Theos-Talk Archives (February 2006 Message tt00213)

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, Bart Lidofsky <bartl@...> wrote:
>
> robert_b_macd wrote:
> > Your characterization of Carlos's position is unfair.  Carlos himself
> > writes in post 29673 the following:
> > "The main question is  publishing obvious LIES against HPB.
> > Nothing against critizing her or talking about her many PERSONAL 
> > faults, which the Masters did, by the way."
> > His concerns are fairness to a woman's memory.  Even if you think he
> > is over-zealous, it does not follow that he worships her.  That is
> > simply a non-sequitor and thus simply your humble opinion on the
matter.
> 
> 	OK, now we're talking about what I wrote, rather than nasty character 
> references.
> 
> 	Pretending that a problem doesn't exist does not make the problem 
> magically go away. For example, I have had a lot of problems over the 
> years from Jewish groups who believe that the Theosophical Society is 
> anti-Semitic (in the sense of hating Jews). I point out that
Blavatsky's 
> statements against Judaism refer only to the religion, and not the 
> people, and are part of comments against most religions. I point out 
> that many statements by Alice Bailey are wrongly attributed to 
> Blavatsky. I have to deal with the fact that "Aryan" was used by people 
> who wanted to prove that white Europeans were the superior race BEFORE 
> Blavatsky, and also the embracing and twisting of Blavatsky's works by 
> later white Christian supremacists, like the Thule Society, the Nazi 
> Party, etc. I've had to deal with statements on this very list who 
> believe that the Protocols of the Elders of Zion is a factual document. 
> And, of course, I've had to deal with a little article in Fohat which 
> COULD have simply defended a man's right to speak, but defended his 
> scholarship and premises as well.

Okay, now I understand your beef with me and am able to comment on
that.  You and I both agree that Theosophy is in danger of being
branded anti-Semitic.  Your solution is to educate Theosophy's
detractors about what Theosophy teaches and hope that this will
satisfy them.  My editorial made this much more difficult for you
which caused you to be irritated at me.  My fear is that the
educational approach will not work.  We are dealing with worldly power
struggles that will in the end roll right over the Theosophical
Society and anything else in its way.  At some point Theosophy will
once again be forced underground as the Western Democracies decay 
into Tyrannies.  Already, one of the two scholars in my editorial,
David Irving, sits in an Austrian jail awaiting a trial in which he
will not be able to bring forward any evidence that contradicts the
official version of the Hollocaust.  He is effectively guilty before
the trial begins.  When Theosophy is branded a hate-religion, and it
will be, Theosophists will not be able to bring any evidence forward
to defend themselves as they will be considered guilty a priori.  I
chose these two scholars to defend precisely because their cases were
well argued.  If they were not, then why should anyone defend them. 
There has to be a place for responsible dissent and questioning of
accepted theories, not simply the defense of a man's right to speak. 
By not defending what they had to say we allow them to be branded
anti-Semites and "separated" from the herd.  Once separated they are
easily picked off one by one.  This is happening now.  David Irving is
not the only one sitting in a European jail.  Your approach is to say
that they are obviously anti-Semitic, but deserve the right to speak
no matter how malignant their thoughts. I see this as separating them
from the body of responsible speakers and thus leaving them open for
attack.

All Theosophists should be aware of what is happening.  Blavatsky
pissed off too many established institutions with much more political
power than us to believe that as individual rights are taken away, as
is happening now, Theosophy will not at some point become a target.

This is my rationale for the editorial.  I may be wrong and you may be
right, but to date all evidence seems to be pointing in my favor.  

> And, as far as personal attacks go, I must remind you that you were
> the person who started in with the personal attacks and slurs.

I am still uncertain as to why you felt that I attacked you.  In your
first response to me you brought up two issues: my statement that
perhaps you were "uncharitable" to Carlos by branding him a Blavatsky
worshipper; and that example that included both you and Daniel that
had nothing to do with either of you.  I could have easily chosen any
other names in that situation and hence there was nothing personal
involved at all.  In the first instance all I was saying was that
perhaps the charitable thing to do would be to take Carlos at his word
and give him the benefit of the doubt.  Perhaps I should have phrased
it in the positive rather than in the negative?  I was interested in
talking about the philosophy of assuming everyone to be coming from a
principled position and dealing strictly with arguments.  I can only
assume that you reacted as you did because you already viewed me as an
anti-Semite and had no business talking about charity towards other
human beings?  Whatever the case, I obviously offended you and would
like nothing better than to put the whole issue behind us and start again.

Sincerely, Bruce