The adversarial method, also known as the adversarial system, is a legal framework that is widely used in the United States. It can be traced back to the English common law tradition, from which the American legal system largely evolved. It is based on the principle that the truth can be best discovered through the presentation of competing arguments by opposing parties, with an impartial judge or jury determining the outcome. This system encourages parties to present their cases in the best possible way, ultimately leading to a fair outcome.

Principles and Functioning of the Adversarial System

The adversarial system operates on several key principles:

1. Each party is responsible for presenting its own case: In this system, both the prosecution and defense are responsible for gathering evidence, calling witnesses, and making legal arguments.
2. The role of the judge or jury is to act as an impartial referee: The judge ensures that the trial proceeds according to the rules of procedure and evidence, while the jury (if present) determines the facts of the case and reaches a verdict.
3. The burden of proof lies with the party making an assertion: In criminal cases, the prosecution must prove the defendant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, while in civil cases, the plaintiff must prove their case by a preponderance of the evidence.
4. The right to legal representation: Both parties have the right to be represented by an attorney, who will advocate for their client’s interests and present their case in the best possible light.

Benefits and Drawbacks of the Adversarial Method

The adversarial system offers several benefits, including:

1. Fairness: By providing each party with an equal opportunity to present their case, the adversarial system promotes fairness and ensures that all relevant evidence and arguments are considered.
2. Efficiency: The system allows the parties to focus on the most critical aspects of their case, streamlining the process and potentially reducing the time and expense involved in litigation.
3. Finality: The adversarial system typically results in a clear winner and loser, providing closure for the parties involved.

However, the adversarial system also has its drawbacks, such as:

1. Establishing the truth: The adversarial system’s focus on winning can sometimes obscure the truth, as parties may present evidence selectively or use aggressive tactics to discredit the opposition.
2. Protecting society from criminals: The high burden of proof in criminal cases can make it difficult to convict guilty individuals, potentially allowing dangerous criminals to remain at large.
3. Balancing protection of individuals from false incrimination: The presumption of innocence and the right to legal representation can sometimes lead to the acquittal of guilty parties, while innocent individuals may still be convicted due to errors or biases in the system.

Comparison with the Inquisitorial System

In contrast to the adversarial system, the inquisitorial system is used in many civil law countries and involves a more active role for the judge in investigating the facts and determining the outcome. Key differences between the two systems include:

1. Role of the judge: In the adversarial system, the judge acts as an impartial referee, whereas in the inquisitorial system, the judge takes on a more investigative role, questioning witnesses and directing the gathering of evidence.
2. Presentation of evidence: In the adversarial system, the parties are responsible for presenting their own case, while in the inquisitorial system, the judge plays a central role in collecting and presenting evidence.
3. Focus on truth-finding: The inquisitorial system places a greater emphasis on discovering the truth, rather than relying on the competition between opposing parties to reveal it.

Balancing Society’s Protection and Individual’s Protection

To achieve a delicate balance between protecting society from criminals and protecting individuals from false incrimination, the adversarial system could incorporate certain elements from the inquisitorial system. For example, judges could take a more active role in guiding the presentation of evidence and questioning witnesses to ensure that all relevant facts are brought to light. Additionally, providing better access to legal representation for all parties and improving the quality of public defenders can help ensure that both innocent and guilty individuals receive fair treatment under the law.

In summary, the adversarial method has its benefits and drawbacks, but with careful adjustments and a focus on truth-seeking, it can provide a fair and effective legal framework for the United States and other common law countries.

---

High-profile cases with compelling evidence but no charges

Several high-profile cases have raised questions about the effectiveness of the US legal system in delivering justice. For example, the O.J. Simpson trial in 1994 ended with an acquittal despite strong forensic evidence against the defendant. Similarly, the Casey Anthony trial in 2011 saw an acquittal even though there was substantial circumstantial evidence suggesting guilt. In both cases, the juries played a critical role in delivering not guilty verdicts.

The role of juries and the distinction between a not guilty verdict and the absence of proof

Juries are tasked with determining guilt or innocence based on the evidence presented by both the prosecution and defense. A not guilty verdict does not necessarily mean the defendant is innocent; it simply means the prosecution has not proven their case beyond a reasonable doubt. This standard of proof is designed to protect the rights of the accused and prevent wrongful convictions. However, this high threshold can sometimes result in acquittals even when there is significant evidence of guilt.

Legal technicalities and limitations

Several legal concepts can contribute to acquittals or hinder prosecution despite compelling evidence:

1. Plea bargaining: This process allows defendants to plead guilty to lesser charges in exchange for reduced sentences. While it can help alleviate court congestion, it may also enable criminals to receive lighter punishments than their crimes warrant.
2. Statutes of limitations: These laws set time limits for prosecuting certain offenses. If the statute of limitations expires, charges cannot be filed, regardless of the evidence. This can result in injustice if crucial evidence emerges after the time limit has passed.
3. Prosecutorial discretion: Prosecutors have broad discretion in deciding whether to bring charges and what charges to file. This power can lead to inconsistencies in how cases are handled and may result in some suspects evading justice.
4. Double jeopardy rule: This principle prevents a defendant from being tried twice for the same offense. While it protects against harassment and wrongful convictions, it can also prevent retrials when new evidence arises or when legal errors occur during an initial trial.

Proposed reforms and potential solutions

To address these issues, several reforms could be considered:

1. Plea bargaining reform: Limiting the use of plea bargains or setting stricter guidelines could ensure that more serious offenders face appropriate charges and penalties.
2. Extending statutes of limitations: In certain cases, particularly those involving sexual offenses or new evidence, extending the statute of limitations could allow for the prosecution of criminals who might otherwise evade justice.
3. Enhancing prosecutorial accountability: Implementing oversight mechanisms or establishing guidelines for prosecutorial discretion could promote consistency and fairness in charging decisions.
4. Improving jury selection and education: Better jury selection processes and enhanced juror education on legal concepts and standards of proof could lead to more informed decision-making and reduce the likelihood of acquittals based on misunderstanding or bias.
5. Consider adopting a hybrid model that combines elements of both adversarial and inquisitorial systems. In this system, judges would play a more active role in the fact-finding process, reducing the reliance on opposing parties to present evidence. This could lead to more accurate outcomes and prevent manipulation of the proceedings by either party.
6. Reform Discovery Rules: Streamline and modernize discovery rules to reduce the burden on parties and expedite the litigation process. This could include implementing mandatory initial disclosures, limiting the scope of discovery, and encouraging the use of technology-assisted review methods.

While these reforms have the potential to improve the US legal system’s ability to deliver justice, it is essential to strike a balance between addressing these issues and protecting the rights of defendants. Any changes must be carefully considered to ensure they do not undermine the fundamental principles of due process and the presumption of innocence.

---

The Mueller Report, officially titled “Report on the Investigation into Russian Interference in the 2016 Presidential Election,” is the result of a two-year investigation led by Special Counsel Robert Mueller. Appointed by then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein, the objective of the investigation was to determine whether there was any collusion between the Trump campaign and the Russian government during the 2016 US Presidential Election and if there were any instances of obstruction of justice by President Trump or his associates.

Background and Context

The investigation began in May 2017, following the dismissal of FBI Director James Comey by President Trump. The report was released in April 2019 and consists of two volumes. Volume I focuses on Russian interference and potential coordination with the Trump campaign, while Volume II addresses possible instances of obstruction of justice by the President.

During the course of the investigation, the Special Counsel’s team interviewed numerous witnesses, reviewed thousands of documents, and issued more than 2,800 subpoenas. The investigation was conducted amidst a highly polarized political environment and ongoing public debate regarding its legitimacy and scope.

Core Findings and Evidence

Volume I of the report found that Russia engaged in two primary efforts to interfere in the 2016 election: a social media campaign aimed at sowing discord among American voters and a hacking operation targeting the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and Clinton campaign officials. The report identified the Internet Research Agency, a Russian entity, as responsible for the social media campaign and Russian military intelligence (GRU) for the hacking operation.

While the report established numerous contacts between Trump campaign officials and individuals with ties to the Russian government, it did not find sufficient evidence to establish that the Trump campaign conspired or coordinated with Russia in its election interference activities.

Volume II of the report examined various actions taken by President Trump that raised concerns about obstruction of justice. The report outlined ten episodes involving the President’s conduct, including his firing of Comey, attempts to curtail the investigation, and efforts to influence the testimony of key witnesses.

The report did not reach a legal conclusion regarding obstruction of justice. Instead, it cited the Department of Justice’s Office of Legal Counsel (OLC) opinion that a sitting President cannot be indicted, as well as concerns about the fairness of accusing the President of a crime when he cannot be charged in a court of law. The report left the decision on whether the President obstructed justice to Congress.

Key Legal Issues

The Mueller Report raised several significant legal issues, including the application of the First Amendment protection to foreign nationals engaged in social media campaigns and the extent of executive privilege in shielding presidential communications from scrutiny. These issues can impact future investigations and the interpretation of constitutional protections.

Conclusions and Implications

The Mueller Report did not find sufficient evidence to establish collusion between the Trump campaign and Russia during the 2016 election. However, it did not exonerate President Trump from possible obstruction of justice, leaving that determination to Congress. Several individuals connected to the Trump campaign were charged with various crimes during the course of the investigation, but these charges were primarily unrelated to collusion with Russia.

The report’s findings have had significant implications for the political landscape in the United States, leading to ongoing debates about election security, foreign interference, and presidential conduct. It has also prompted discussions about potential reforms to the Special Counsel regulations and the need for greater transparency in future investigations.

---

An acquittal does not necessarily equate to innocence

An acquittal is a legal term used to describe the outcome of a criminal trial when a defendant is found not guilty of the charges brought against them. This verdict is reached when the jury, or sometimes a judge in a bench trial, determines that the prosecution has not met the burden of proof required to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. It is important to understand that an acquittal does not necessarily equate to innocence, even though it might be perceived as such by the public.

Burden of Proof and Reasonable Doubt

In criminal trials, the burden of proof falls on the prosecution, meaning it is their responsibility to present sufficient evidence to convince the jury that the defendant is guilty of the crime charged. The standard for conviction is typically “beyond a reasonable doubt,” which is a high threshold designed to protect the rights of the accused and prevent wrongful convictions. An acquittal indicates only that the prosecution did not present enough evidence to meet this standard, and it does not imply exoneration or absolute innocence of the accused.

Examples of Acquittals and Public Perception

There have been numerous high-profile cases where defendants were acquitted, yet many people believed the individuals were culpable based on available evidence, such as the acquittal in Donald Trump’s impeachments which, though not criminal trials, followed a similar process of trial by jury in the political arena. These cases demonstrate that an acquittal does not always align with public perceptions of guilt or innocence.

Respecting Judicial Decisions and Encouraging Societal Discourse

While it is important to respect an acquittal as a judicial decision, society should not shy away from questioning the decisions made by the justice system. Engaging in open discourse about the outcomes of criminal trials can promote a more transparent and accountable legal system. It is crucial to understand that the legal process is not infallible and that there may be instances where the evidence presented in court does not paint a complete picture of the events in question.

Legal Nuances and Misconceptions

Public perception of criminal law and court processes can sometimes be influenced by misconceptions or a lack of understanding of legal nuances. For example, some may not realize that an acquittal does not automatically mean exoneration or that a “not guilty” verdict does not always equate to innocence. Additionally, procedural rules and the exclusion of certain evidence in trials can sometimes create a gap between the evidence presented in court and the totality of the information available about a case. This gap can contribute to differing perceptions of guilt or innocence among the public and the jury or judge who reached the acquittal decision.

In summary, it is essential to recognize that an acquittal does not necessarily equate to innocence, and public perception can sometimes differ from the outcomes of criminal trials. Understanding the legal nuances and complexities involved in the criminal justice system can help promote a more informed and discerning society, fostering healthy discourse about the fairness and effectiveness of the legal process

---

Recapitulating, the adversarial method is a cornerstone of the American legal system, rooted in the belief that the truth is best discovered through the competition between opposing parties. However, this system also has inherent strengths and weaknesses, particularly when it comes to the disparities between rich and poor, and powerful versus powerless.

Strengths:

1. Fairness and impartiality: In theory, the adversarial system allows both sides to present their case and challenge the opposing side’s evidence and arguments. This can lead to a more balanced and fair trial, as long as both parties have equal access to resources and competent representation.
   
2. Active role of the parties: The adversarial system encourages the parties to take an active role in building and presenting their case. This can result in a more thorough examination of the facts and allows each side to test the credibility of witnesses and evidence.
   
3. Efficiency: By requiring each party to present their best case, the adversarial system can be efficient in reaching a decision, as the judge or jury can weigh the evidence and arguments presented by both sides.
   

Weaknesses:

1. Unequal resources: One of the primary criticisms of the adversarial system is the significant disparity in resources between rich and poor litigants. Wealthy individuals or entities often have access to better legal representation and resources, which can give them an advantage over less affluent parties. This inequality can lead to an imbalance in the presentation of evidence and arguments, potentially resulting in unfair outcomes.
   
2. Power dynamics: The adversarial system can exacerbate existing power imbalances between parties. Powerful entities, such as large corporations or government agencies, may have greater resources and influence, which can make it difficult for less powerful individuals to effectively challenge them in court.
   
3. Win-at-all-cost mentality: The competitive nature of the adversarial system can encourage a win-at-all-cost mentality, where the focus is on winning the case rather than finding the truth. This can lead to aggressive tactics, such as suppressing unfavorable evidence or using procedural maneuvers to delay or prevent the resolution of a case.
   
4. Limited access to justice: The adversarial system often requires significant financial resources to navigate, which can limit access to justice for low-income individuals. Legal representation can be expensive, and those who cannot afford it may be at a significant disadvantage in presenting their case.
   

In conclusion, while the adversarial system has its merits in promoting fairness and impartiality, it also has inherent weaknesses that can disproportionately affect poor and powerless parties. Addressing these issues through measures such as providing affordable legal representation, ensuring equal access to resources, and promoting a focus on truth-seeking over winning could help create a more equitable legal system.

---

DJT represents the greatest threat to American democracy since the Civil War — with worldwide repercussions — and the most difficult test of the trustworthiness and reliability of the US judicial system for finding truth and indicting a self-incriminated defendant. His well-known gamesmanship tactics of procedural maneuvering and time delays for hiding factual evidence will play out for public scrutiny to legally and politically decide his fitness for holding public office. Ethically, he is clearly unfit for office. Legally, his fitness for office remains an open question until the due process of law is completed.

May the truth prevail.

JB

---

The United States Legal System: Balancing the Search for Truth and Presumption of Innocence

The United States legal system is built upon two integral aspects: 1) the search for truth and the possibility of hiding it, and 2) the presumption of innocence beyond a reasonable doubt. These principles form the basis of the American justice system, which strives to protect the rights of the accused while ensuring that the guilty are held accountable. However, striking a balance between these foundational principles can be challenging, as evidenced by high-profile cases such as the Trump impeachments and indictments. This section will explore both sides of these issues (from this perspective) and their practical implications, such as letting criminals go free, by examining evidence-based examples and expert quotations.

The Search for Truth and the Possibility of Hiding It

The search for truth is a fundamental aspect of any justice system, as its primary goal is to determine the facts of a case and apply the law accordingly. However, the possibility of hiding the truth can complicate this process. Defense attorneys and prosecutors alike have an ethical duty to present the truth to the best of their abilities. Nonetheless, they may also engage in strategic behavior to protect their clients or advance their case.

As former Supreme Court Justice Benjamin N. Cardozo once said, “Justice is not to be taken by storm. She is to be wooed by slow advances.” This quote emphasizes the importance of careful, methodical investigation and analysis in the pursuit of truth. However, this process can be hampered by various factors, such as witness tampering, destruction of evidence, or even outright perjury.

The Trump impeachment trials, for example, showcased how the search for truth can be obscured. Critics argue that the Senate’s refusal to call witnesses or subpoena documents during the first impeachment trial limited the ability to fully uncover the facts surrounding the Ukraine controversy. The second impeachment trial similarly faced challenges, with some Senators voting against conviction despite acknowledging Trump’s responsibility for inciting the January 6th insurrection.

Presumption of Innocence and Beyond a Reasonable Doubt

The presumption of innocence is another cornerstone of the American justice system. This principle dictates that an accused person is considered innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. This high burden of proof is intended to protect the rights of the accused and prevent wrongful convictions.

However, this principle can also lead to the release of potentially guilty individuals. As U.S. Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas once said, “It is better for ten guilty persons to escape than for one innocent to suffer.” This sentiment underscores the importance placed on protecting the innocent at the potential expense of letting criminals go free.

Challenges and Limitations Faced by Prosecutors and Defense Attorneys

Both prosecutors and defense attorneys face challenges and limitations in upholding these two pivotal aspects of the justice system. For prosecutors, proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt can be a daunting task, especially in cases with complex or circumstantial evidence. Defense attorneys, on the other hand, must navigate ethical boundaries while zealously advocating for their clients and challenging the prosecution’s case.

In the context of the Trump impeachments and indictments, prosecutors face an uphill battle in proving that the former president had committed impeachable and/or criminal offenses. The political nature of impeachment trials further complicated matters, as partisan loyalties often took precedence over objective assessments of the evidence.

The United States legal system is based on the dual principles of truth-seeking and the presumption of innocence. Balancing these ideals can be challenging, particularly in high-profile cases like the Trump impeachments and indictments. Both prosecutors and defense attorneys face obstacles in upholding these principles, as they navigate the complex world of evidence, ethical boundaries, and public opinion. Despite these challenges, the continued pursuit of truth and justice remains a vital aspect of the American legal system.

---

---

The world of men today can be divided into two major groups. They are those who are fighting for some political party, some form of national government, some religious, [Page 675] social or economic attitude. They are against all that is not of their inclination. There are those who are opposed to them, and who are ranged against them. Partisanship, fighting for or against, and party spirit distinguish the modern world of men. With these activities, which lead to separation and division and strife, the New Group of World Servers have no time or interest. They stand for those attitudes which will eventually produce a third party, free from political and religious hatreds. As yet they are unknown, unrealised, and relatively powerless to make a definite impression on world thought. If, however, there is skill in action and an adherence to the principles of harmonious cooperation, they can, in a very few years, demonstrate real power and influence.

EP II

To resist evil —any ideology of separateness— is not a “partisan” activity discouraged for the members of the New Group of World Servers. In fact, the NGWS stands as a “third party.” Such “partisanship” is indeed encouraged by the spiritual Hierarchy to fulfill —”with stern resolve”— the task of equilibrizing and lifting the extremes of the political spectrum, thus precipitating SYNTHESIS.

“I play my part with stern resolve, with earnest aspiration; I look above; I help below: I dream not, nor I rest; I toil; I serve; I reap; I pray; I mount the cross; I tread the Way; I tread upon the work I do; I mount upon my slain self; I forego peace; I forfeit rest, and in the stress of pain, I lose myself and find my Self, and enter into peace.”

DINA I, 561

---

* … a hint as to the nature of evil and a clue to a part (though only a part) of the mystery to be noted in the statement that evil and good are reverse aspects of the same one reality, and evil is that good which we should have left behind, passing on to greater and more inclusive good. 

R&I, 350

The attitude of many students, inevitably participants in world events, that “such is the Law and such is the Karma of people and nations and such is the pre-determined destiny“ is far from right. They believe—sometimes sincerely—that all that should be done is simply to wait for results to appear and for karma and destiny to fulfil itself. Then and not till then, all will be well. …. Only through resistance to EVIL (and in this world period and in this kali-yuga it is an essential basic attitude) can karma be brought to an end.

EA, 443-44

---

Would any reasonable person call for a dialogue with the man who raped his mother, wife, sister, or daughter? And what if the rapist claimed that he was provoked by the woman he raped? Furthermore, what if he claimed that he was acting in self-defense?

The epitome of absurdity, correct? Well, I propose that this is exactly the position being held by those who promote a dialogue with Mr. Putin to negotiate the outcome of his military invasion of a sovereign country, Ukraine.  

In the 21^st century, there is no justification whatsoever to invade a sovereign country, even if provoked by perceived geopolitical threats. A perceived threat is a legitimate cause to demand and engage in a dialogue, relying on it as the only civilized way to settle the matter. However, once engaging in criminal acts of war against civilian population, the dialogue option is forfeited. Only justice — not vengeance — can restore permanent peace, a true peace based on right human relations.   

Of course, I do understand the danger of fueling an arms race. I do not trust the industrial military complex to restore peace on Earth. However, why did the spiritual Hierarchy oppose pacifism and, instead, supported the military defeat of Fascism during the Second World War? Was it a sin against the Law of Love?

“The present war, if carried forward to a successful completion by the defeat of the totalitarian powers, constitutes a far lesser evil than the subjugation of many nations to the unparalleled cupidity, the appalling educational process and the defiance of all recognised spiritual values by the Axis powers.”

Externalisation of the Hierarchy 180

It is evident that the pacifist impasse — its decision paralysis — is broken by the formula suggested by the Master: opt for the lesser of two evils. Arming Ukraine to defeat the aggressor — in legitimate self-defense — is the lesser of two evils.

Still, the question remains: how to defeat a nuclear power, led by a criminal of war able to manipulate the public opinion of the Russian people by controlling the national media, by incarcerating political opponents, and who is willing to sacrifice tens of thousands of reluctant citizens as cannon fodder, with total impunity? Even if the threat to world peace is not yet at the level of a Third World War, we certainly have reached a level of world tension similar to the 1930s preceding the Second World War and Hitler’s invasion of Poland in 1939.

THE GREAT INVOCATION – Stanza One

Let the Forces of Light bring illumination to all mankind.
Let the Spirit of Peace be spread abroad.
May men of goodwill everywhere meet in a spirit of cooperation.
May forgiveness on the part of all men be the keynote at this time.
Let power attend the efforts of the Great Ones.
So let it be and help us to do our part.

October 1939

I said earlier that the war could have been averted from expression on the physical plane had the disciples and aspirants of the world measured up to their opportunity and responsibilities. The Great Invocation was rendered relatively powerless, from the angle of dynamic usefulness, because the majority of those who used it turned it into a peace prayer. It was instead a great spiritually militant invocative demand. This must not happen with this Stanza of Invocation. It is a demand; it is also an authoritative affirmation of existent fact; it sets in motion agencies and forces hitherto quiescent, and these can change the face of the world battlefield; it invokes the Prince of Peace, but He [Page 251] carries a sword, and the effects of His activity may prove surprising to those who see only the needs of the form aspect of humanity.

Externalisation of the Hierarchy

THE GREAT INVOCATION – Stanza Two

Let the Lords of Liberation issue forth.
Let Them bring succour to the sons of men.
Let the Rider from the secret Place come forth,
And coming, save.
Come forth, O Mighty One.

Let the souls of men awaken to the Light,
And may they stand with massed intent.
Let the fiat of the Lord go forth:
The end of woe has come!
Come forth, O Mighty One.
The hour of service of the Saving Force has now arrived.
Let it be spread abroad, O Mighty One.

Let Light and Love and Power and Death
Fulfil the purpose of the Coming One.
The Will to save is here,
The Love to carry forth the work is widely spread abroad.
The Active Aid of all who know the truth is also here.
Come forth, O Mighty One and blend these three.
Construct a great defending wall.
The rule of evil now must end.

June 30, 1940

Haven’t we, the New Group of World Servers (NGWS), learned the lesson?

The answer, my friends, is blowing in the wind, in the air of the buddhic plane. And these quotes are what the wind is blowing for us, students of the Tibetan Master’s Teachings.

“In their well-meaning blindness they would sacrifice the future of humanity and the lives of millions of people at a later date for a temporary cessation of hostilities. I would emphasise to you that the Forces of Evil must be defeated now; the evil leaders must be wrenched from their high place, and the complete defeat and annihilation of those responsible for launching this horror on humanity is an absolute necessity and bounden duty, if security, well-being and a new order of happier living is to be the lot of coming generations. A temporary ending of the war would only give time for the Forces of Evil to reorganise, and the future war would be infinitely worse than this one. This the intelligent humanitarian is saying, and this is the opinion of the Hierarchy. The Hierarchy stands firmly on the side of those who demand a war to a finish, and the reasons are the ultimate saving of millions of lives and the preservation of certain basic spiritual values.”

Externalisation of the Hierarchy 426

Of course, we are entitled to hold our own opinions about war and peace. We all are free to do so. But what really holds together this nonpartisan political service activity of the NGWS is not anyone’s opinion, but the wisdom of a Master of Love and Compassion.

As a group we must hold a point of tension in the mental plane, above partisan emotions, holding a clear vision of a united world opinion saying NO! to Mr. Putin and his lackeys. This NO! will defeat the aggressor by means of “boycott and sanctions.”

Yes, this approach will take time. Mr. Putin is betting that we will tire first. Let’s prove him wrong. -JB

---

NO!

“Appetites of the autocrat cannot be appeased. They must be opposed. Autocrats only understand one word: ‘no, no, no’,” Biden said. “‘No, you will not take my country. No, you will not take my freedom. No, you will not take my future.'”

NPR

“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 penalising 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. […]  I have no time to enlarge upon these matters, but these suggestions will give you food for thought.”

Esoteric Heling, p. 237

The answer, indeed, is blowing in the wind!

---

Blowin’ in the Wind Summary & Analysis

by Bob Dylan

https://www.litcharts.com/poetry/bob-dylan/blowin-in-the-wind

---

---

UN Disarmament Conference

27 February – 03 March
Geneva, Switzerland

Theme: Disarmament, and prevention of nuclear war and arms race in outer space

PDF

---

Contrary to conventional wisdom, democracy is not designed for the rule of the selfish majority. Not even an “enlightened” self-interest would fit the need for — in accord with Jeremy Bentham’s view — “the greatest good to the greatest number.”

For the survival of the soul of America, we need to invoke a higher principle, more inclusive than rational self-interest: the principle of the Common Good.

The Faustian bargain of selling out our vote in exchange for the deceptive promise of lower gas prices at the pump and a bull market — the idol of the Golden Calf — is a sign of a decaying empire losing its spiritual vision. “When there is no vision, the people perish.” (Proverbs 29)

Corporate greed, evangelical Pharisaism, and Nativism have empowered the MAGA ideology — the “Dweller on the Threshold” of the United States of America — to stymie the will of the spiritual Soul, the true Democrat of the Spirit.

In a true, hierarchical democracy, all souls are equal, subservient — in freedom — to the Common Good, ruling over partisan self-interests — individual or collective — to the Glory of the One. So may it be. -JB

---

---

“Genes are competing directly with their alleles for survival, since their alleles in the gene pool are rivals for their slot on the chromosomes of future generations. Any gene that behaves in such a way as to increase its own survival chances in the gene pool at the expense of its alleles will, by definition, tautologously, tend to survive. The gene is the basic unit of selfishness.”

Richard Dawkin, The Selfish Gene

Rational selfishness is a term generally related to Ayn Rand‘s Objectivist philosophy, which refers to a person’s efforts to look after their own well-being, to cultivate the self, and achieve goals for the good of the self. The focus in rational selfishness might be considered to be more self-directed (where the benefit to the group or society is a possible by-product) than the focus of enlightened self-interest which is more group-directed (and the benefit to oneself might be more of the by-product). Some authors say that this concept elevates egoism to the level of a moral principle.

Wikipedia

HOW THE AMERICANS COMBAT INDIVIDUALISM BY THE PRINCIPLE OF SELF-INTEREST RIGHTLY UNDERSTOOD

… an enlightened regard for themselves constantly prompts them to assist one another and inclines them willingly to sacrifice a portion of their time and property to the welfare of the state… The principle of self-interest rightly understood produces no great acts of self-sacrifice, but it suggests daily small acts of self-denial. By itself it cannot suffice to make a man virtuous; but it disciplines a number of persons in habits of regularity, temperance, moderation, foresight, self- command; and if it does not lead men straight to virtue by the will, it gradually draws them in that direction by their habits.

Alexis de Tocqueville Democracy in America 1835

How do we renew confidence in America’s institutions and strengthen public engagement in civic life? The Spring 2013 issue of Dædalus suggests ways in which government, corporations, nonprofits, the judiciary, and the media can inspire greater confidence in our democratic system and a renewed commitment to civil discourse.

In the face of increasing polarization and considerable stress on the American polity, this issue of Dædalus begins a much-needed public conversation about how individuals and institutions can work together to strengthen democracy and promote the common good.

https://www.amacad.org/daedalus/american-democracy-common-good

---

[JB] Lying is not a crime. To knowingly affirm a false statement —the intentional declaration of a falsehood— is wrong, but it is not a crime. A former POTUS, a proven unfit and corrupt holder of the Presidency, established this legal fact in the public opinion.

The intentional misrepresentation of the truth is the seed of all corruption. Because politicians covet power, the latent virus of corruption is prevalent in the world of politics. This primal urge to grab power for selfish purposes, disguised as public service, may be kept on leash by a moral sense of guilt and the subsequent fear of shame, if indulged in and exposed. However, this latent poison may be unleashed by shameless politicians actively spreading the disease of corruption into the body politic of a democracy. Lacking a moral compass, these vectors of corruption can abort a democratic experiment, like the US.

The five Justices who overturned the right to privacy in the US cheated their way into the SCOTUS, eroding its legitimacy. They lied, and they lied under oath to the American public, hiding their true intention to subvert a judicial precedent supported by five decades of jurisprudence, and by the vast majority of Americans. They thus exposed a compromised legal system unable to uphold the truth, gambling to protect the innocent at the expense of acquitting wrongdoers hiding under the cloak of “reasonable doubt.”

In a democracy, grabbing power with the intention to impose the will of a minority is corrupt. However, this is exactly the acknowledged undemocratic gamesmanship of the conservative movement in the US, from the Electoral College to the SCOTUS, aided and abetted by corporate greed, religious zealotry and racist demagoguery.

The geographic majority of rural, conservative America wants to uncompromisingly impose its will on the demographic majority of urban, liberal America. The seed of a Second American Civil War is thus planted, as promoted by the idealogues of the MAGA movement believing in 80-year cycles of wars.

May they be proved wrong, sealing the door where this nativist evil dwells in America, and restoring the Plan of peace —the peace of right human relations and social justice— in the US and the world. -JB

---

[Halina Bak-Hughes] Commentator Fareed Zakaria every Sunday presents a world news segment titled – “Fareed’s Take”.  This Sunday’s segment, 6/26/22, is worthy of our view and education.

Fareed reviews the two Supreme Court (SC) decisions made this past week re a NY gun control law and the Roe v Wade decision as a departure from conservative decisions to “radical decisions” of late. The 5 minute segment is transcribed below, but do watch the video to hear him speak and to experience the impact of viewing two short excerpts found in news archives – one by a conservative supreme court Justice 33 years ago, the other by a scholar of the Constitution explaining what was really meant by gun ownership in the 2nd Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. This segment is shocking, priceless and revelatory in meaning and import.   

Fareed begins: “American Democracy has been under stress for some time. Trust in its institutions has been the lowest on record. 

“The SC’s decision on Roe v Wade has brought the public’s confidence in the Court to an all time low … as with the others … is now defined by partisanship and polarization. 

“The court’s decisions this week are not conservative, they are radical.”

“One of the time honored doctrines has been a respect for precedent – “stare decisis”, and yet in two days the court swept aside a right that for half a century American jurisprudence had held as a constitutional right. 

“And it also uprooted a NY law regulating guns that was 111 years old and had never before been found to be in conflict with the constitution.

“Many of the justices [e.g., Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett] were asked in their nomination hearings about Roe v Wade and stare decisis, answering in a way that any plain observer would describe as declaring the precedent of Roe and the many rulings affirming it, should be respected. 

“It’s worth noting that the power of judicial review, by which the SC evaluates laws and strikes down those it deems unconstitutional is itself nowhere in the constitution, was created by an 1803 Ruling from Chief Justice John Marshall, and is respected by all three branches of government, because of stare decisis. 

“We’ll talk more about Roe later.  The courts other decision on guns is actually equally radical.  

The 2nd amendment is in its entirety only 27 words with three oddly placed commas:

“A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, 

the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.”  

With “no disrespect to James Madison, grammarians and their red pens would have a field day … No one is exactly sure what the first clause about the militia has to do with the clause about the right to bear arms.  

“For almost 200 years, however, the lack of clarity [regarding the militia and gun ownership] was barely an issue. Many states had what we would call very strong gun control laws, and they passed mustard with all sorts of courts. But then in the 1970’s new leadership took over the NRA and made it the group’s mission to protect every citizens individual right, supposedly enshrined in the 2nd amendment, to keep and bear arms.”

“This caused former chief justice of the supreme court, Warren Berger, a conservative jurist appointed by Richard Nixon, to say the following on PBS in 1991:   

“This has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by a special interests group, than I have ever seen in my entire lifetime.”

“217 years after the ratification of the 2nd Amendment, Justice Antonin Scalia and his colleagues on the SC discovered in the Heller decision an individual right to carry and bear arms, treating the first clause of the 2nd amendment as if it were totally inconsequential.  In fact, the founders knew exactly what well-regulated militias meant. 

The scholar Michael Waldman told me: 

“You had an individual right to gun ownership to fulfill your duty to serve in the militia.  Every adult white man was required by law to serve in the militia, and required to own a military weapon and to keep it at home.”  

[Therefore, the wording in the Constitution regarding gun ownership was meant in the context of service in the militia at that time and which required a gun to do so. It had no reference then or in the future to individual citizens owning or bearing arms. The re-interpretation of the 2nd Amendment by the NRA was selfishly motivated to make billions of dollars, corrupting politicians in the process when up for re-election to exchange NRA backed legislation with large donations. The consequence of these “evil” motives, by twisting the meaning of the constitution, has resulted in the death, maiming and wounding of countless citizens, and the destruction of life and everyday happiness in the United States]. 

“The latest SC ruling (on June 23, 2022) striking down a NY law that restricted who can carry a concealed hand gun in public is even more radical than Heller.

“The oldest legal tradition has been to balance an individuals right with the State’s concerns for public safety.  For example, the court stated in 1919 that your right to free speech does not allow you to yell fire in a crowded theatre.

“This supreme court seems less and less impartial and judicious and more nakedly political, which undermines trust in a great American institution that was once respected but has been losing that respect in recent years.”

“We know that January 6 was a terrible day for American democracy.  Sadly, we now have to add two more days – June 23rd and 24th to that calendar of shame.”

---

Towards A New Renascence:
A Psychocentric Revelation

We can imagine how such psycho-centric paradigm would reframe of current cultural debates and dilemmas on social issues, such as reproductive rights and gender identity. The conceiving womb would be viewed as the landing runway of an incoming human soul, with the air traffic controller — the woman, assisted by spiritual advisors — deciding the timing and the circumstances, as well as the karmic implications of her decision.

https://agniyoga.info/2022/06/19/a-new-renascence/

---

My personal response to a right-to-life fellow American

I respect your fervor to protect the right to life. That’s why I oppose the free access of weapons that kill innocent children in schools and in big cities. I know that guns don’t kill; sick and unhinged people do. However, neither do mosquitoes kill; the viruses they carry do. That’s why we in public health do control mosquitoes as vectors of disease. Weapons are vectors of death.

I do share your fervor in defending the right to life. However, we need to consider two lives here: an existing human life, the woman, and the other, a potential human life. Your belief that human life begins at conception is your right, one that you should not impose on others. In my case, I am convinced that we reincarnate, that’s why I see abortion from a different perspective. However, I do not impose my belief on you. I am free to declare my truth, as as you are to declare yours, without imposing it.

Many abortions may just be a postponement of the opportunity to incarnate. I personally would not want to be born into unwanted circumstances; I would prefer to be born at the appropriate time, with the informed consent of the womb that would incubate me.

Every woman has the right of self-development before assuming the responsibility of motherhood. She must be cautious, though — as much as the inseminating man — when considering the consequences of a sexual relationship. However, having sexual relations should not become a sentence of guilt punishable by unwanted motherhood. Many poor mothers having abortions love their children but cannot financially support more children, not always having control over their sex lives. There are so many particular circumstances that it is better not to judge. We must trust the woman as the final arbitrator of such an intimate decision, particularly when she is unable to rely on a public welfare safety net to provide food, shelter, health care and education for her children after birth.

According to my beliefs, which I expose but do not impose, there are karmic consequences of such a harrowing decision, particularly when it is done to prevent the birth of a fetus with congenital defects. Mother Nature spontaneously aborts 2/3 of these pregnancies. However, it is possible that the surviving fetuses represent a lesson of love for future parents. Who am I to judge?

Let us trust in the woman’s inner dialogue with God to make such a decision. The God that you and I believe in has created us free. We will succeed and fail in exercising our free will, according to the circumstances. So we learn in life, always with faith in the love and infinite compassion of a supreme Being ruling the universe, Who some of us call God. -JB

---

The Great Invocation

From the point of Light within the Mind of God
Let light stream forth into human minds.
Let Light descend on Earth.

From the point of Love within the Heart of God
Let love stream forth into human hearts.
May the Coming One return to Earth.

From the center where the Will of God is known
Let purpose guide all little human wills –
The purpose which the Masters know and serve.

From the center which we call the human race
Let the Plan of Love and Light work out
And may it seal the door where evil dwells.

Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.

The Great Invocation: Its Use and Significance • Lucis Trust

---

Governor, your corrupt policies on gun control are an embarrassment to our country. You were “out of line” at your hypocritical press conference yesterday comparing elementary school massacres with mafia driven shootings in other cities. Evidently, the “real” gun protection laws in Chicago, Los Angeles and New York are not enough. We need more restrictive laws to protect us, not less. No one needs military grade assault weapons to practice hunting.

Mosquito-born diseases kill: if we can’t control the virus (mental illness), at least let’s control the vector (assault weapons). Of course, we can’t prevent all massacres, but we can prevent most, as all other countries in the world show. The good is never the enemy of perfection, except in y0ur sick mind and in your hardened heart.

Sir, shame on you. Worshiping guns is evil. You have the blood of innocent kids — and their teachers — in your hands. Military assault weapons must be banned in the streets of a civilized society, unless you are engaged in an armed insurrection, are you?

We shall overcome, some day.

José Becerra, Atlanta, GA

---

A few myths that have surfaced in recent days:

MYTH: Urban homicides falsely inflate statistics on US gun deaths.
 
FACT: “The common trope is that places like Baltimore or Detroit or Chicago are the reason we have so many gun deaths in this country,” Cass Crifasi told the Chicago Tribune. “And yes, those places … have unacceptable rates of gun homicides. But the places with the highest rates of death are not Maryland, Michigan, and Illinois. They are Mississippi, Louisiana, Wyoming, Missouri, and Alabama. The places with weaker gun laws have higher rates of death.” 
 
“More people died from guns in Texas than Illinois, when suicide and accidental shootings are included,” she added. 
 
MYTH: Mass shootings, like the ones in Texas and Buffalo, are the result of mental health issues. 
 
FACT: While motives in the Uvalde massacre are still unknown, “increasingly, we are seeing people who are frustrated, angry and hateful and using firearms take that out on a particular group,” Crifasi told MarketWatch.  
 
But there’s a distinction between this and a diagnosable mental health issue. It’s also dangerous and irresponsible to link gun violence and mental health. For one thing, mental health issues are far more common than mass shootings: More than 50% of people will be diagnosed with a mental illness or disorder at some point in their lives, according to the CDC. 
 
Fixating on motives and the mental health of those who perpetuate violence distracts from more actionable approaches to reducing gun violence, Crifasi said.

MYTH: In most mass shootings, perpetrators do not know the people they kill.
 
FACT: Nearly 70% of mass shootings involve domestic violence, Lisa Geller told 12 News in Arizona. In a study published in 2021, Geller and colleagues found that in over 68% of mass shootings, the perpetrator killed at least one partner or family member and had a history of domestic violence. 
 
Restricting access to guns by people with a history of domestic violence could curb the occurrence of mass shootings and fatalities, the study suggested. 
 
MYTH: There are more gun deaths in the US because America is a violent society.
 
FACT: “Most countries don’t have a problem with fatal mass shootings,” Webster told Fox News in LA. “Most countries do not have anywhere close to the rates of homicides that we do. It’s driven principally … because we have decided to make guns readily available to almost anyone, and our interests seem to be more in protecting those who sell weapons and want to own them as opposed to the broader public.” 
 
MYTH: We don’t know what to do to curb gun violence.
 
FACT: Data collected by researchers about mass shootings show discernible patterns and opportunities for intervention. The data also suggest that many of the ways we’re currently trying to prevent gun violence are wrong—but the good news is that we now have evidence-backed solutions to do better. 
 
MYTH: More guns are the answer.

---

---

---

The Sixth and the Seventh Rays in the World Today

José Becerra

SRI USR Conference 2022

May 18, 2022

ABSTRACT: The current transition between the outgoing sixth and the incoming seventh rays is producing a clash of ideas and ideologies on a world-wide scale. We are told (Destiny of the Nations, 46), “The situation is still further complicated by the fact that both these rays influence and express themselves in a dual manner and have always a lower and a higher form of manifestation, which is a correspondence in this connection to the personality, and the egoic expression of every human being.” 

This talk will address the current world situation in the light of this transition, and how the higher and lower expressions of these rays have shaped the recent history of Spain (6th Ray soul and 7th Ray personality: “I disperse the clouds”) and Russia (7th Ray soul and 6th Ray personality: “I link two ways”). Of interest, both Russia and Spain have given to the world the First (Russia, agniyoga.org) and the Second (Spain, agniyoga.info) Ray approaches to Agni Yoga.

We are told (Destiny of the Nations, 61): “Out of Russia will emerge that new and magical religion about which I have so often told you.” Also, (Ibid, 62), “the spiritual motto: “I disperse the clouds,” is indicative of the magical work for which Spain will eventually be responsible … the field of scientific magic and the magical work of the Church of the future.”

Therefore, recent developments on the Science of Magic will also be addressed in this talk.

---

Slides

---

It might be asked of what use the fifteen rules for magic communicated above may be.  Naught yet as far as practical work is concerned, but much where inner intellectual development is desired.  He who meditates and broods over these rules in the light of what has been earlier communicated anent the devas and building forces, will arrive at an understanding of the Laws of Construction in the macrocosm, which will avail him much, and save him much time when the magical work and formulas are put in his hands.

Treatise on Cosmic Fire 1026

Magic is the POWER to materialize an imagined reality. As when we say, “Let Light and Love and Power restore the Plan on Earth.”

Good executives – in group formation and individually – practice creative meditation. In the business world, when a corporation materializes its objectives, that is magic, the magic of the contemplative mind over matter.  The attentive mind, contemplating its GOOD or EVIL intention, is engaged in the rational process of strategic planning applied to materialize the outcome of an altruistic or a selfish vision and mission. Only a developed intuitive sense — the Heart – can discern the difference between GOOD or EVIL intention.

“The essence of magic boils down to the application of two ordinary mental skills: attention and intention. The strength of the magical outcome is modulated by four factors: belief, imagination, emotion, and clarity [of objective].”

-Radin, Dean I.. Real Magic (p. 73). Harmony/Rodale. Kindle Edition.

Magic is not a violation of natural law, but rather, the function of occult laws of nature, operating in the living matrix of space and rooted in the science of consciousness. Consciousness – and particularly self-consciousness — is the most fundamental mystery of life in its current stage of evolution, from an atom to a solar system.

---

Jesus received PUBLIC recognition by his miracles, mostly healing miracles. A healing miracle is an expression of magic, limited by karmic law.

When Christ so frequently emphasised faith (or rather that quality which is translated as faith in our Western Scriptures) He referred in reality to acceptance of law, to a recognition above all of karma, and to a knowledge of divine destiny.

Esoteric Healing 385

It’s reasonable to think that Lord Maitreya, in His physical reappearance, will also be publicly recognized by His miracles.

What are the “building forces” behind this magic? The Seven Rays are the creative Forces of the Universe.

“They are the [Page 142] seven Builders, Who produce the radiant temple of the Lord, under the guidance of the Mind of the Great Architect of the Universe.”

-Esoteric Psychology Vol. I

The rays are impersonal forces. They can be used by those representing the material forces of GREED and FEAR (unregulated free market in a global economy), or they can be used in grounding the spiritual energies the Will-to-Good and Goodwill, supported by the “massed intent” of an enlightened public opinion.

The divinity of Christ, for instance, is frequently illustrated by reference to His miracles, and to those supernormal powers which He so often evidenced.  Supernormal powers are, of themselves, no evidence of divinity at all.  Great exponents of evil can perform the same miracles and demonstrate the same capacity to create and to transcend the normal faculties of man.  These powers are inherent in the creative aspect of Divinity, the third or matter aspect, and are linked to an intelligent understanding of matter and to the power of the mind to dominate substance.  This power is, therefore, neither divine nor non-divine.  It is a demonstration of the capacity of the mind and can be used with equal facility by an incarnated Son of God, functioning as a World Saviour or Christ, and by those Beings who are on the path of destruction, and who are called (by those who know no better) Black Magicians, Evil Forces and Devils.

-Esoteric Psychology Vol. II, 60

Therefore, spiritual discernment is of the essence. Only a developed intuitive sense — the Heart — can discern the difference between “an incarnated Son of God, functioning as a World Saviour or Christ, and those Beings who are on the path of destruction, and who are called (by those who know no better) Black Magicians, Evil Forces and Devils.”

---

Aquarian Mantra of Synthesis
(The great magical triangle)

May the liberating Light of Lord Buddha,
The infinite Love of the Spirit of Peace,
And the unfathomable Power of the Avatar of Synthesis
Restore the Plan on Earth.

---

---

Even the Black Lodge knew of this change in the mode of salvation, and hastily founded its groups of youths, banded together by the motto “joy through strength and strength through joy.” It seems to be a law for group development to receive recognition from the side of evil, prior to that recognition coming from the good. But “after weeping cometh joy, and that joy cometh in the morning.” Only the dawn is with us as yet—the dawn of the Aquarian Age. The full tide of light is inevitably moving upon its way towards us.

The Rays and the Initiations, p.234

The title of the movie The Imitation Game makes reference to the Turing’s test.

The film’s title quotes the name of the game cryptanalyst Alan Turing proposed for answering the question “Can machines think?”, in his 1950 seminal paper “Computing Machinery and Intelligence“

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Imitation_Game

Computers’ logic imitate how a human brain “thinks” and Turing proposed a test to figure out the difference. Of course, trained esotericists know that the mind is an instrument of the human soul whose developing scope of consciousness is expressed through the brain, the computer.

It is not until this developing scope of consciousness reaches the level of “isolated unity” that the Soul, the true Observer, is “re-cognized” and revealed to the human soul. Esotericist call this unfolding process the Path, or (lower) Antakarana.

Computers imitate the human brain. Like a crystal radio receiver, the wiring of the computer, and the brain, transmits higher level frequencies. The expressed intelligence is encrypted and needs to be decoded in order to understand the will of the true thinker.

As in the Turing film, the imitation game is practiced in wars. In the wider war of Good against Evil, the Black Lodge imitates the White Lodge with the purpose of misrepresenting reality. The dark (blinding) Knight of the Mirrors (Shadows) serves a similar role in the quest of the spiritual aspirant, Don Quixote, the enlightened-to-be Knight of the Woeful Countenance, the despondent Arjuna.

The truth is always the first casualty in a war. The propaganda machine is the computer whose conspiracy of lies and disinformation needs to be decoded.

We are at war, at the initial stages of a world war that can be averted if the disciples in the world learn to decode the ENIGMA machine of lies and disinformation. This time, however, in order to pass the Turing’s test, we need to tap a higher level of consciousness, beyond the sixth sense of the mind, inaccessible to the Forces of Darkness, whose reach cannot touch the Soul.

The seventh sense of the intuitive heart, developed in the Practice of the Presence — Agni Yoga — can dispel illusions, renting the veils of the ENIGMA code. The Knights of the Shadows are imitating the Knights of the Light, and the perplexed world disciple, Arjuna, needs to rise from the state of despondency and listen to the wise advise of the Soul encouraging him to engage in the Yoga of Action.

He who restrains action’s organs while yet revolving in his mind thoughts of objects of the senses, is deluded, a hypocrite. (3:6)

He who by the mind controls the senses, and yet is unattached while engaging action’s organs in action, is superior. (3:7)

Perform your duty, for action is far better than non-action. Even maintaining your body cannot be done without action. (3:8)

The world is bound by the actions not done for sake of sacrifice. Hence for sacrifice you should act without attachment. (3:9)

https://ocoy.org/dharma-for-christians/sacred-texts/bhagavad-gita/chapter-three-yoga-action/

Can the New Group of World Servers (NGWS) — the people no one imagines anything of — rise to do “the things that no one can imagine” to avert the final war?

“Sometimes it is the people no one imagines anything of who do the things that no one can imagine.”

Alan Turing quoted in the movie The Imitation Game

Or will the Knights of the Shadows obfuscate the self-appointed members of the NGWS with conspiracy theories, “alternative facts,” disinformation, and lies? Will these obfuscated detractors thwart the Plan for the externalization of the Hierarchy and reappearance of the Christ, a Plan of Love and Light based on right human relations as a condition for peace?

Or is it that the vast majority of the unconscious members of the NGWS are already serving the Forces of the Light in the world today — journalists, consensus opinion writers, and enlightened though flawed world leaders like Roosevelt and Churchill in the past — and are not engaging in sterile arguments with the relative minority of spiritual aspirants who, suffering spiritual anosmia, are unable to smell lies at the nursery schools of the esoteric community?

The final war must be averted. It will not be averted by yielding to the whims of a totalitarian ideology and a war criminal terrorizing the world with nuclear weapons. Putin must be defeated in Ukraine and brought to justice for war crimes.

This is not a war only for the freedom of Ukraine, a sovereign country; it is a war for the freedom of the world from the evil of totalitarianism. As in the Second World War, the Forces of the Light shall overcome.

“We shall fight on the beaches, we shall fight on the landing grounds, we shall fight in the fields and in the streets, we shall fight in the hills; we shall never surrender… “

Winston Churchill speech at the House of Commons – 4 June 1940

---

The Aquarian Quixote will be a practical visionary, a Magician capable of materializing (Capricorn) his vision (Sagittarius), serving (Aquarius) and redeeming (Pisces) our planet (Gaia, Mother), alchemizing the science of the rational mind (Raja Yoga) into the intuitive sense of the heart (Agni Yoga), consecrating his Quest to the Mother of the World, for the Glory of the One.

JB

---