDIA."
-----------------------------------------------------

End of the quote.


My observations are as follows:

(1) In the above quote, a good number of assertions are piled one 
upon each other but without any valid evidence given to prove these 
assertions other than: "I PERSONALLY MET THEOSOPHISTS. . . . " 

(2) FORTUNATELY, I have never met a "Theosophist" with such beliefs 
as those described above!!!

(3) The anonymous writer asserts: "EVERYWHERE THEY DENIED 
RACISM. . . . "

If that is so, then how did the anonynmous writer gain the knowledge 
that they were racists? Did they only confide in him? Did they come 
right out and tell him that they believed "'BLACKS' TO BE ANIMALS" 
and that they were also ANTI SEMITIC? 

(4) Furthermore, why is the reader referred to the SD index for the 
info that "Sinhalese . . . regard Veddhas as animals"?

Notice that this is followed by the commentary:

"VEDDAS ARE THE INDIGENOUS NEGROS OF SOUTH INDIA."

Were these Sinhalese actually "Theosophists"? Or were the Sinhalese 
influenced by all those racist Theosophists?

In other words, what are we suppose to conclude from this tidbit of 
info given by the anonymous writer?

Is the anonymous writer wanting us to conclude that Madame Blavatsky 
also believed that the Veddhas were "animals"?

Actually, I'm very glad that the anonymous writer brought up the text 
of SD II, pp. 286-7.

I quote a part of the text. H.P. Blavatsky writes:

". . . even in our own day, while the Singhalese regard the Veddhas 
of their jungles as speaking animals and no more, some British people 
believe firmly, in their arrogance, that every other human family -- 
especially the dark Indians -- is an inferior race. Moreover there 
are naturalists who have sincerely considered the problem whether 
some savage tribes -- like the Bushmen for instance -- can be 
regarded as men at all. . . . "

Let me pull out one statement and focus on that:

". . . some British people believe firmly, IN THEIR ARROGANCE, that 
every other human family -- especially the DARK Indians -- is an 
INFERIOR race." caps added.

Isn't this "attitude" or "belief" by some British people what the 
Mahatma K.H. is referring to (indirectly) when he writes to A.P. 
Sinnett about "yourselves the white conquerors" [of India and other 
British colonies]?

In a Dec. 1880 letter to Sinnett, K.H. brings up this same subject in 
some detail:

"My dear, good friend, you must not bear me a grudge for what I say 
to him of the English in general. They are haughty. To us especially, 
so that we regard it as a national feature. And, you must not 
confound your own private views -- especially those you have now -- 
with those of your countrymen in general. Few, if any -- (of course 
with such exceptions as yourself, where intensity of aspirations 
makes one disregard all other considerations) -- would ever consent 
to have 'a nigger' for a guide or leader, no more than a modern 
Desdemona would choose an Indian Othello nowadays. The prejudice of 
race is intense, and even in free England we are regarded as 
an 'inferior race.' And this same tone vibrates in your own remark 
about 'a man of the people unused to refined ways' and 'a foreigner 
but a gentleman,' the latter being the man to be preferred. Nor would 
a Hindu be likely to have such a lack of 'refined ways' disregarded 
in him were he 'an adept' twenty times over again; and this very same 
trait appears prominent in Viscount Amberley's criticism on 
the 'underbred Jesus.' Had you paraphrased your sentence and said: --
'a foreigner but no gentleman' (according to English notions) you 
could not have added as you did, that he would be thought the 
fittest. Hence, I say it again, that the majority of our Anglo-
Indians, among whom the terms 'Hindu' or 'Asiatic' is generally 
coupled with a vague yet actual idea of one who uses his fingers 
instead of a bit of cambric, and who abjures soap -- would most 
certainly prefer an American to 'a greasy Tibetan.' But you need not 
tremble for me. Whenever I make my appearance -- whether astrally or 
physically -- before my friend A. P. Sinnett, I will not forget to 
invest a certain sum in a square of the finest Chinese silk to carry 
in my chogga pocket, nor to create an atmosphere of sandal-wood and 
cashmere roses." Quoted from:
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-5.htm

Also notice what the Chohan communicated to Sinnett and Hume:

". . . the Theosophical Society was chosen as the corner stone, the 
foundation of the future religion of humanity. To achieve the 
proposed object a greater, wiser, and especially a more benevolent 
intermingling of the high and the low, of the alpha and the omega of 
society, was determined upon. The white race must be the first to 
stretch out the hand of fellowship to the dark nations, to call the 
poor despised 'nigger' brothers. This prospect may not smile to all. 
He is no Theosophist who objects to this principle. . . ." Quoted 
from: http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/mahatma/ml-choh.htm

Does Brian/Brigitte and the anonymous writer want us to believe that 
Blavatsky, KH and the Chohan were also "'WHITE' ARYANIST RACISTS" 
with as much ARROGANCE as the British?

Daniel