Theos-Talk Archives (October 2011 Message tt00059)

The more I read of D. K.'s message to or through Alice Bailey about
the new world order, the less I like it.  

I find it very partisan, if not Communist propaganda.  He criticizes
Germany for aggressively seeking living space, but he doesn't say
anything about British colonialism and hardly says anything about the
Soviet Union.  If, out of principle, he was so opposed to
totalitarianism and aggression that he thought the people of the
United States should fight over it, why didn't he advocate conquering
the Soviet Union?  Germany didn't start a war with Great Britain or
France any more than the Soviet Union did and the Soviet Union did the
same thing that Germany did that Great Britain and France regarded as
a reason to declare war on Germany.  Stalin had already killed
millions of his own citizens before most people had heard of Hitler.

I disagree with his characterization of most people as being of good
will.  Most people are selfish scumbags.  As my father told me and I
then learned the long, hard way, bordering on 100%, people don't pay
loans back.  Case closed.  If he wants me to issue a Great Invocation,
it will have to include a prayer that people pay their debts.  I hope
he means it when he says he has no conception of time.  It's going to
take a LONG time before people of good will trust the multitudes
enough to make the new world order possible.  To get back to the
subject of Communist propaganda, his economic plan makes no provision
for individual incentive except to tell everyone to be unselfish.  The
ideal global economy may require equal opportunity, but equal outcomes
is never going to work.

What does he mean by the virtue of not criticizing?  His message is
full of criticism.

If physical death is so meaningless to him, why does he advocate
peace?  Why fight and die to get something that is only material?  Why
does he describe the enemy as the forces of materialism and not of
evil?

He says:

"the soul is persistent and deathless; the form is changing and doomed
to die."

Isn't the soul also evolving, and therefore "changing and doomed to
die?"  Isn't it only atma, which H. P. B. called the individual
property of no one, which is eternal rather than evolving?

Where would he draw the line in advocating violence?  Would he support
terrorists, since they're just trying to defend Palestinians against
aggression?  Would he want all people of good will to fight for Iran
if the United States aggresses against it?

After saying that the Allies used more moral means in fighting the
war, including inhibiting their war effort for the sake of not
targeting enemy civilians, was he then embarrassed by how many
millions of civilians they killed, many of them deliberately?  What
would he say about the United States torturing people?