Spiritual workers should face the various world alternatives:
- An all-dominant Russia, whose regime would cover the planet, enforcing her totalitarian
interpretation of communistic doctrine (there is a right and true interpretation),
refusing freedom to the individual in the interest of the State, and - because of a low
opinion of the human masses - everywhere standardizing her interpretation of democracy.
- A world in which all nations live in an armed armistice, in which distrust is forever
rampant and in which science is prostituted to the art of destruction. In this world an
explosion must and will eventually take place which will destroy humanity as once before
it was destroyed, according to the Bible and the other world Scriptures and the
hierarchical records.
- A world in which the United States proves itself to be the controlling factor, after
wiping out Russia, which she can well do if she acts now. It will be a predominantly
capitalistic world, run by several nations but headed by the United States. A capitalistic
nation is not necessarily wrong; capital has its place, and Russia (the enemy of
capitalism) is by no means free from capitalistic bias. The motives of the United States
are very mixed motives: greed of money or its equivalent, such as oil, and at the same
time sincerely good intentions for the establishment of human freedom in a democratic
world - modeled, of course, on American democracy. Other motives are an appreciation of
the armed fist and, at [639] the same time, a longing for economic sharing and for that
essential kindness which is such a strong American characteristic - a mass characteristic.
These mixed motives will produce eventually a very confused world, one in which it will be
found that humanity has learned very little as the result of the World War (1914-1945) and
is acquiescent to the cycle of well-intentioned money control.
- A world divided into "blocs" for mutual aid and economic sharing. Of this, the
proposed treaty between Great Britain, France and the Benelux countries is a tentative
sample, though tainted by objectionable motives, from the angle of the Hierarchy. Fear is
the major factor producing this treaty, but it has in it nevertheless the seeds of hope.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong in any group of nations standing together for mutual
aid and economic cooperation. The wrong factor comes in when they stand united against any
other group of nations, and therefore against any group of human beings. It is this
attitude, engineered and fostered by Russia, which has lead to the relatively new concept
of blocs against. Along this line, and with this attitude of antagonistic
groupings, only disaster can lie.
Blocs in themselves can be good and proper if they follow lines of natural cleavages,
of language differences and of cultural distinctions. They can be essentially right if
they are formed for economic, educational, religious and social aims and can therefore
provide no true cause for alarm. Such blocs would be cultural and not militaristic,
economic and not greedy, and they could provide a normal and progressive movement away
from the separative nationalism of the past and towards the distant creation of the One
World, and the One Humanity. This will some day be seen, but the time is not yet. Mankind
is not ready for some super-government, nor can it yet provide the unselfish and trained
statesmen that such a government would require. As yet, there are more seeds of danger in
this concept than there are of helpfulness. Nevertheless, it is a dream which will some
day materialize, after the creation and the functioning of blocs have proved how men
should work and live together. [640]
The United
Nations is still the hope of the world and can remain so; it is a great field of
experimentation, but is suffering today from an initial error. That error was the
admitting of a totalitarian Power into its nations. For seven long and terrible years the
Forces of Light had been fighting totalitarianism. In the early days of the postwar period
the Nations compromised with principles and admitted Russia to the United Nations. Had
they proceeded to unite all the other nations of the world on the sure ground of economic
reform, of needed national reorganization and of regional groups (a better term than
"blocs"), Russia would have been forced to conform, for her very existence would
have been at stake. An initial error can lead to much trouble, and it is this type of
trouble which the United Nations today faces. |
