Alternatives of the world development
Today it would appear, from all the indications and from the dominant world trends, that the still unconquered greed of certain of the more powerful nations is undeniably rampant, and that we are therefore facing another period of frustration and of major world difficulty. Feeling against Russia is running high among the Western Powers and is largely her own fault, though it is primarily based upon two main factors—one of them bad and the other good.
The bad reaction is based on the same old triplicity of fear, greed and jealousy and—from the angle of those three phases of selfishness—is entirely justified. That fact, in itself, supplies a major difficulty. Think this out.
The good reaction is based on the frustration of the idea or concept of developing a unified peaceful world—a world in which there would be no war and in which men could live at peace with each other and in security, and in which men everywhere could work, relatively unopposed, towards right human relations. This super-world and this unified humanity is a true ideal, but is not a feasible project.75
To further complicate the problem, it must be borne in mind that the East and the West approach life from different angles. The Eastern approach is negative and subjective; the Western is positive and scientific and, therefore, objective. This is further complicated by the fact that western Europe and eastern Europe look at life and the modern problems from different angles; this makes cooperation difficult and definitely complicates the problems confronting the United Nations. Church and State are not in sympathy; capital and labour carry on a constant war; the man in the street pays the price and waits for justice and freedom.76
Spiritual workers should face the various world alternatives:
1. An all-dominant Russia, whose regime would cover the planet, enforcing her totalitarian interpretation of communistic doctrine (there is a right and true interpretation), refusing freedom to the individual in the interest of the State, and—because of a low opinion of the human masses—everywhere standardising her interpretation of democracy.
2. A world in which all nations live in an armed armistice, in which distrust is forever rampant and in which science is prostituted to the art of destruction. In this world an explosion must and will eventually take place which will destroy humanity as once before it was destroyed, according to the Bible and the other world Scriptures and the hierarchical records.
3. A world in which the United States proves itself to be the controlling factor, after wiping out Russia, which she can well do if she acts now. It will be a predominantly capitalistic world, run by several nations but headed by the United States. A capitalistic nation is not necessarily wrong; capital has its place, and Russia (the enemy of capitalism) is by no means free from capitalistic bias. The motives of the United States are very mixed motives: greed of money or its equivalent, such as oil, and at the same time sincerely good intentions for the establishment of human freedom in a democratic world—modelled, of course, on American democracy. Other motives are an appreciation of the armed fist and, at the same time, a longing for economic sharing and for that essential kindness which is such a strong American characteristic—a mass characteristic. These mixed motives will produce eventually a very confused world, one in which it will be found that humanity has learned very little as the result of the World War (1914-1945) and is acquiescent to the cycle of well-intentioned money control.
4. A world divided into "blocs" for mutual aid and economic sharing. Of this, the proposed treaty between Great Britain, France and the Benelux countries is a tentative sample, though tainted by objectionable motives, from the angle of the Hierarchy. Fear is the major factor producing this treaty, but it has in it nevertheless the seeds of hope. There is nothing intrinsically wrong in any group of nations standing together for mutual aid and economic cooperation. The wrong factor comes in when they stand united against any other group of nations, and therefore against any group of human beings. It is this attitude, engineered and fostered by Russia, which has lead to the relatively new concept of blocs against. Along this line, and with this attitude of antagonistic groupings, only disaster can lie.
Blocs in themselves can be good and proper if they follow lines of natural cleavages, of language differences and of cultural distinctions. They can be essentially right if they are formed for economic, educational, religious and social aims and can therefore provide no true cause for alarm. Such blocs would be cultural and not militaristic, economic and not greedy, and they could provide a normal and progressive movement away from the separative nationalism of the past and towards the distant creation of the One World, and the One Humanity. This will some day be seen, but the time is not yet. Mankind is not ready for some super-government, nor can it yet provide the unselfish and trained statesmen that such a government would require. As yet, there are more seeds of danger in this concept than there are of helpfulness. Nevertheless, it is a dream which will some day materialise, after the creation and the functioning of blocs have proved how men should work and live together.77