Theos-Talk Archives (June 1997 Message tl00212)

Wildefire@aol.com wrote:
> Just a passing thought. I find gun control laws (and all laws that regulate
> the possession of "things") as an interesting manifestation of the human
> obsession with "things" vs. causes and the mistaken idea that, by eliminating
> or regulating the availability of a "thing", a certain problem will be
> solved. Drug laws are another example of this. By saying this, I'm trying to
> tie this in more closely with theosophical issues, but haven't done a very
> good job of it. Anyone who's willing, though, please feel free to take this
> nucleus of an idea and run with it. ;-D

	I COULD go all political, but I will try to do as you ask, instead :).

	It is difficult to speak Theosophically on what the duties of
government should or should not be. From a Theosophical point of view
government, for the most part, is irrelevent, as long as it permits
freedom of thought.

	When those who control communications create thought forms, however, it
is our duty as Theosophists to use proper discrimination to decide
whether or not that thought form is valid, and, if the thought form is
invalid, then to fight it as much as possible.

	Government can take for itself much more power when it is defending the
people against an enemy. If such an enemy does not exist, then the
government will be forced to create it (note that a conspiracy is not
necessary; just a bunch of government employees individually trying to
ensure that their jobs will never disappear is sufficient). From the
point of view of someone in power who craves power, the ideal political
system is feudalism, as that stratifies the power position. Feudalism is
created when people, threatened by an outside menace, give up their
freedom (i.e. ability to make decisions about karma) in return for
personal security (i.e. temporary comfort of the lower self). Between
the drug laws (creating a barbarian outlaw class) and the gun control
laws (creating a body of "knights" to whom the people must swear fealty
in order to be protected from the barbarians), the government is,
however unintentionally, creating a feudal society. Those who believe
that it IS intentional are the real force behind the militia movement (I
personally, using Occam's razor, believe that since intentionality is
not necessary, then I will not assume it to be there until proven
otherwise).

	Those in charge of the communications, threatened by the militia
movement, are attempting to swing popular opinion against it by creating
thought forms dehumanizing the members; concentrating on the radical few
rather than the non-radical many (note that Timothy McVeigh was THROWN
OUT of the Michigan Militia, although he is portrayed as being
middle-of-the-road in the militia movement).

	The reason it concerns me is the parallels to the way that the Nazi's
portrayed Jews in their communications prior to WWII, creating thought
forms that dehumanized them so that the German people would quietly
accept the concentration camps. If one must make up lies to use against
a cause, then one has proven that one's own cause has already been lost.

	The drug laws and the gun laws are being forced through by imposing
incorrect thought forms on the American people. For example, a couple of
years ago the New York Daily News ran a week-long profile of people
whose lives were ruined by heroin. But in every single case, their lives
were ruined not because they used heroin, but because the heroin they
used was illegal.  In other words, the damage caused by the drug laws is
far worse than the damage caused by the drugs. There was a cover story
in New York Magazine, whose title said it best:

	"Drugs are bad.
	Drugs are bad.
	Drugs are bad...

	The drug laws are worse."

	When the World Trade Center was bombed, the first thing the politicians
did was go out and say that that this was a reason to have stronger gun
control laws. Yet, when gun control laws are passed, they are either
meaningless (like the so-called "assault weapons" law, which banned guns
based on the fact that they had plastic trim instead of wooden trim), or
making the posession of a gun a crime in and of itself, without
criminalizing further the use of a gun, so that someone using a gun to
commit a crime can use it as a chip in the plea bargain process, but
someone who is otherwise law-abiding ends up in an all-or-nothing
situation.

	I am not saying that either guns or drugs are good things (although,
knowing this group, a bunch of people will automatically say I am). I am
saying that creating false thought forms to combat the abuse of guns and
drugs in our society only creates a worse problem.

	Bart Lidofsky