[Date Prev] [Date Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next]

Corruption in politics today 2004

Sep 23, 2004 04:37 AM
by Morten N. Olesen

Hallo all,

My views are:

Theosophy on Politics - today 2004:

------- "Then, at the signal of the aged king,
With blare to wake the blood, rolling around
Like to a lion's roar, the trumpeter
Blew the great Conch; and, at the noise of it,
Trumpets and drums, cymbals and gongs and horns
Burst into sudden clamour; as the blasts
Of loosened tempest, such the tumult seemed!
Then might be seen, upon their car of gold
Yoked with white steeds, blowing their battle-shells,
Krishna the God, Arjuna at his side:
Krishna, with knotted locks, blew his great conch
Carved of the "Giant's bone;" Arjuna blew
Indra's loud gift;"... ------- chapter 1
"The Song Celestial" also known as The Bhagavad Gita.
- written by the theosophist Sir Edwin Arnold (1885)


Theosophy on Politics - today 2004:


H. P. Blavatsky - American Section of The Theosophical Society - Second Annual Convention - april 22-23; 1888
Excerpt from the below quote: "We are the friends of all those who fight against ... corruption in society or in government, although we do not meddlein politics."

"I am confident that, when the real nature of Theosophy is understood, theprejudice against it, now so unfortunately prevalent, will die out. Theosophists are of necessity the friends of all movements in the world, whether intellectual or simply practical, for the amelioration of the condition of mankind. We are the friends of all those who fight against drunkenness, against cruelty to animals, against injustice to women, against corruption in society or in government, although we do not meddle in politics. We are thefriends of those who exercise practical charity, who seek to lift a littleof the tremendous weight of misery that is crushing down the poor. But, inour quality of Theosophists, we cannot engage in any one of these great works in particular. As individuals we may do so, but as Theosophists we havea larger, more important, and much more difficult work to do. People say that Theosophists should show what is in them, that "the tree is known by its fruit." Let them build dwellings for the poor, it is said, let them open "soup kitchens," etc., etc., and the world will believe that there is something in Theosophy. These good people forget that Theosophists, as such, arepoor, and that the Founders themselves are poorer than any, and that one of them, at any rate, the humble writer of these lines, has no property of her own, and has to work hard for her daily bread whenever she finds time from her Theosophical duties. The function of Theosophists is to open men's hearts and understandings to charity, justice, and generosity, attributes which belong specifically to the human kingdom and are natural to man when hehas developed the qualities of a human being. Theosophy teaches the animal-man to be a human-man; and when people have learnt to think and feel as truly human beings should feel and think, they will act humanely, and works of charity, justice, and generosity will be done spontaneously by all. "
(H. P. Blavatsky - )


2. The Key to Theosophy
"THEOSOPHISTS often remark that it should be possible to discuss any subject, no matter how controversial, from a Theosophical perspective -- even politics. Yet realization of the ideal, in this particular, especially, is remarkably difficult, politics in general appearing to be so deeply enshroudedin factional miasmas that philosophy is an alien language. H.P.B.'s opening sentences in "The Relations of the T.S. to Political Reforms" imply, however, that the Theosophist is obliged to seek understanding of all politicalpositions, be they "Capitalistic," "Socialistic," "Communistic," "Anarchical," "Democratic," "Monarchical," or even "Totalitarian." For she writes that the aim of the Society is to be "international in the highest sense, in that its members comprise men and women of all races, creeds and forms of thought." ..."

H.P.B. writes: 
"Valuable time and energy are thus wasted; for men, instead of cooperating,strive one against the other, often, it is to be feared, for the sake of fame and reward rather than for the great cause which they profess to have at heart, and which should be supreme in their lives."

"H.P.B. spoke of her love for America "because of its noble freedom," 
THEOSOPHY, Vol. 40, No. 12, October, 1952 (Pages 559-564) 


"The Relations of the T.S. to Political Reforms

Q. The Theosophical Society is not, then, a political organization?

A. Certainly not. It is international in the highest sense in that its members comprise men and women of all races, creeds, and forms of thought, who work together for one object, the improvement of humanity; but as a societyit takes absolutely no part in any national or party politics.

Q. Why is this?

A. Just for the reasons I have mentioned. Moreover, political action must necessarily vary with the circumstances of the time and with the idiosyncrasies of individuals. While from the very nature of their position as Theosophists the members of the T.S. are agreed on the principles of Theosophy, orthey would not belong to the society at all, it does not thereby follow that they agree on every other subject. As a society they can only act together in matters which are common to all-that is, in Theosophy itself; as individuals, each is left perfectly free to follow out his or her particular line of political thought and action, so long as this does not conflict with Theosophical principles or hurt the Theosophical Society."

(*** That is why this email perhaps shouldn't be deabted, but just read. And each reader can take a stance and act accordingly. ***)


*** The below can be mailed to those whom might benefit from it. ***

------- I do not claim that the below articles are without bias. But I claim that they relate to issues of importance. -------

The News:

Kofi Annan on Iraq - 16th september 2004.
Now the following must be important. Kofi Annan said the following just a few days ago, (16th september 2004), which BBC and several others has made public:
==> "When pressed on whether he viewed the invasion of Iraq as illegal,he said: "Yes, if you wish. I have indicated it was not in conformity withthe UN charter from our point of view, from the charter point of view, it was illegal."

Mr Annan's comments provoked angry suggestions from a former Bush administration aide that they were timed to influence the US November election.

"I think it is outrageous for the Secretary-General, who ultimately works for the member states, to try and supplant his judgement for the judgement of the member states," Randy Scheunemann, a former advisor to US Defence Secretary Donald Rumsfeld told the BBC.
"To do this 51 days before an American election reeks of political interference."

Also - what happened before all this and where are we today:

By the European Association of Lawyers for Democracy and World Human Rights- we have:
"According to Art. 2.5 of the UN Charter, Governments are obliged to refrain from giving assistance to the USA and its illegal war against Iraq. They are also obliged to refuse the use of military bases and resources in theircountries, as well as logistic support to military aircraft and the landing of military aircraft if these actions are part of aggressive actions by the USA."
(January 2003)

"The International Criminal Court could prosecute crimes against
humanity committed in the United States-led war on Iraq, despite the
fact that neither the United States nor Iraq form part of the new
court, said Costa Rican Judge Elizabeth Odio.

The International Criminal Court (ICC) is qualified to handle cases
of war crimes, committed by individuals, that have been referred to
it by the United Nations Security Council, Odio, vice-president of
the ICC, said an exclusive interview with IPS.

The ICC, presided over by Canadian Judge Philippe Kirsch and formally
inaugurated on March 11, was created to prosecute cases of genocide
and war crimes when no national court is able or willing to do so.

It has the competence to try crimes against humanity committed after
July 1, 2002, when its founding treaty, the Rome Statute, went into
"The administration of George W. Bush justified its decision to revoke
the 1998 signature of the Rome Statute by Bush's predecessor, Bill
Clinton, on the argument that falling under ICC jurisdiction would
expose its troops abroad to politically motivated prosecutions, which
would undermine the U.S. "war on terrorism."
" Q: What crimes committed in the U.S. war against Iraq will fall
within the competence of the ICC, given that it lacks jurisdiction
over the citizens of both countries?

A: I can only answer that in theoretical terms ... The UN Security
Council, in theory, has the authority to send the ICC cases of war
crimes committed in this conflict or any other.
When the Security Council believes global peace or security has been
endangered, it can refer cases to us, independently of which
countries are involved or if they have or have not ratified the Rome
(Inter Press Service, March 26, 2003, Wednesday)

Also how the EU agreed with US government to the international freedom of US troops:

You can (again) listen and even watch to the ongoing Genaral Assembly of The United Nations here:
...Try for instance Kofi Annan's 15:24 min. opening address video in english...only two days old. 

How the present US government walk alone:
"Even after the recent, tragic attack on the U.N. headquarters in Baghdad, the U.S. was not willing to unreservedly support a U.N. Security Council resolution to help protect U.N. and other humanitarian workers. Instead, the U.S. greenlighted the resolution only when its reference to the International Criminal Court (ICC) was deleted. 

It's not the first time that the U.S. has put its pigheaded opposition to the ICC before other important goals: Last year, in an unprecedented move, Bush withdrew the U.S. as a signatory to the ICC's statute, which has been ratified by all other Western democracies. But it ought to be the last. 

The U.S. Government's Hypocritical Opposition to the ICC 

The U.S. government frequently blasts other countries for human rights violations. It also frequently supports - or even, in the case of Iraq, seeks to initiate - war crimes prosecutions against other country's leaders. But, at the same time, it refuses to acknowledge that what's good for the goose,is good for the gander. 

Washington seeks to immunize U.S. leaders from war crimes prosecutions entirely, no matter what they may do. That is doubtless the reason Bush felt compelled both to refuse to become a party to the treaty, and also recently to withdraw the U.S. signature from the ICC statute."

(Take for instance the US governments stance on Iran.)
More papers on International Law and activities:

Child prisoners in Iraq - put into prison by US ans UK forces:

US troops and friends can freely do almost what they want in Iraq without the new Iraqi courts raising their voices: (may 2004, US troops one more year of extension on freedom from world court at Hauge)

I ask, what are you doing against corruption on a day to day basis, so thatit do not spread worldwide?
And what is corruption?

M. Sufilight

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

[Back to Top]

Theosophy World: Dedicated to the Theosophical Philosophy and its Practical Application