Ven a ganef kisht darf men zich di tsein ibertseilen.

What do Baker, Brzezinski, Chamberlain, Dove, Milner, Rhodes, & Baker have in common with Alice Bailey & Madame Blavatzky?

According to Professor Eugene Narrett, although the West may not be out to destroy Israel, it is necessarily ambivalent to the idea that Israel remain a sovereign Jewish entity. This explains the news coming out of the Middle East.

The “separatist” commitment, demanded of the Jewish people by the Torah, is something that runs counter to the deepest roots of Western culture. One thinker, who Professor Narrett explains as being influential in maintaining this ambivalence is Alice Bailey, who in his estimation was, for all intents and purposes, a communist. Gnosticism via Christianity also accounts for the antipathy of a sovereign Jewish nation, as well as various New Age thinkers of our day and days gone by.

The enemies of the Jewish people see this as a competition to the death between univeralism and particularism. It is, in reality, a competition to the death between forced, conformist utopianism, and the Jewish view of godly utopianism — the second ultimate goal being much superior to the first for a number of reasons, not the least of which is that our G-d given free will is not trampled along the way.

What most who are unfamiliar with the deeper tenets of Judasim do not understand is this; though Judaism has particularlist elements, it is ultimately the most universalist of the three monotheistic religions. Furthermore, for those who wish to join the Divine Mandate specific to the Jewish people (there is a Divine Mandate specific to the gentile world as well) the door is open. One need not change one’s racial make-up to join us.

Get over the idea that being Jewish is a race. Please. It is not. This can easily be proven, if you will visit Israel once. You will see black Jews, Chinese Jews, northern European Jews, Mexican Jews and “Euromutt” American Jews. If I left anybody out, just visit Israel. You’ll find whatever I haven’t mentioned here.

The fact that Judaism is passed down generationally, and that a long line of Jews are proud of their unbroken links to their forefathers, and that Judaism is not a religion which emphasizes proselytizing, may give the idea that Judaism is a race. The praiseworthy accomplishment of a long, unbroken chain reaching back 120 generations or more is not one of maintaining racial purity, but of successfully transmitted from one generation to the next, in a long, unbroken chain, the values of the Torah, certainly not any easy task, and one which takes intense dedication, and sacrifice. There are and always have been powerful, seductive, and even violent forces working against the average Jewish family which are determined to draw Jewish children away from their faith, family and community. But none of this means that being Jewish is a genetic pedigree.

Furthermore, the particularism of Judaism includes a deep sense of responsibility towards the world, rather than a sense of elitism or superiority. We are supposed to be about the business of assisting the world with it’s various and many spiritual needs, teaching the world how to have a relationship with the Creator without the crutch of idolatry to confuse the picture, not running for our lives from the latest pogrom, or more recently, suicide bomber, Kassam rocket aimed at our children’s beds, or murderers in the night, determined to slash our babies throats as they sleep.

In Professor Narrett’s article entitled Is it American Policy to Destroy Israel? he quotes Bailey on the topic of the Jewish Question as saying thus: “Remember that the Jews are found in every land, that their influence is potent and widespread, and that they wield most potently what we call money. They represent the energy and life of a previous solar system” — Bailey, “The Hidden Source of the Outer Turmoil,” January 1930 in Externalization, op. cit 75-8. According to Professor Narrett, the last sentence is in reference to the “dawning of the Age of Aquarius”. (!!)

Don’t laugh too hard. Some people really believe in this stuff. I recently watched a movie entitled Zeitgeist; The Movie. I applauded their exposure of Christianity as being heavily borrowed from Egyptian and mystery cult religions. For a scholarly approach to this topic, see Hyam Maccoby’s book The Mythmaker. The movie also spoke of the various “ages”, and mentioned that many believe we are in the “Age of Aquarius”. From approximately 16:06 minutes to 26:06 minutes, this movie asserts that religious systems are ultimately based on a misunderstanding of an ancient astrological allegory. Of course, their interpretation of Judaism is utter nonsense. For example, the movie considers the story of Moses mere plaigerism. However, the movie does bring out the fact that we are allegedly in the “age of Aquarius”… and why those who believe this would have antipathy towards a particularist religion like Judaism.

Getting back to Bailey, apparently she believed Jews to be among the “low-grade human beings that are met with in their milions on our planet”, to be people more closely resemble animal-men, not fully human due to some deficiency she imagined in the Jewish people’s enlightenment. She believed that the “Jewish problem” would be solved by a world religion based on Shamballa-wisdom as proclaimed by the Buddha and the Christ. (Rats, and liked that song by Three Dog Night.) Naturally, she also also believed in the internationalization of Jerusalem, believing it to be a city that belonged to no one religion in particular.

Professor Narrett: “This war against Judaism and the Jews, a collectivist assault of regional blocs which necessarily is a war against a sovereign and intact Israel, Y’srael Shleimah is an attack on memory, on remembrance as a habit, ideal, and practical basis for education, on free will and individualism opposed to a collective dissolution in rapture and ‘mass thinking.'”

So, does this mean that particularist Judaism is hopelessly at odds with the universalist culture of Western civilization? Professor Narrett focuses heavily on Bailey in this article, apparently because while there were powerful men strategizing the fate of countries, the nation of Israel included, there were also influential theosopical esoterics, Bailey to be counted among them, who were also affecting and continue to affect the thinking of many on the proper role of Israel in the world.

As I read Professor Narrett’s article I couldn’t help recalling a sound scolding I received in a political debate I participated in several years ago among some Ron Paul supporters. Here I was, on the same side, stating that I agreed with Ron Paul’s views on taxation, the constitution, freedom etc., even going so far as to say I don’t think Ron Paul has a “Jewish problem” or if he does, I don’t think he should. At the time, I hadn’t decided whether or not Ron Paul was a friend of the Jewish people or not. But I wasn’t vascillating that day. I don’t think these particular people were aware of my reservations, because I hadn’t expressed them as yet.

The hostility towards my thinking was palpable, and I couldn’t understand why. I thought I was on the same team. But I guess my pro-Israel views aren’t easily suppressed. I was chided for my “separatist” views. A few of these Ron Paul supporters responded to my statements with hostility I thought reserved only for bitter opponents to Ron Paul. To these people, peace would never be possible if folks like me didn’t get ourselves more “enlightened”. I was puzzled. I want peace just as much as anyone. And I’m nice to everyone — ehm — well I am most of the time. I not only pray for the peace of Jerusalem. I pray for peace among the Arab peoples as well. I am saddened by the sight of the poverty in Gaza, for the oppression the Arabs in the region suffer at the hands of their greedy, corrupt leaders. Arab misery existed before Israel. The existence of Israel is not the barrier to peace in the Middle East. 

It must be noted, within the same debate on Ron Paul and his views of Israel, there were more supporters who were sympathetic and supportive of Israel than not. But the virulence of Israel’s detractors was startling.

Bailey, Blavatzky and various New Ager’s, wanting a one world, universalist religion are necessarily opposed to the idea of a Jewish nation. Their perception is that peace is not possible in a world where such separatist views prevail. We already know what most world leaders think. My question is this: How much influence do these better known theosophical esoterics have on the big political players?

Book cover photo found at: Todd Mecklem’s Photostream


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s