Theos-Talk Archives (February 2005 Message tt00738)

John,

> I might comment based on my small 5 
> years of exposure to Television. I was Floor Director and Host Camera for 11 
> Shows twice monthly for 5 years at our Community Channel here. My observation of 
> the Hosts for these shows goes like this: they have a breifing 15 -30 minutes 
> prior to the Show where they chat with the Guest asking questions and 
> clearing the routine for the show. going in they are almost always entirely vacant of 
> personal knowledge of the guests field and afterwards they forget it entirely 
> and go on to the next Show.
Wow. Our community channel doesn't even bother with the 15-30 minute 
briefing! Yes, television is a lot about ego. My family originally 
moved to California around 1915 in order to get work in the then new 
movie industry. My brother is the last one who stayed with it. I 
remember going to his house for parties where he was entertaining 
various actors and actricess. The conversations were so narcissic and 
vacuious of meaningful content (about operations and facelifts etc.) 
that I looked for opportunities to leave the room.

> When we went into Iraq I taped a contract Host for "F__" attempting to 
> appear like he was informing us all out here in the public and he says "Saudi 
> Arabia doesn't even have an Army" my mouth dropped open in amazement. I 
> thought "oh really? well then why did they purchase all those M1 Abrams A-2 Model 
> Main Battle Tanks when Chrysler couldn't effect a purchase order from the 
> Pentagon a few years ago?" 
There is a great book out which you might enjoy. It is called: House of 
Bush, House of Saud the secret Relationship between the world's two most 
powerful dynasties. by Craig Ungar. The relationship isn't so secret. I 
have been following these connections in the Wall Street Journal for 
years, but most people don't read newspapers and the TV news doesn't 
talk about these things. Instead people get immersed in non-news like 
the Scott Peterson trial. What is great about the book is that it 
follows the money, names the corporations, banks and politicians who are 
involved in the buying and selling of oil contracts, weapons to Iraq and 
Iran etc. Among other things, it documents about $1.4 billion that moved 
from the Saud family to the Bush family. All of the documentation is 
checkable. Most of it is buried in newspaper accounts that few people 
read and even less understand for what they are. 
> Jerry, I would be interested if you might list for us what in particular 
> you consider important today in 2005 and how you think each item can be used 
> widely and publically.
Basically, the philosophy Blavatsky was trying to promote is a kind of 
universal perennialism--ie all religions are branches of a common tree. 
That makes Theosophy the trunk. She also had the notion of the 
universe emenating from a single source, and humanity with a common 
heritage. If these notions were commonly held by all humanity, I 
believe the world would be vastly different and more pleasent. So did 
HPB. The ideas have implications concerning human responsibilities to 
other humans, social activism and social justice. She develops these 
ideas into doable activities for individuals and groups, and tried to 
model some of this activism in the early days of the TS. But after she 
died, the TS took a very different turn and her approach forgotten in 
favor of the expectation of a new age Christ. Look in the index in the 
Key to Theosophy under words like

"Altruism," "Brotherhood," "Cant," "Charity," "Ethics," Ideals" 
(relating to efforts of TS members),"Justice," "Karma (in terms of 
personal responsibility)," "Suffering"


All of these key words will lead to discussions which point out human 
responsibilities and ways for their fulfillment in such a manner to 
benefit all of humanity. HPB never pinned her teachings upon the 
expectation of this or that savior, but upon humanity to pull itself out 
of the mud. These types of discussions are all through her writings, 
but nicely summarized in the Key. For a chat board, I would love to 
see one dedicated exclusively to these ideas. Alexandria West does this 
and I would like to find and work with other activist groups who are 
applying them.



> As to War it is easy to accept a generality that seems to have easy 
> acceptance is the primary reason that promulgates a War but historians often find 
> analytic reasons that are significantly different than what aroused groups do 
> and say. 
Yes, absolutely. And those reasons usually boil down to economics 
and/or the opportunity for a small hand-full of already privledged 
families to increase their already enormous wealth and power. Even with 
idealological wars like Vietnam, huge amounts of money moved up to the 
upper 4%. When I was teaching composition courses, I talked to a lot of 
freshman at the University here. Most of them admire the upper 4% and 
want to be like them. They have this wild idea that they will be 
joining them when they get their MBA. They've been brainwashed into 
believing that they can rise far above their economic roots to the top 
of the hill. In reality, even a move of just one step up the social 
latter is very rare, and to get to the top requires family connections. 
Selfishness and greed combined with naivete and ignorance wins out every 
time. 
Jerry