Another reason which will bring about the cessation of those practices and modes of living and desiring which account for these diseases is one little recognized as yet; it was referred to by the Christ when He spoke of the time when nothing secret would remain hidden and when all secrets would be shouted aloud from the housetops. The growth of telepathic registration and of the psychic powers such as clairvoyance and clairaudience will eventually tend to strip humanity of the privacy in which to sin. The powers whereby the Masters and the higher initiates can ascertain the psychic state and physical condition of humanity, its quality and consciousness, are already beginning to show [Page 237] themselves in advanced humanity. People will sin, commit evil deeds and satisfy inordinate desire, but they will be known to their fellowmen and nothing that they do will be carried out in secret. Some one or some group will be aware of the tendencies in the life of a man, and even of the incidents in which he satisfies some demand of his lower nature, and the fact of this possibility will act as a great deterrent—a far greater deterrent than you can imagine. Man is indeed his brother’s keeper, and the keeping will take the form of knowledge and of “boycott and sanctions”—as it is called today in reference to the penalizing of nations. I would have you ponder on these two modes of treating wrong doing. They will be practically automatically applied as a matter of good taste, right feeling and helpful intention by individuals and groups to other individuals and groups, and in this way crime and the tendency to evil doing will gradually be stamped out. It will be realized that all crime is founded upon some form of disease, or upon a glandular lack or overstimulation, based in turn upon the development or the underdevelopment of some one or other of the centers. An enlightened public opinion—informed as to man’s constitution and aware of the great Law of Cause and Effect—will deal with the criminal through medical means, right environmental conditions, and the penalties of boycott and sanctions. I have no time to enlarge upon these matters, but these suggestions will give you food for thought.
-The Tibetan Master in Esoteric Healing by Alice A. Bailey (Lucis Trust)
CNN 29 May 2024 @ 5:29 AM EDT
The facts of the case are quite clear. Perfectly hiding one’s intention to commit a crime can fool the legal system, but not those with open eyes and ears. May the truth prevail. Let the real G.L.O.A.T. be revealed.
Right Knowledge by Right Inference:
Observation: Looking out the window at bedtime and seeing no snow in the front yard.
Subsequent Observation: Waking up in the morning to find the front yard covered in snow.
Right Inference: Concluding that it snowed overnight, even though you did not witness the snowfall directly.
The Pursuit of Truth and Justice in a Hierarchical Democracy
In an ideal world, the legal system serves as the bedrock of justice, maintaining societal order while safeguarding individual rights. However, the reality often strays from this ideal due to the complexities and imperfections inherent in any human institution. One critical issue that arises within the legal framework is the phenomenon of superior gamesmanship, where strategic maneuvering overshadows the quest for truth. Such behavior is antithetical to the principles of justice, which should prioritize transparency and accountability.
Gamesmanship vs. Transparency and Accountability
Superior gamesmanship in law refers to tactics employed by legal professionals that, while technically within the bounds of legality, obscure the truth and manipulate outcomes. These strategies can range from exploiting procedural loopholes to obscuring evidence to mislead. While these maneuvers might secure a win for a particular side, they do so at the expense of justice. A legal system that permits or even encourages such actions compromises its fundamental mission: to reveal the truth and administer justice impartially.
While the protection of individuals from self-incrimination is a fundamental right, it must not be wielded as a shield to conceal crucial evidence that could sway the course of justice. Concealing evidence in the name of safeguarding individuals runs counter to the principles of transparency and can undermine the very foundation of the legal process. Accountability for wrongdoing reinforces the integrity of the legal process. Without transparency and accountability, the legal system risks becoming a battleground for cunning tactics rather than a forum for fair adjudication.
The Presumption of Innocence and Its Limits
The presumption of innocence is a cornerstone of democratic legal systems, ensuring that individuals are treated as innocent until proven guilty. This principle protects against wrongful convictions and upholds the dignity and rights of the accused. However, it must be balanced carefully. Protecting the presumption of innocence should not result in shielding criminals from justice, thereby eroding public trust and undermining the legal system’s credibility.
In a democratic society, the legal system has a dual responsibility: to protect individual rights and to safeguard the community from those who seek to disrupt its foundations through criminal behavior. When the balance tips too far in favor of protecting the accused at the expense of public safety, the system fails to fulfill its protective role. Ensuring that criminals cannot exploit the presumption of innocence to evade justice is crucial for maintaining social order and public confidence in the legal system.
The Legal System on Trial
Ultimately, when a criminal case is brought before the courts, it is not just the accused who is on trial; the legal system itself undergoes scrutiny. Each case tests the system’s ability to uphold justice, balance competing interests, and maintain its integrity. A failure to protect society from criminal activities, reflects a failure of the system as a whole.
The legal system’s true test lies in its commitment to both revealing the truth and administering justice fairly. This requires constant vigilance, ongoing reforms, and a steadfast dedication to the principles of transparency and accountability. Only by consistently striving to improve can the legal system ensure that it serves its foundational purpose: to provide a fair and just process for all.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the pursuit of justice in the legal system must transcend mere gamesmanship. True justice is achieved through transparency, accountability, and a balance between the presumption of innocence and the protection of society. It is imperative that the legal system continuously evaluates and reforms itself to ensure that truth and justice prevail. By doing so, it not only serves the individuals who come before it but also upholds the very fabric of democracy.
The principle that the defense does not have to prove the innocence of the accused but rather create “reasonable doubt” about the prosecution’s case is foundational to the American legal system and many other legal frameworks globally. This principle is rooted in the presumption of innocence, a core tenet of criminal law that upholds the idea that an individual is innocent until proven guilty.
Presumption of Innocence
The presumption of innocence is considered essential for ensuring fairness and justice in the legal process. It places the burden of proof on the prosecution, which must demonstrate beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty. This standard is intentionally high because the consequences of a criminal conviction are severe, potentially including loss of freedom, civil rights, and social stigma.
Pursuit of Truth vs. Burden of Proof
The American legal system, like many adversarial systems, is designed on the premise that truth emerges most effectively from the contest between opposing parties. The prosecution represents the state and has access to substantial investigative resources to build its case. In contrast, the defense is tasked with protecting the rights of the accused, challenging the prosecution’s evidence, and presenting any evidence that might cast doubt on the guilt of the defendant.
This approach may undermine the pursuit of truth, adding to the complexity of truth-seeking in legal contexts. However, by requiring the prosecution to meet a high standard of proof, the system aims to minimize the risk of wrongful convictions.
Proving Innocence vs. Proving Guilt: A Delicate Balance
There is critical debate at the heart of criminal justice systems in how they balance the principles of justice against the real-world dynamics of power, resources, and societal harm. The adversarial legal system, with its presumption of innocence and the burden of proof placed on the prosecution, seeks to protect individual rights and liberties from the potentially overwhelming power of the state. However, this system also faces challenges when dealing with disparities in resources and the potential for either party to manipulate legal procedures to their advantage.
Evidence of Absence: The difficulty in proving a negative is a logical and practical challenge.
It requires the defense to demonstrate that an event did not occur, often without direct evidence. This standard could unfairly disadvantage those accused of crimes, making the presumption of innocence practically unattainable in some cases.
In some cases, a credible declaration of innocence by the defendant him/herself may be the best evidence of guilt absence, as no risk of self-incrimination would inhibit a truly innocent defendant.
Resource Disparity: The imbalance in resources between defendants can indeed impact the fairness of trials. This situation not only raises concerns about fairness but also about the efficiency and effectiveness of the legal process.
Requiring the defense to prove innocence could disproportionately affect defendants with fewer resources, exacerbating inequalities within the legal system.
Wealthy defendants might use their resources to mount more effective defenses, potentially including strategies that delay proceedings or complicate the prosecution’s case.
Risk of Government Overreach vs. Societal Harm: The risk of government overreach is a fundamental concern that the presumption of innocence seeks to mitigate.
By requiring the state to prove guilt, the legal system guards against arbitrary detention and punishment.
Conversely, the concern about wealthy individuals causing societal harm by evading justice highlights the need for a legal framework capable of addressing manipulation without compromising fundamental rights. This includes ensuring that procedural rules cannot be exploited to avoid accountability.
Given these challenges, the legal system must continually evolve to address disparities and potential abuses while maintaining its commitment to justice and fairness. Possible measures include:
Strengthening Public Defense: Bolstering public defense resources to ensure that all defendants have access to quality representation, regardless of their financial status.
Reforming Legal Procedures: Adjusting procedural rules to prevent abuse that leads to undue delays or obfuscation, while safeguarding the rights of the defense.
Enhancing Transparency and Oversight: Implementing measures to increase the transparency of legal processes and the accountability of those involved, helping to ensure that justice is done and seen to be done.
Balancing Protections with Accountability: Developing legal standards and practices that balance the protection of individual rights with the need to hold powerful actors accountable, potentially through specialized legal mechanisms or oversight bodies.
In a fair legal system committed to the pursuit of truth, the presumption of innocence until guilt is proven beyond a reasonable doubt serves as a critical safeguard against injustice. It reflects a societal judgment that convicting an innocent person represents a more grievous error than allowing a guilty person to go free. However, it is subject to abuse by wealthy defendants. While no system is perfect, and miscarriages of justice can occur, the principles of presumption of innocence and the high burden of proof on the prosecution aim to ensure that the pursuit of justice is conducted with the utmost care and respect for individual rights, while guarding society’s safety.
Q: Can “reasonable doubt” do severe harm to society?
R: This question touches on complex ethical and legal dilemmas that arise when the rights of an individual defendant are weighed against potential risks to society. In cases involving severe threats, such as the destruction of democratic institutions for the implantation of an authoritarian regime negating the peaceful transfer of power, the stakes are incredibly high on both sides. The principles underlying the legal system, including the presumption of innocence and the requirement for the prosecution to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, would be tested to the utmost.
Balancing Individual Rights and Societal Safety
In practice, legal systems do attempt to balance the rights of individuals with the protection of society. For example, laws and judicial precedents allow for preventive measures in cases of significant threats, such as terrorist activities:
Preventive Detention: Legal mechanisms exist in various jurisdictions for the temporary detention of individuals suspected of posing a significant threat, even if there isn’t enough evidence to convict them of a crime.
Surveillance and Monitoring: With appropriate legal oversight, individuals suspected of dangerous activities can be surveilled or monitored to prevent potential threats from materializing.
Control Orders: In some countries, control orders can restrict the freedoms of individuals suspected of involvement in terrorism, limiting their movements, associations, and communications without a standard criminal conviction.
Ethical and Legal Challenges
These preventive measures are contentious and raise significant ethical and legal challenges. They must be carefully balanced to protect society while also safeguarding the fundamental rights and freedoms of individuals. There’s ongoing debate about where these lines should be drawn, especially in scenarios posing existential threats.
The Role of the Legal System
The role of the legal system is to review its foundational principles in the face of threats, adapting and applying those principles in a manner that protects society while also ensuring justice. Although the creation of “reasonable doubt” may become a game about manipulating legal outcomes, ensuring that convictions are genuinely based on solid evidence is crucial for maintaining justice and fairness. The legitimacy of the legal system should be continuously assessed, particularly in cases with potentially severe societal implications.
Conclusion
The scenario described — involving severe threats, such as the destruction of democratic institutions for the implantation of an authoritarian rule negating the peaceful transfer of power — poses an extreme dilemma for maintaining justice and fairness. The principles of a fair legal system must prevent the descent into a state where accusations, rather than evidence, determine guilt. In cases of severe threats, it is essential for a society to uphold its legal and ethical standards, finding ways to protect itself without undermining the core values that define it as just and fair. This is a delicate balance, requiring constant vigilance, thoughtful legislation, and judicial oversight.
Q: Justice is blind. Is it blind to morality too?
R: The adversarial legal system, where two opposing parties present their cases to an impartial judge or jury, is grounded in the belief that truth and justice are best served through a contest between differing viewpoints. This method is predominant in many legal systems, including those of the United States and the United Kingdom. The moral legitimacy of this system often comes under scrutiny, particularly concerning how it aligns with the broader concepts of justice and morality.
Justice, Morality, and the Adversarial System
Justice and Morality: Justice should not be blind to morality; rather, it should seek to balance legal principles with moral considerations. Laws are typically enacted with moral intentions—at least ideally—to protect society, punish wrongdoing, and deter harmful behavior. However, the legal application of these laws through the adversarial system can sometimes seem at odds with broader moral principles, such as the earnest search for the truth. This dissonance arises because the adversarial system focuses on legal correctness based on evidence and procedural fairness, which doesn’t always allow the discovery of the truth.
Adversarial System’s Moral Underpinnings: The adversarial legal system has moral and ethical foundations designed to ensure fairness and neutrality. Its procedures and standards, such as the presumption of innocence and the burden of proof, are mechanisms that reflect societal values about justice, fairness, and the protection of individual rights. These aspects are also inherently moral in nature, as they aim to prevent the miscarriage of justice, such as the wrongful conviction of an innocent person.
Limitations and Criticisms
Potential for Immorality: Critics argue that the adversarial system allows for, and sometimes encourages, tactics that can obscure the truth or manipulate outcomes. Lawyers are ethically bound to zealously represent their clients within the bounds of the law, which might lead to situations where the discovery of the objective truth becomes secondary to winning the case. This aspect raises questions about whether the system is more focused on victory than on justice or moral righteousness.
Inequality and Access to Justice: Another moral criticism of the adversarial system relates to inequalities in legal representation. As previously noted, wealthy individuals or entities can often afford more skilled legal representation than poorer defendants or plaintiffs, potentially skewing outcomes. This disparity can lead to perceptions and realities of injustice, challenging the system’s moral legitimacy.
The Role of Morality in Legal Judgments
While the adversarial system may seem mechanically focused on legal procedure, there is an underlying moral framework that guides its operation. Judges and juries, as representatives of societal morality, are tasked with making decisions that not only adhere to the law but also reflect community standards and ethics. Their role is crucial in ensuring that the legal process does not become detached from moral considerations.
Conclusion
While the principles of presuming innocence versus proving guilt are foundational to preserving individual freedoms, the application of these principles requires careful, ongoing calibration to address the realities of the modern legal landscape. Balancing these factors is crucial for a legal system committed to fairness, justice, and the protection of society.
The moral legitimacy of the adversarial legal system is complex and multifaceted. While the system is designed to uphold justice by procedural fairness and protection of individual rights—principles with strong moral foundations—it is not without flaws that challenge its moral effectiveness. Continuous efforts to reform and improve the system, such as enhancing access to quality legal representation and refining ethical standards for legal practitioners, are essential in ensuring that justice remains not only blind and impartial but also morally grounded and equitable.
Q: What does the term “moral legitimacy” mean?
R: The term “moral legitimacy” refers to the ethical or moral justification and authority of an action, decision, or system within a societal context. It involves assessing whether an action or decision aligns with accepted moral principles, ethical standards, or societal norms. When something possesses moral legitimacy, it is considered morally valid, justifiable, or right according to prevailing ethical beliefs.
Key Aspects of Moral Legitimacy
Ethical Alignment: Actions or decisions are deemed morally legitimate when they adhere to recognized ethical standards, values, and norms. They reflect principles of fairness, justice, honesty, and respect for individual rights.
Public Acceptance: Moral legitimacy often hinges on the acceptance and endorsement of the broader society or relevant stakeholders. When actions are perceived as morally justified by the majority or by those impacted, they are more likely to be considered morally legitimate.
Transparency and Accountability: Practices or systems that operate transparently, with mechanisms for accountability and oversight, contribute to their moral legitimacy. Transparency fosters trust and ensures that actions are subject to ethical scrutiny.
Consistency with Principles: Moral legitimacy requires consistency with established moral principles or ethical frameworks. Actions should not contradict fundamental values or norms widely regarded as morally significant.
Intent and Impact: The intentions behind actions and their actual impact on individuals, groups, or society play a crucial role in determining moral legitimacy. Actions pursued with good intentions that lead to positive outcomes are more likely to be seen as morally legitimate.
Examples of Moral Legitimacy
Government Policies: Policies that promote equality, justice, and social welfare are often viewed as morally legitimate. Conversely, policies that discriminate, exploit, or harm certain groups may lack moral legitimacy.
Corporate Practices: Business practices that prioritize ethical behavior, environmental sustainability, and social responsibility can enhance a company’s moral legitimacy in the eyes of consumers, employees, and the public.
Legal Systems: Legal systems that uphold the rule of law, protect individual rights, and ensure due process contribute to their moral legitimacy. Fairness, impartiality, and adherence to ethical standards are essential for maintaining this legitimacy.
Social Movements: Movements advocating for civil rights, environmental conservation, or humanitarian causes often derive their moral legitimacy from alignment with widely shared moral values and aspirations for a better society.
Conclusion
In essence, moral legitimacy reflects the perceived moral correctness, ethical justification, and societal acceptance of actions, decisions, or systems. It underscores the importance of aligning behavior with ethical principles, respecting individual rights, promoting justice, and fostering trust within communities. Actions and structures that possess moral legitimacy are not only considered right and just but also contribute to the overall well-being and harmony of society.
Convicting individuals involved in organized crime
Convicting individuals involved in organized crime, such as mobsters associated with criminal organizations, can present significant challenges for the legal system. These challenges arise due to various factors inherent in prosecuting organized crime cases:
Complexity of Criminal Networks
Sophisticated Operations: Organized crime groups often operate with a high degree of sophistication, utilizing intricate hierarchies, encrypted communication systems, speaking in codes and clandestine practices that make it challenging for law enforcement to gather evidence.
Loyalty and Omertà: The code of silence, known as “omertà,” within these criminal networks can hinder investigations as members are reluctant to cooperate with law enforcement, making it difficult to obtain witness testimony or insider information.
Legal Hurdles
Burden of Proof: Prosecutors must meet a high standard of proof, demonstrating guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. In cases involving complex criminal enterprises, establishing a direct link to specific criminal activities or proving individual culpability within a hierarchical structure can be arduous.
Witness Intimidation: Witnesses may be intimidated, threatened, or even harmed to prevent them from testifying against organized crime figures. This poses a significant obstacle to building a strong case and securing convictions.
Resource and Time Constraints
Resource Limitations: Investigating organized crime requires substantial resources, including skilled law enforcement personnel, financial analysts, forensic experts, and surveillance capabilities. Limited resources can impede thorough investigations.
Lengthy Trials: Prosecuting organized crime cases often involves lengthy trials due to the complexity of the charges, the number of defendants, and the need to present extensive evidence. This can strain court resources and prolong the legal process.
Strategic Defense Tactics
Experienced Legal Representation: Mobsters often have access to skilled defense attorneys who can exploit legal loopholes, challenge evidence, and mount robust defenses. This can complicate prosecution efforts and lead to acquittals or reduced charges.
Legal Maneuvering: Defense strategies may involve delay tactics, filing motions to suppress evidence, or discrediting witnesses to create reasonable doubt. These tactics can impact the trial’s outcome and make convictions more challenging.
Conclusion
Prosecuting mobsters and individuals involved in organized crime requires a comprehensive approach that addresses the complexities and challenges inherent in these cases. While the legal system is equipped to handle such prosecutions, the obstacles posed by the secretive nature of criminal networks, witness intimidation, resource constraints, and defense strategies necessitate thorough preparation, specialized expertise, and collaboration among law enforcement agencies to successfully convict individuals associated with organized crime groups.
The Gambinos: America’s First Family Of Crime | Full Documentary | Biography
The United Nations, the Christ, the Will of God, and the Avatar of Synthesis
Owing to the stupendous task confronting Christ, the Avatar of Synthesis will fortify Him, and He will be buttressed by this “Silent Avatar” Who (to speak symbolically) will “keep His eye upon Him, His hand beneath Him and His heart in unison with His.”
This Being is closely related to the Will Aspect of divinity, and His cooperation has been made possible through Christ’s Own attainment along the line of the highest, spiritual will. He works under the great natural Law of Synthesis, producing at-one-ment, unification and fusion. His function (in unison with the energy of Christ) is to generate spiritual will in humanity, the will-to-good; His potency works in three fields of activity at this time:
a. Within the spiritual Hierarchy itself, revealing the nature of the divine will-to-good which the Kingdom of God must express, and the nature also of divine Purpose.
b. Within the Assembly of the United Nations, though not within the Security Council; He is there generating a slowly growing will-to-unity.
c. Within the masses of men everywhere, fostering the urge to a general betterment.
His activity is necessarily a mass activity, for He can only channel His energies through the mass consciousness or through a group conscious entity, such as the Hierarchy, the United Nations or Humanity. The focal point of His effort and the Agent through which distribution of His energy can be made is the New Group of World Servers; [Page 78] this group is uniquely related to this Avatar of Synthesis. The bringing together of all the agents of goodwill (who are responsive to the energy of the divine will-to-good) constitutes the major objective of the New Group of World Servers and always has been. Their work can now be constructively and creatively intensified through the association of the Avatar of Synthesis with the Christ. Their task is to usher in the New Age; in that New Age, the five Kingdoms in Nature will begin to function as one creative whole. Their work falls into the following parts, functions or activities:
a. The production of a human synthesis or unity which will lead to an universal recognition of the one humanity, brought about through right human relations. b. The establishing of right relations with the subhuman kingdoms in nature, leading to the universal recognition that there is One World. c. The anchoring of the Kingdom of God, the spiritual Hierarchy of our planet,in open expression on Earth, thus leading to the universal recognition that the sons of men are one.
These objectives the Avatar of Synthesis will foster and aid and for this purpose He has associated Himself with the Christ, working through the Hierarchy, under instruction from the “centre where the will of God is known.” These three related events and distributing points of energy have all come into activity during the point of tension in which Christ and the Hierarchy are at this time held. They all serve to re-direct and focus energy in relation to humanity, for all are the result of the decision made by Christ after His point of crisis, and are all connected [Page 79] with the hierarchical preparation for Christ’s reappearance.
-Extract of a statement by the Tibetan Master through Alice A. Bailey in the book The Reappearance of the Christ published by Lucis Trust
[JB:Two major structural flaws of the UN were foreseen by the planetary spiritual Hierarchy since its foundation. They were the recommendation to create the Zionist state of Israel, and the admission of a totalitarian state, Russia, among its members. /JB]
The UN Charter thrashed
[JB: The previous quotes by the Tibetan Master, a Representative of the planetary spiritual Hierarchy, were written before 1950. These quotes explain “the trouble which the United Nations today faces.” However, the way out of this trouble today is not thrashing the UN Charter but, rather, amending it to become better aligned to its founding principles.
For instance, the veto power of the Security Council could be revoked by a supermajority of the General Assembly. A two-third, three-fourth or four-fifth majority in the General Assembly, according to criteria to be agreed upon, would be required to override the veto power of an expanded and representative Security Council. Under such amended UN Chart, i) a two-state solution for the Israel-Palestine conflict could be enforced by the UN General Assembly, ii) to remain as bona fide members of the community of nations, all totalitarian states would be required to transition to UN-verified democracies supporting the Four Freedoms, and iii) all countries would be required to give up their nuclear weapons, with the UN Security Council being charged with enforcing and verifying their destruction, eradicating the threat of humanity’s extinction. /JB]
There is no counsel of perfection to give the world or any solution which will carry immediate relief. To the spiritual leaders of the race certain lines of action seem right and to guarantee constructive attitudes.
1. The United Nations, through its Assembly and Committees, must be supported; there is as yet no other organization to which man can hopefully look. Therefore, he must support the United Nations but, at the same time, let this group of world leaders know what is needed.
2. The general public in every nation must be educated in right human relations. Above all else, the children and the youth of the world must be taught [177] goodwill to all men everywhere, irrespective of race or creed.
3. Time must be given for the needed adjustments and humanity must learn to be intelligently patient; humanity must face with courage and optimism the slow process of building the new civilization.
4. An intelligent and cooperative public opinion must be developed in every land and the doing of this constitutes a major spiritual duty. This will take much time but if the men of goodwill and if the spiritual people of the world will become genuinely active, it can be done in twenty-five years.
5. The world economic council (or whatever body represents the resources of the world) must free itself from fraudulent politics, capitalistic influence and its devious scheming; it must set the resources of the earth free for the use of humanity. This will be a lengthy task but it will be possible when world need is better appreciated. An enlightened public opinion will make the decisions of the economic council practical and possible. Sharing and cooperation must be taught instead of greed and competition.
6. There must be freedom to travel everywhere in any direction and in any country; by means of this free intercourse, members of the human family may get to know each other and to appreciate each other; passports and visas should be discontinued because they are symbols of the great heresy of separateness.
7. The men of goodwill everywhere must be mobilized and set to work; it is upon their efforts that the future of humanity depends; they exist in their millions everywhere and—when organized and mobilized—represent a vast section of the thinking public.
It will be through the steady, consistent and organized work of the men of goodwill throughout the world that world unity will be brought about. At present, [178] such men are only in process of organizing and are apt to feel that the work to be done is so stupendous and the forces arrayed against them are so great that their—at present—isolated efforts are useless to break down the barriers of greed and hate with which they are confronted. They realize that there is as yet no systemized spread of the principle of goodwill which holds the solution to the world problem; they have as yet no idea of the numerical strength of those who are thinking as they do. They ask themselves the same questions which are agitating the minds of men everywhere: How can order be restored? How can there be fair distribution of the world’s resources? How can the Four Freedoms become factual and not just beautiful dreams? How can true religion be resurrected and the ways of true spiritual living govern the hearts of men? How can a true prosperity be established which will be the result of unity, peace and plenty?
There is only one true way and there are indications that it is a way towards which many millions of people are turning. Unity and right human relations—individual, communal, national and international—can be brought about by the united action of the men and women of goodwill in every country.
These men and women of goodwill must be found and organized and thus discover their numerical potency—for it is there. They must form a world group, standing for right human relations and educating the public in the nature and power of goodwill. They will thus create a world public opinion which will be so forceful and so outspoken on the side of human welfare that leaders, statesmen, politicians, businessmen and churchmen will be forced to listen and comply. Steadily and regularly, the general public must be taught an internationalism and a world unity which is based on simple goodwill and on cooperative interdependence. [179]
This is no mystical or impractical program; it does not work through the processes of exposing, undermining or attack; it emphasizes the new politics, i.e., politics which are based upon the principle of bringing about right human relations. Between the exploited and the exploiting, the warmongers and the pacifists, the masses and the rulers, this group of men of goodwill will stand in their organized millions, taking no side, demonstrating no partisan spirit, fomenting no political or religious disturbance and feeding no hatreds. They will not be a negative body but a positive group, interpreting the meaning of right human relations, standing for the oneness of humanity and for practical, but not theoretical, brotherhood. The propagation of these ideas by all available means and the spread of the principle of goodwill will produce a powerful organized international group. Public opinion will be forced to recognize the potency of the movement; eventually the numerical strength of the men and women of goodwill in the world will be so great that they will influence world events. Their united voice will be heard on behalf of right human relations.
This movement is already gathering momentum. In many lands this plan for the formation of a group of people who are trained in goodwill and who possess clear insight into the principles which should govern human relations in world affairs is already past the blueprint stage. The nucleus for this work is present today. Their functions might be summarized as follows:
1. To restore world confidence by letting it be known how much goodwill—organized and unorganized—there is in the world today.
2. To educate the masses in the principles and the practice of goodwill. The word “goodwill” is largely [180] used at this time by all parties and groups, national and international.
3. To synthesize and coordinate into one functioning whole all the men and women of goodwill in the world who will recognize these principles as their personal directing ideal, and who will endeavour to apply them to current world or national events.
4. To create mailing lists in every country of the men and women of goodwill who can be counted upon to stand for world unity, right human relations and who will try—in their own lands—to reach others with this idea, through the medium of the press, the lecture platform and the radio. Eventually this world group should have its own newspaper or magazine, through means of which the educational process can be intensified and goodwill be found to be a universal principle and technique.
5. To provide in every country and eventually in every large city, a central bureau where information will be available concerning the activities of the men and women of goodwill all over the world; of those organizations, groups and parties who are also working along similar lines of international understanding and right human relations. Thus many will find those who will cooperate with them in their particular endeavour to promote world unity.
6. To work, as men and women of goodwill, with all groups who have a world programme which tends to heal world differences and national quarrels and to end racial distinctions. When such groups are found to work constructively and are free from scurrilous attack or aggressive modes of action, and actuated by goodwill to all men and are free from an aggressive nationalism and partisanship, then the cooperation of the men of goodwill can be offered and freely given.
[181] It takes no great effort of the imagination to see that, if this work of spreading goodwill and educating public opinion in its potency is pursued, and if the men of goodwill can be discovered in all lands and organized, that (even in five years’ time) much good can be accomplished. Thousands can be gathered into the ranks of the men of goodwill. This is the initial task. The power of such a group, backed by public opinion, will be tremendous. They can accomplish phenomenal results.
How to use the weight of that goodwill and how to employ the will to establish right human relations will grow gradually out of the work accomplished and meet the need of the world situation. The trained use of power on the side of goodwill and on behalf of right human relations will be demonstrated as possible, and the present unhappy state of world affairs can be changed. This will be done, not through the usual warlike measures of the past or the enforced will of some aggressive or wealthy group, but through the weight of a trained public opinion—an opinion which will be based on goodwill, on an intelligent understanding of the needs of humanity, on a determination to bring about right human relations and on the recognition that the problems with which humanity is today confronted can be solved through goodwill.
-Extract of a statement by the Tibetan Master through Alice A. Bailey in the book The Problems of Humanity published by Lucis Trust
“But it’s just wrong. We’re not going to — we’re not going to supply the weapons and artillery shells used, that have been used.”
“Civilians have been killed in Gaza as a consequence of those bombs and other ways in which they go after population centers.”
-Pres. Biden
How many civilian casualties have been needed for the US administration to recognize the fatal error of judgement in allowing Israel to dictate US foreign policy?
How many protesting students and professors on campuses nationwide have been sacrificed for upholding this self-evident truth: it’s just wrong to support Israel’s genocidal agenda in Gaza.
We fully agree with Thomas L. Friedman’s pragmatic position about the campus demonstrations to stop the war in Gaza.
I am a hardheaded pragmatist who lived in Beirut and Jerusalem, cares about people on all sides and knows one thing above all from my decades in the region: The only just and workable solution to this issue is two nation-states for two indigenous people.
If you are for that, whatever your religion, nationality or politics, you’re part of the solution. If you are not for that, you’re part of the problem.
And from everything I have read and watched, too many of these protests have become part of the problem — for three key reasons.
First, they are virtually all about stopping Israel’s shameful behavior in killing so many Palestinian civilians in its pursuit of Hamas fighters, while giving a free pass to Hamas’s shameful breaking of the cease-fire that existed on Oct. 7. On that morning, Hamas launched an invasion in which it murdered Israeli parents in front of their children, children in front of their parents — documenting it on GoPro cameras — raped Israeli women and kidnapped or killed everyone they could get their hands on, from little kids to sick grandparents.
Second, when people chant slogans like “liberate Palestine” and “from the river to the sea,” they are essentially calling for the erasure of the state of Israel, not a two-state solution. They are arguing that the Jewish people have no right to self-determination or self-defense. I don’t believe that about Jews, and I don’t believe that about Palestinians. I believe in a two-state solution in which Israel, in return for security guarantees, withdraws from the West Bank, Gaza Strip and Arab areas of East Jerusalem, and a demilitarized Palestinian state that accepts the principle of two states for two people is established in those territories occupied in 1967.
The third reason that these protests have become part of the problem is that they ignore the view of many Palestinians in Gaza who detest Hamas’s autocracy. These Palestinians are enraged by precisely what these student demonstrations ignore: Hamas launched this war without permission from the Gazan population and without preparation for Gazans to protect themselves when Hamas knew that a brutal Israeli response would follow. In fact, a Hamas official said at the start of the war that its tunnels were for only its fighters, not civilians.
Even if we do not agree with the unlawful occupation of Palestinian territory by the Zionists in 1948, the coexistence of Israel and Palestine is the inevitable solution for peace in 2024. Both Hamas and Netanyahu oppose and sabotage the only remaining politically viable option for peace. Thus, the need to support the pragmatism proposed by Friedman.
Friedman’s wise advice is worth pondering on, coming from an experienced and unbiased observer of the Israel-Palestine conflict. His pragmatic proposal, as well as Biden’s shift in US policy, may not be the definitive solution, but steps in the right direction of a possible final one-state solution. If both factions share the disputed territory under a common democratic system of government, then the phrase “from the river to the sea” will have the same meaning for both.
