Theos-Talk Archives (May 2010 Message tt00006)

Dear Jeremy

My views are:

I will stick to what I wrote and asked about.
On the contrary, I think you are confusing the issues. You want to empahsise something else than what I am emphasising.

Please try to understand, that I am not primarily considering whether the invasion of Iraq was justified or not.
What I am concerned with is that the Lucis Trust are involving itself with political disputes in opposition to the original Programe as it was given by HPB and the Masters.

I can not agree upon that such a fumbled Newsletter is in opposition to the invasion of a non-democratic country, because it clearly supports ALL democratic countries as something valid when quoting AAB's book "The Destiny of the Nations", pp. 97-98:

"Hence the conflicts everywhere to be found between the varying ideologies, and the major conflict between those who stand for the great ideal of world unity brought about by a united effort of the Forces of Light, backed by the cooperative effort of all the democratic nations, and the separative materialistic attitude of those who seek to keep the United States from assuming responsibilities and her rightful place in world affairs. "

- - -
I would however like to change the sentence:
"But, of course the intentions were quite different than the ones I have given. "

I aught to be read using "perhaps":
"But, of course the intentions were perhaps quite different than the ones I have given. "

- - -

1. 
In the previous e-mail I wrote:
I say that Lucis Trust were and is involving itself with political disputes in direct opposition to the original Programe as it was given by HPB and the Masters. (BCW vol. VII, p. 145-146)

2.
In the previous e-mail I asked:
And is such a manner of formulating oneself in this Lucis Trust Newsletter not deliberately promoting an impression, which easily lead the readers to another conclusion, than for instance the one mentioned by you, when we consider the time and hour the newsletter was written in and how many who supported the invasion of Iraq in USA and other (AAB) countries?

3.
In the previous e-mail I asked:
Politics is clearly Low-Ethics - even when the United Nations and AAB seek to throw another picture of it. Without exchanging views about the core doctrines about the Meaning of Life, how will any political activity be able to help humanity? 

*Will you please answer this question?*

4.
In the previous e-mail I wrote (rewritten a bit):
About letting oneself become manipulated by the Mass-Medias and politicians:

The voice of the public did not show this potential [to become the greatest
power in the world in the time just prior to the 2003 invasion] in any clear-cut manner what so ever.
Instead we saw, how easily falseness and manipulation could lead people to view public opinion in a false manner and also how easily it could lead people astray, - and also how easy it was to do it, and how easy it still is. [Public opinion in fact changed several times few months before the invasion of Iraq. And the same three-four months after the invasion. Public opinion were easily changed by newsmedia input, so saying that we witnessed the voice of the public is perhaps going a bit far for the learned authors at Lucis Trust. But yes, there were demonstrations just before the invasion. But only few demonstrated after feb. 5th 2003. And the motives for them were half-hearted because of the mass-medias coverage by the invaders giving their views and documentations of Weapons of Mass-Destruction at the United Nations Sec. Counsil in feb. 5th 2003, just few weeks before the invasion march 20th 2003.]

- - -
5.
In the previous e-mail I wrote:

>From the same Newsletter no.2 year 2003 from Lucis Trust:
"Related to this in
Alice Bailey's The Destiny of the Nations, pp. 97-98
we find a particularly insightful comment, "Hence
the conflicts everywhere to be found between the
varying ideologies, and the major conflict between
those who stand for the great ideal of world unity
brought about by a united effort of the Forces of
Light, backed by the cooperative effort of all the
democratic nations, and the separative materialistic
attitude of those who seek to keep the United States
from assuming responsibilities and her rightful place
in world affairs. This latter group, if they succeed
in their endeavour, will deny the United States her
share in the 'gifts of the Gods in the coming age
of peace which will succeed this point of critical
suspension,' as The Old Commentary phrases it."
.......
"The questions confronting humanity during
this transition period are not really between war and
peace, but rather, between peace and change. For
war is merely one aspect of change and the changes
needed at this time are far reaching in scope."

M. Sufilight says:
I wonder, if such words would not have been viewed by many a readers year 2003 as words in favour of the so-called democratic USA's invasion of Iraq? And this while viewing non-democratic countries as materialistic and ALL democratic countries as non-materialistic, i.e. spiritual? 


Calling war the same as "change" will not make the ugly fact go away, that the "needed changes" referred to in the above are appearntly completely in accordance with the aim of the Jesuits, which was the opression of the Islamic religion; - and that USA's invasion of Iraq did in fact follow up on this aim very well and have in many respects done it even until this day.

6.
I will add the following:

Most members of the AAB country USA were supporting the invasion of Iraq. And it is, as far as I know, there the majority of AAB members are living:
(Try Wikipedia on this: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War - or - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_US_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq  or Public Opinion: http://www.worldpublicopinion.org/pipa/articles/international_security_bt/102.php)

"Pluralities in the US and India believe the world is safer without Hussein." (report dated 2006)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_opinion_on_the_Iraq_War

Yet we aught to be careful about when using statistics as documentation, because they are most often manipulated with so people can serve their own particular agenda. Yet my own reading of the auras on the globe, - when the mass-medias covered the invaders, who were giving their views and documentations of Weapons of Mass-Destruction at the United Nations Sec. Counsil in feb. 5th 2003, just few weeks before the invasion march 20th 2003, - clearly gave me the impression that the number 75% are quite true.

"A USA Today/Gallup Poll, taken prior to the invasion in March 2003, indicated that 75% of US citizens felt the invasion was not a mistake. "
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Popular_opinion_in_the_US_on_the_invasion_of_Iraq


The only thing to say is: 
How very telling that people in US (and other countries) let themselves manipulate by the Mass-medias and politicians.

I would say, that the Newsletter by Lucis Trust did formulate itself in a very unfortunate manner, because its content can be read and misread depending on the views of the readers. And the Newsletter are heavily involving itself with politics in opposition to the Original Programe as it was given by HPB and the Masters.

It would perhaps be much better if the Lucis Trust involved themselves, and their Esoteric Psychology teachings (related to R. Assagioli's psychology) with teaching their Newsletter readers about Mass-media manipulation, political manipulation, political Spin, brainwashing, and indoctrination. And sought to show the Newsletter readers the difference between the Salvations Army and the often very loose use of The Great Invocation on the one hand  versus the Eastern doctrine on Atma-Vidya on the other hand. Since the latter is a necessity so to understand the former in a proper manner.  - And perhaps if Lucis Trust also sought to make some more official comparative studies between their own Esoteric Psychology version on the one hand and the one given by people like Idries Shah's Institute for Cultral Research, and for instance William Sargant and people from Tavistock Institute which more or less directly have been used one way or the other by a number of influentials. And if they are in need, and they often seem to be so, they could address this to the Ethical department in the United Nations if there at all is such a one in that organisation.



M. Sufilight

  ----- Original Message ----- 
  From: Jeremy 
  To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com 
  Sent: Friday, April 30, 2010 2:02 AM
  Subject: Theos-World Re: Did the AAB and Besant - T.S. and E.S. deviate from the Original Lines?


    

  --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Morten Nymann Olesen"
  <global-theosophy@...> wrote:
  >
  > Dear Jeremy and friends
  >
  > My views are:
  >
  > Jeremy wrote with regard to newsletter no.2 year 2003 from Lucis
  Trust:
  > "Morten, the use of 'we' is done so in referring to 'humanity'. The
  > article clearly does not read in favour of the USA or the
  administration
  > at that time."
  >
  > M. Sufilight asks:
  > Now, how do we know that?
  > And is such a manner of formulating oneself in this Lucis Trust
  Newsletter not deliberately promoting an impression, which easily lead
  the readers to another conclusion, than for instance the one mentioned
  by you, when we consider the time and hour the newsletter was written in
  and how many who supported the invasion of Iraq in USA and other (AAB)
  countries?

  JC: Morten, you are confusing issues. The news letter supports the
  public opinion when many did not support the war in Iraq. It is writing
  in your favour on this point not against it.

  "The thinking and concerned members of the human family hold the
  responsibility of keeping well-informed, of attempting to rise above
  their national prejudices and of learning to think in terms of the good
  of the whole. And we can see this happening as public opinion is
  increasingly nonaligned with the views of their prevailing governments
  and aligned instead with the governing principles around any issue."

  > From the same Newsletter no.2 year 2003 from Lucis Trust:
  > "Some bemoan the perception that there is
  > an imbalance of power in the world. But looked at from a wider
  perspective, the present
  > situation has made it clear that the voice of the
  > public has the potential to become the greatest
  > power in the world."
  >
  > M. Sufilight says:
  > No it has most certainly not.
  > This is a false view. The voice of the public did not show this
  potential in any clear-cut manner what so ever.
  > Instead we saw, how easily falseness and manipulation could lead
  people to view public opinion in a false manner and also how easily it
  could lead people astray, - and also how easy it was to do it, and how
  easy it still is.

  JC: It is not false as you claim. The voice of the public did indeed
  show this potential in a very clear way. "Beginning in 2002, and
  continuing after the 2003 invasion of Iraq, protests against the Iraq
  War were held in many cities worldwide, often coordinated to occur
  simultaneously around the world. After the biggest series of
  demonstrations, on February 15, 2003, New York Times writer Patrick
  Tyler claimed that they showed that there were two superpowers on the
  planet, the United States and worldwide public opinion." wikipedia.

  > Are my words too tough for your Christian and so very non-Eastern
  mind-sets?
  > Is it not easy to read or perhaps misread the Newsletter by Lucis
  Trust in the direction I have mentioned in the above?

  JC: Yes, you misread the news letter. You do not have to have either a
  Christian or Eastern mind as you say, to read or mis read. Either will
  do both equally well.

  > But, of course the intentions were quite different than the ones I
  have given. And if so I will only have to say, that I find the content
  of this Newsletter and the manner it was formulated quite unlucky and
  unfortunate.
  > Yet, bear with me and try to understand why I view the Lucis Trust
  Newsletter no.2., 2003 like I am.
  >
  > And remember, this was just one of the Newsletters given by the Lucis
  Trust, although I admit that it was one of the most awful ones I have
  ever read from this organisation.

  JC: You agree the intentions were other than the ones you presented. 
  Thank you Morten.

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



  

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