Skip to content

Alice Bailey on the ‘Executives of the New Age’ and Politics


“Bailey’s view that the Theosophical Movement revolves around humanity invoking an avatar and his hierarchy is foreign and opposed to Theosophy as taught by HPB and the Adepts.” (Nicholas Weeks, Theosophy’s Shadow)


Alice A. Bailey speaks of ‘Executives’ of the “New Age,” and the “New World Order” in her writings, particularly Esoteric Psychology (1936). Note, that the word “new order” and “new world order” addressed here, is used by A.B. herself. Why politics should be in a book on Psychology, and on a deeply occult subject in Buddhism, and in The Secret Doctrine from the Védic Tradition is beyond us, which is why these passages are being put forth.

Theosophists critical of Alice A. Bailey have both contended that her writings have elements from Tibetan Buddhism and Christianity. There is a great difference in Blavatsky’s style from Bailey’s contact (A.B. calls the “Tibetan” and his “plans”). It will come as a shock to some, because of the consequential influence of her ideals, or their similitude in direction, or vision among leaders of the world today. This is what leads people to the conspiratorial implications about the “New World Order.” A.A.B. claims to present the next evolution of Occult Wisdom from Blavatsky.


Alice Bailey in Esoteric Psychology writes a treatise on an occult, or highly difficult concept of the “Seven Rays,” or Logoi (“the seven asdt, Aions or Spirits”), which is a concept in Indian and Jewish Tradition, Gnosticism, Catholicism, Roman Mithraism, as in Chinese Mahayana Buddhism. It is all built on this hypothesis, for Alice Bailey, that Seven Rudimentary Elements of the manifested Deity, so to say has qualities, which reflect through the individual incarnations of people’s personalities, and correspond to the ways of nations, and of ‘Initiate Masters.’

Alice Bailey connects this concept to politics and nations, to justify the nationalisms during the World War expanding more federal state power, and eventually greater super-states and eventually, world governing, under the head of these “Initiates,” ­“Executives,” A.B. calls them. So, some contemporary Theosophists of Post-War believed that ‘nationalism is evil,’ which is the logic known with internationalists. Nationalist and pre-nationalist ideals are therefore, by some, treated as ideals of organizing society that will never return, hence regressive, tribal, less evolved (unspiritual), and evil; then still believe somehow, that they are metapolitical, or even apolitical.


A.A.B. states something, that is very opposite of Theosophical and Indian Vedic Tradition, in which she teaches, the source of the Seven Rays originate from what she calls the “Solar Logos,” through Sirius, or the seven stars of the Big Dipper in the Great Bear, and the seven major stars of the Pleiades, and then ultimately in the ‘mind of God.’ Alice A. Bailey claims, that her masters are the same as those of H.P. Blavatsky’s.

Whether crazy from the atheist and skeptical position, or suspect in the eyes of a Christian, we can find what Alice Bailey taught were her influences in her own words.

In theosophical writings, as asserted by those men then, they repeatedly state, that they are living mortal men, on the physical plane. H.P.B. warned, whomsoever fell from the influence of their Buddhist teachings into that of the “Star Rishis,” “are no Theosophists.” William Quan Judge, the co-founder of the Theosophical Society remarked in “The Vahan” Issue of 1892, that “The Saptarishis as meant by H.P.B. are in a very advanced class of elementals, able sometimes to communicate with man, and by their apparent knowledge to make him suppose them to be high spiritual beings.”

Alice Bailey taught that her works were dictated to her from a being she called “The Tibetan,” whom she claimed was the same as the Djual Khool in The Mahatma Letters, — a disciple of those adepts. She claimed however, that The Tibetan she was being controlled by, was a High Initiate, which is impossible, due to the fact Djual Khool (or D.K.) was only a chela (disciple) “of the first degree.” Theosophists have also highlighted this discrepancy in the account.

It was H.P.B. herself, whom Alice Bailey uses to buttress her claims, that wrote to “Beware of the path of the Star Rishis” (a high class of elementals).

Superstitions for some of us, but these ideas, we will demonstrate, have real world consequences.

Each classified age in Alice Bailey’s system reflects a certain manifestation of the Spirit in the material world, and a dominant quality of a particular “Ray.” In her ideal, the world is beginning to transition into what she terms, the “Aquarian Age.” Then, on page 74, this ‘Evangelical’ adds of this, that “the work of the Antichrist is to destroy forms,” and that it is ‘the work of the first expression of divinity.’ On such reasoning, it is why she thought the Atomic Bomb was a cleansing mechanism for the bad “Karma” of the Japanese.

Surprisingly, next she states, “the work of the destroyer is not the work of black magic, and when ignorant humanity regards Antichrist as working on the black side, their error is great. His work is as beneficent…” In amalgamating unnecessarily the Christian concept of the Antichrist, and the Hindu concept of Vishnu or Nature as a destroyer, she regards the work of the Antichrist as being of divine will and of the “divine programme.” She then, states directly after, that “the work of the representatives of this mysterious power” which she says “we” call “cosmic evil, and their responding representatives, is worthy of the word black, but they are not the work of the Antichrist.” (Alice Bailey. 1936. Esoteric Psychology, pg. 74-75).

In this book, she says these representatives are working with the nations, to commence the Aquarian Age. This is what the U.K. Theosophists called, a “whitewashing of both black magic,” and the blatant whitewashing of the enemies of the theosophical Adepts, they called the “Black Brotherhood.” She disconnects, in her mind, the black forces, from the “destroyers.”

She is creating her own concepts, with no connections to any classical scholarship, ancient theology, or Modern Theosophy for proofs to justify such dichotomies.


So, in wanting to as she states, get us acquainted with the work of this “Hierarchy” of “Executives,” “representatives,” and “major Disciples,” and their Plan, she says, that this Hierarchical Plan began in 1900, at one of the great quarterly meetings of the Hierarchy. In 1925, the Plan was discussed in greater detail, and certain necessary changes (as a result of the World War) were negotiated, and the members of this Council determined a collective effort in this Plan, calling for “the loyal cooperation of all departments of the world government.” (Bailey, pp. 170-171) This Plan she states herself on page 172, fell into three divisions — the first, being Political.”

She talks further on about trade relations and the destruction of old political parties, and evidently connects all this to the historical foundations of the “Brotherhood of Nations,” or the League of Nations, and then following the updated United Nations. She says, this very work was the work of the governments, needed to impact upon public consciousness (pg. 174), and under the broadly termed “Great Ones,” “expand the consciousness of humanity” (pg. 171).

She is claiming, that Bodhisattvas are responsible for initiating an age of international relations! This is the belief of New Age Thought, and you can clearly see this, even under the manifestation of the European Union structure. Nationalisms, and federal states are seen as harkening to the days of “racial hatreds” and “national aspirations,” Bailey states.

To be a book on Psychology, she sure writes much about Politics, believing she is truly doing ‘God’s Work.’ On page 184, she follows up by asserting, that a veil is being annihilated, of which she could not speak with liberty further; but went on to say, an illumination is being set up, and a perception developed, that will enable man to see through “the nature of the fourth dimension.” This is totally opposite of the Theosophists.

Alice Bailey thinks — in her own words, the “dictators” and “executives” of the world of the twentieth-century assisting this Plan of the Hierarchy associated with her Master, are part of (or doing the work of) the Hierarchy, and that the “new executives to succeed them, are seventh ray aspirants and disciples” (Bailey, pp. 366-67). This is the perfect ingredient for a circle of Technocrats who believe, their Plans are a needed effort, to as Bailey puts it, “rapidly bring about the needed international understanding.” She says, they may make mistakes, and are not coerced in the plan, but it is under these Masters or incorporeal beings, or saptarishis, that they are inspired, and inspiring these “seventh ray aspirants.”

The book begins on page 373, justifying ritualism by explaining it as a cosmic phenomena; and she then talks about “the Craft.” Couple this with Alice Bailey’s teachings on Meditation teams dispensing energy out to the world, and you have Catholicism and Ceremonial Magic minced.


Alice A. Bailey, says, as regards to these seventh ray aspirants and disciples who succeed the dictators and executives of her time, the task to educate public opinion along these new ideals (see pg. 368), i.e., globalisation and inter-governmental institutions rests with them. She did not say people. She directly says the “new executives,” i.e., the rulers. So, the failure, she also reminds us rests on them as well.

“Under this seventh ray influence the Masonic Fraternity will come into a new and pronounced spiritual activity and begin to approximate its true function and to fulfill its long-seen destiny” (ibid., pg. 368).

This is highly idealistic, and the conspiracist will run off with it, but this smacks of delusion. The Freemasons have been destabilised since after the 18th century. Their ranks are highly aging. After briefly stating, that the Masonic Fraternity had descended due to sectarian attitudes, “this must and will be changed, and the potency and the effectiveness of the lodge work and ceremonial will be demonstrated” (ibid., pg. 368).

Sounds like her “Master” is trying to resurrect a dead corpse, to serve as a voodoo doll, for “the work and use of the Word” (ibid) Bailey adds. This sounds like the inversion of “the Word.” Bailey believed her work was leading to what she calls, the “externalisation of the hierarchy,” thereby opening our perception to the fourth dimension. A.B. then tells us, that this would assist in the return of Christ.


Indian theosophist and socialist, Bhagavan Das called his thought Internationalism, as opposed to what he called the “evil of nationalism.” Alice Bailey calls those in her book, who are against these ideas — the nationalist “separatists,“ and “those fear-mongers,” like the media today. It is reminiscent of today’s tactics and the tendency to term those who do not want this future—nativists, xenophobes, and far-right.

Concerning Communism, Alice A. Bailey saw it in true form, compatible with her ideals, saying—

“The true communistic platform is sound; it is brotherhood in action and it does not—in its original platform—run counter to the spirit of Christ” (Alice A. Bailey, The Rays and the Initiations: Volume V; A Treatise on the Seven Rays, 1960, pg. 680).

A clear example of Alice Bailey’s internationalist ideas from The Externalisation Of The Hierarchy, 1957—

“Steps Towards the New World Order.—In contradistinction to the totalitarian world order, what should the rest of the world plan? Towards what world objectives should the democracies work? Utopian schemes, idealistic forms of government and cultural living processes have ever been the playthings of the human mind, down through the centuries. But these Utopias have been so far ahead of possibility that their presentation seems useless. They are most of them wholly impractical.

Certain immediate possibilities and attainable objectives can, however, be worked out, given a definite will-to-good and patience on the part of humanity.

Certain major and spiritual premises should lie back of all efforts to formulate the new world order. Let me state some of them:

  1. The new world order must meet the immediate need and not be an attempt to satisfy some distant, idealistic vision.
  2. The new world order must be appropriate to a world which has passed through a destructive crisis and to a humanity which is badly shattered by the experience.
  3. The new world order must lay the foundation for a future world order which will be possible only after a time of recovery, of reconstruction, and of rebuilding.
  4. The new world order will be founded on the recognition that all men are equal in origin and goal but that all are at differing stages of evolutionary development; that personal integrity, intelligence, vision and experience, plus a marked goodwill, should indicate leadership. The domination of the proletariat over the aristocracy and bourgeoisie, as in Russia, or the domination of an entrenched aristocracy over the proletariat and middle classes, as has been until lately the case in Great Britain, must disappear. The control of labour by capital or the control of capital by labour must also go.
  5. In the new world order, the governing body in any nation should be composed of those who work for the greatest good of the greatest number and who at the same time offer opportunity to all, seeing to it that the individual is left free. Today the men of vision are achieving recognition, thus making possible a right choice of leaders. It was not possible until this century.
  6. The new world order will be founded on an active sense of responsibility. The rule will be “all for one and one for all.” This attitude among nations will have to be developed. It is not yet present.
  7. The new world order will not impose a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations. The sovereign rights of each nation will be recognised and its peculiar genius, individual trends and racial qualities will be permitted full expression. In one particular only should there be an attempt to produce unity, and that will be in the field of education.
  8. The new world order will recognise that the produce of the world, the natural resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all. There will be no nations under the category “haves” and others under the opposite category. A fair and properly organised distribution of the wheat, the oil and the mineral wealth of the world will be developed, based upon the needs of each nation, upon its own internal resources and the requirements of its people. All this will be worked out in relation to the whole.
  9. In the preparatory period for the new world order there will be a steady and regulated disarmament. It will not be optional. No nation will be permitted to produce and organise any equipment for destructive purposes or to infringe the security of any other nation. One of the first tasks of any future peace conference will be to regulate this matter and gradually see to the disarming of the nations.

These are the simple and general premises upon which the new world order must begin its work…” (Alice A. Bailey, The Externalisation Of The Hierarchy, Sec. II, Chapt. 6., pp. 190-92.)

Resources from Theosophists critiquing Alice A. Bailey:

  1. From Theosophical Society to Bizarre Quasi-Catholic Anti-Blavatsky Cult, UK Group of U.L.T.
  2. 14 Good Reasons to Reject Alice Bailey Teachings, Blavatsky UK Group of U.L.T.
  3. Tibetan Master or Christian Priest: The Influence behind Alice Bailey, Blavatsky UK Group of U.L.T.
  4. Endersby, Victor. Alice Bailey and her Christianised Pseudo-Theosophy
  5. Crump, and Cleather. 1929. The Pseudo-Occultism of Mrs. A. Bailey
  6. Weeks, Nicholas. In Theosophy’s Shadow Vanity Whispers
  7. Thomas, Margaret. Edited by Mark R. Jaqua, Theosophy Versus Neo-Theosophy, 2003 Edition; or Theosophy Versus Neo-Theosophy (PDF). Differences in Teaching.


  1. AA Bailey is flapdoodle, but Casava Pillai, disciple of KH and another source which I cannot recall at present, did say that Jual Khool became an Adept in 1885. So the criticism that JK (or DK) was only a chela was not true after 1885:
    “I have also seen a few advanced chelas, and among them, the blessed Jwalkool who is now [1885] a Mahatma.”

    Liked by 1 person

    • Mentions of Pillai of Nellore are very scant and I’ve no idea. Nicholas, what do you think about how Bailey managed to output all of that material? Do you explain it by mediumistic qualities or inventive imagination? It is really A LOT of material. You can waste a life reading flapdoodle.


      • One can argue that HPB put out more quantity & quality of wisdom in 15 or so years than AAB did in 30 (1919-49). Yes, AAB corpus was a blend of imagination & channelling, with a greater emphasis on the former. But as my old article “In Theosophy’s Shadow” argued, what she channelled was not the Jual Kool of HPB.


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: