The Spoils of War

The Spoils of War

Keith gives us an interesting perspective here:

“I read your post with interest and chuckled to myself as I thought back to my early history lessons in grade school and early high school here in Canada. The history books back then were not titled the History of Canada as you would presume, but instead the History of British North America. One of the primary themes of the books was the fate of the Empire Loyalists. These were the farmers, merchants and settlers in the 13 colonies who either fought on the side of the crown or didn’t take sides at all, but wished to remain loyal to the crown after the war. They were stripped of their homes, farms and businesses and treated exactly the same as those poor souls described in the ‘Let Freedom Ring’ post. This forced migration of immigrants to the remaining British colonies in Canada resulted in the settling of thousands of acres of land in Ontario and many of the Maritime Provinces. I’m curious to ask if anything is mentioned of these people in the American History Books?”

Thanks for the alternative view here Keith. Actually I have cause to be open-minded here for I am half Canadian myself as my Mother was born and raised In Alberta. I thus have a soft spot for the people of the two countries as I have family on both sides of the border.

The fate of the Royalists is briefly mentioned in our history, but I am sure the slant is different. but it is only logical that there is abuse on both sides of a war.

On the other hand, I would submit that the situation between the two groups suffering loss was quite different.

For one thing the cause was different.

The Signers risked their lives, their fortunes and their sacred honor merely by signing a document to insure not so much their own freedom (for they realized the possibility that they would not even achieve such in their lifetime) but the risk was to establish greater freedom for all mankind. This was indeed a noble cause and they expected certain death if they did not succeed.

On the other hand, the Royalists were in support of a system that fosters tyranny and does not allow for the expansion of freedom for all. After the war they may have suffered loss for their misguided belief and unwillingness to support the government in power, but I do not believe they ran the risk of a state endorsed execution as did the Signers of the Declaration.

During the Revolutionary War people were divided fairly evenly into three different camps. Many people today seem to think the whole country rebelled toward the British, but only about one third supported the revolution. Then there was about a third who supported the Crown and did not want change. The final third did not seem to care and were non committal.

One thing we do know for sure is that after the War the new government did not punish two-thirds of the population with prison and death for not supporting the Revolution – though there may have been abuses as you noted.

From what our history records it was not the small farmer who lost land after the war, but the very rich and powerful Aristocrats who had large land grants given to them by the crown. These were seized after the war for the new government felt they were unjustly obtained and the perpetuity of such wealth in the hands of an enemy would threaten the existence of the newly acquired freedoms. Therefore some of the larger lands were seized and redistributed to the masses.

As I understand it, all but a few who posed a threat to national security were allowed to stay and live in peace but I am open to the possibility this was not universally true.

I would guess, however, that there were abuses as there always are in war, not only from the government, but from people who lost family who carried a grievance toward those who supported the crown.

It is interesting that in the beginning of this country we had a somewhat communistic redistribution of the wealth. Fortunately, we did wind up with an ownership of land – so that was an important difference.

At the end of any war you will have many among the defeated who continue to support their cause, even when their cause was not just. For instance, even after the fall of NAZI Germany there were literally millions who continued, for a time, to support the NAZI cause, and thousands would have risked their lives to re-establish the Reich.

The act of going forward with risk for a personal ideal and going to risk for the benefit of freedom for all mankind is vastly different.

It is a sad part of our history that there are more who are willing to suffer for a cause that will enslave mankind than they who are willing to sacrifice to free the human soul.

In coming ages this trend will be reversed.

There is much more we could write about freedom and probably will at a future time, but for now we are approaching the time to move on to a new topic.

There is just one more item I would like to discuss. I had previously quoted the following scripture and few commented on it. The Master stated:

“Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free.”

(1) Is he talking about a certain truth or truth in general?

(2) How does the Truth set you free? Free to do what?

(3) What is the relationship between freedom and truth?

June 25, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Principle of Freedom, Part 4

The Principle of Freedom, Part 4

Let Freedom Ring

Interesting synchronicity today. Just as I was about to wrap up my postings on freedom one of our Lurkers sent me this writing about the fate of those who signed the Declaration of Independence. I had been wanting a copy of this and am happy to share it.


“Have you ever wondered what happened to the 56 men who signed the Declaration of Independence? Five signers were captured by the British as traitors, and tortured before they died. Twelve had their homes ransacked and burned. Two lost their sons serving in the Revolutionary Army; another had two sons captured. Nine of the 56 fought and died from wounds or hardships of the Revolutionary War.

“They signed and they pledged their lives, their fortunes, and their sacred honor. What kind of men were they? Twenty-four were lawyers and jurists. Eleven were merchants, nine were farmers and large plantation owners; men of means, well educated. But they signed the Declaration of Independence knowing full well that the penalty would be death if they were captured.

“Carter Braxton of Virginia, a wealthy planter and trader, saw his ships swept from the seas by the British Navy. He sold his home and properties to pay his debts, and died in rags. Thomas McKeam was so hounded by the British that he was forced to move his family almost constantly. He served in the Congress without pay, and his family was kept in hiding. His possessions were taken from him, and poverty was his reward.

“Vandals or soldiers looted the properties of Dillery, Hall, Clymer, Walton, Gwinnett, Heyward, Ruttledge, and Middleton. At the battle of Yorktown, Thomas Nelson Jr, noted that the British General Cornwallis had taken over the Nelson home for his headquarters. He quietly urged General George Washington to open fire. The home was destroyed, and Nelson died bankrupt. Francis Lewis had his home and properties destroyed. The enemy jailed his wife, and she died within a few months.

“John Hart was driven from his wife’s bedside as she was dying. Their 13 children fled for their lives. His fields and his gristmill were laid to waste. For more than a year he lived in forests and caves, returning home to find his wife dead and his children vanished. A few weeks later he died from exhaustion and a broken heart. Norris and Livingston suffered similar fates. Such were the stories and sacrifices of the American Revolution. These were not wild-eyed, rabble-rousing ruffians. They were soft-spoken men of means and education. They had security, but they valued liberty more. Standing tall, straight, and unwavering, they pledged: “For the support of this declaration, with firm reliance on the protection of the divine providence, we mutually pledge to each other, our lives, our fortunes, and our sacred honor.”

“They gave you and me a free and independent America. The history books never told you a lot about what happened in the Revolutionary War. We didn’t fight just the British. We were British subjects at that time and we fought our own government! Some of us take these liberties so much for granted, but we shouldn’t. So, take a few minutes while enjoying your 4th of July holiday and silently thank these patriots. It’s not much to ask for the price they paid. Remember: freedom is never free! I hope you will show your support by please sending this to as many people as you can. It’s time we get the word out that patriotism is NOT a sin, and the Fourth of July has more to it than beer, picnics, and baseball games. “ Author Unknown

When one reads about such acts of courage and sacrifice for freedom you cannot but wonder if such brave souls would surface today in a similar struggle for freedom.

One of the problems in finding such courage is that the situation in much of the world is so different today than it was for those rebels of long ago.

The foundation of the United States was preceded by over a 100 years of immigrants leaving their native lands of oppression in search for greater opportunity and freedom. After getting a taste of greater freedom and then to have the threat of it all taken away by King George nullifying all their efforts was more than they could bear. Freedom lovers like Patrick Henry stood up and declared “Give me liberty or give me death!”

Then there were many others who pledged their “lives, their property and their sacred honor,” for the cause of freedom.

What I found interesting about this was the phrase: “sacred honor.” When you think about it how long has it been since we have heard anyone great or small refer to their sacred honor? We seem to live in an age where honor is not even an item under consideration, let alone have sacredness attached to it.

Yet the concept of sacred honor must be retrieved and taught by disciples of the coming age. Keeping our word, telling the truth and the honor of trust and reliability behind a name must have a place among us if true discipleship and a service to the Great Ones is to be achieved.

The problem in this age is that many have settled down in an atmosphere of restrictions that have so gradually overcome us that none have thought to protest.

The words of Isaiah are fitting here:

“For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause. Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed…. and there was none that moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or peeped.” Isa 52:4 & 10:14

This is a fitting description of one who has never known true freedom or had them gradually taken away by the subtle beast of authority.

One advantage that the Founding Fathers had is that King George made a bold move that made it obvious that the newly found freedoms would soon be taken back if something were not done.

In this age we face a similar problem in many lands except that the loss is so incremental that no alarm goes off to sound the necessary wake up call.

I read an interesting book in the 80’s about life in the Soviet Union some time before the Berlin Wall came down. It was written by a New York Times corespondent and there was one incident he related that revealed much. As the author was waiting for a commercial airliner to take off a couple officials entered the passenger section and pointed to several passengers and ordered them off the plane. They were simply told that communist officials needed their seats. One man stood up and pleaded to them that he be able to keep his seat as their was a death or illness in his family and it was essential that he stay on the plane. With no sympathy at all for the man’s situation he was arrested and taken away.

Then the clincher happened. Behind the author were several ladies who were commenting on the situation and one said to the other something like this: “Isn’t it a disgrace how these young people have no respect for authority these days?”

The author said that the other lady seemed to agree and commented that this was a prevailing attitude among many in that State.

Reading this woke me up to a realization that even though the people of my country seemed to have a low appreciation of true freedom that the acceptance of restriction and conformity was even greater in other countries. It also came to me at that moment that the people of each nation have about as much freedom as their consciousness can accept. Many people there are in totalitarian regimes who are not crying out for more freedom, but completely accept their restrictions and look on freedom as an adventure into irresponsibility.

We in the free world and now many in developing Russia have a greater appreciation of freedom, but even here a wider range of freedom is often seen as irresponsibility.

To insure the progress of freedom the principle must be taught and reinforced so that it permeates the consciousness of society. Only by creating a sense of personal responsibility and a consciousness of freedom can we insure that our world will not slip back into slavery.

Let me present the principle governing freedom that I believe is adhered to by the Brotherhood of Light.

All steps toward the liberation of the soul are proceeded by a greater sense and power of freedom in the life of the disciple. As the seeker progresses on the path adherence to freedom is always increasing and never decreasing. Any decrease in the embracement of freedom signifies retrogression in progression.

Therefore, for the worker of light, every decision, every thought and every action should support that energy that moves in the direction of greater freedom for the whole of the group as well as for the individual.

A reasonable and logical degree of risk is accepted by the disciple in the quest for expansion of freedom.

Spiritual progressions is directly proportional to a person’s understanding and acceptance of the principle of freedom, therefore let us contemplate that principle and embrace the greater livingness.

June 20, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Art of Poetry

The Art of Poetry

Back around the year 1967 when I was in college I took a class in literature where we discussed the art of poetry. It inspired me to try my hand at it. Here is the result.




J J Dewey

I was a man like another,

Who coasted the easiness of the way;

There was a man – he called me brother,

And I heard him call my name.

I turned my head to the voice I heard,

No form in sight could I see;

Then to my right, a spoken word,

“My name is Courage – I’ve come to thee.”


The voice cast fear into my heart,

I wished to run I knew not why;

The air itself was rent apart,

I bowed my head and thought to die.

He spoke, he spoke – a voice so loud

I could not hear till I was still;

A whisper had become the sound

Heard so clearly I fought for will.


My name was called, and that I knew;

I could not escape the thought, the voice,

My brother I have come to you,

But yet I give to you a choice.

Again I feared what he would say

He is not an easy man to draw;

Could I really go his way,

Or was my spoken name a flaw?


Again I heard the voice, it called

My name and that was no mistake;

Then for time I tried to stall –

Lost in a dream, I wished to wake;

But on my arm, gently a hand,

Pulling me toward his way;

Why, I could not understand,

Had Courage ever called my name?


I glanced at him his form in viewed,

I could not turn, I could not run,

For a question I put to you –

I want to know why you have come.

He smiled at me, I felt at ease,

And said I knew you would come through;

What I have shall be no breeze,

There is work for you to do.


He whispered all into my ear,

And I was weak with what he said;

Again I had begun to fear

For the road I had to tread.

He sensed my thought and said to me:

A gift I have, and do not tell

I wait for you in eternity,

I am yours if you do well.




by J J Dewey

Since I was born I heard His name,

But never saw Him with the eye.

Yet the whole world does laud His fame,

But when He comes they bid goodbye;

And in their mind they form a view

Of how to them He should appear.

They cry and cry out for the Truth,

And when He comes they will not hear.


The Truth is large said one to me.

I shall know Him when I see Him;

Beauty fair, adorned handsomely,

And He shall gladly call me friend.

A minute had not passed in time

That Truth walked by him, footsteps light,

A slender man without a dime

Unadorned, simple to the sight.


Truth said to him: “I’ve come to thee

To ask if I can give you aid;

You can know things you cannot see…

If you but ask you’ll be well paid.”

The man gave Truth a wryful sneer:

“Depart from me, you simple man;

You have nothing I want to hear.

You’re too easy to understand.”


Truth walked on, I felt He was sad,

For the man I saw did despise

The simple Truth he could have had,

The only one to make him wise;

But before Truth left from view

Something told me to follow on

To learn from Him and be wise too,

And go right now or He’ll be gone.


I followed to see where He went,

And saw that He passed many by.

The few who saw had pure intent,

But most had clouds before their eyes.

The man of learning gave one glance,

And said, “We two do not agree.”

Next He walked up to an old man Who said:

“My fathers have taught me.”


Not discouraged – not retreating

He came across a fisherman.

The fish were biting, he was reeling;

He said: “Come back some day, my man.”

Disheartened, but ever seeking

‘Ere He spotted a fair young boy

Who did smile and set Truth weeping,

His heart was ever filled with joy.


The Truth and child saw eye to eye

For He imparted all He had,

But when at last they said goodbye,

The learned man saw to the lad.

I thought and thought of what I saw,

And lay beside a lake so clear

A looking glass without a flaw,

I thought I saw Truth ever near.




BY J. J. Dewey

My conscience is a perfect man

Whom I would like to see,

No scare or mars upon his face

Adorned so handsomely.

He bids me come with hand in mine

To follow in his path;

I am the way to truth divine

And peace of mind that lasts.


No, I cried, I cannot bear

The thorns along the way.

There is not room for you and I

As Vie night leaves with the day,

Go alone and leave me here

I’ll find a downhill grade;

Don’t worry of my simple fears,

And I will have it made.


He looked at me with countenance sad

Foreboding in his eyes;

I wondered what could be that bad

Perhaps that I should die?

He turned his head so I could not see

The tears within his eyes,

But from the very heart of me

I thought I heard him cry.


I loved the man, I knew not why

I finally realized,

The path he owned before my eyes

I knew I should not die;

And in my mind there flashed a scene

Of the night I had left behind.

The perfect man gave his hand to me

We mounted up on light.




By J J Dewey

I had visions and thoughts for me;

The road ahead was a simple plan.

I made the path to walk with ease,

As a journey to another land.

I did not dream the hour so late,

And, rushing, fell into the mire.

Could I escape the looms of fate?

I called upon desire.


Life without a pursuit or cause

Does make my days so fleeing be;

Time never turns back on her laws,

And makes my mind a deep blue sea.

Then comes that spark I must retrieve,

When everything seems dire,

And as a way to get relief

I called upon desire.


A thief has stolen half my life,

And yet before me many doors;

I must take everything in stride,

I dare request for nothing more.

A door flew open by itself;

A voice said “Do we have a buyer?”

Before I spoke I asked for help;

I called upon desire.


And now my life has reached an end,

The last door bears Death as its name,

And yet I hope to call him friend,

For he receives me without shame.

I did the things I had to do,

My work became a burning fire;

In my labors I did pursue –

I called upon desire.




By J J Dewey

Time was made for man,

Not found among the Gods;

Created for those on earth

Whose perils they do trod.

Why do the Gods use it not,

Is life not made from it?

Yes, the life of man is wrought,

In time he digs his pit.


Time, the silver lining of space,

The stars and earths give heed

No more than the human race

With every word and deed.

Man sees his life and then divides

By two and two and two

Years and days and days and years

He lives them through and through.


But the Gods who never die

And see things eye to eye,

In some way we don’t understand

Have nothing to divide;

For who with their peace of mind

Would ever want an end?

Time cannot fly in their blue sky,

What measure can they intend?


But what peace has man to held

And say abide with me?

He only looks to joy foretold In eternity.

Until that time, he counts and counts

The minutes and the days.

Sorrow and imperfection mount

And he counts the ways.


But at times, when man stands still,

And seeks his self within;

He finds a spirit and a will,

And pleads -Don’t leave again!

A taste of heaven you’ve given me

Time makes it flee away;

Now I see as the Gods do see,

There’s no time in eternity.


For another poem by JJ go HERE

June 15, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE


The Universe of Form

The Universe of Form

Thank you Samu for your post about exceeding the speed of light. I have always thought this was possible and wrote a while back that Einstein’s theories would be revised after interstellar flight is achieved. Perhaps part of this knowledge will be discovered in the near future.

There was another interesting article in Thursday’s paper verifying another teaching I have given out. You may read it at:


The story is about a project of mapping the known universe. So far they have mapped 100,000 galaxies and expect to have 250,000 completes by the end of 2001. What they have discovered so far is interesting. They have found that galaxies link together in patterns of “long chains, majestic arcs and lacy patterns.” But even though they see then gravitating into patterns they have noticed that the organization is fairly loose to the extent that they make this statement:

“But the map also appears to show that the growth of these “super clusters” as limited, a concept astronomers describe as ‘the end of greatness.’“

What the astronomers describe here is another verification of one of the major teachings we have presented here.

Most metaphysical teachers in times past and present have taught that “as above so below” to mean that the universe is at least as complex as an atom and may itself be a great atom as a part of a greater world.

What I have taught is significantly different. I teach that the Law of Correspondences is indeed a true principle but that which is above does not exactly correspond to that which is below.

Now this much was taught by Djwhal Khul but here is the principle that is new.

That which is above will, at the end of its evolution, be more complex and majestic than that which is below, but that which is below is near the end of its evolution and has reached relative perfection whereas that which is above is in the process of evolution. The higher and larger things get in the universe the slower their time and the younger their cosmic age.

Let us assume that all forms evolve from step one to step 100.

Using this as a measure (and this is just a rough estimate) let us give the evolutionary age of various forms

The Quark – Age 100

The Proton – Age 99

The Atom – Age 98

The Water Molecule – Age 96

A Living Cell – Age 90

A Flower – Age 80

The Human Kingdom – Age 50

Planet Earth – Age 20

The Solar System – Age 10

The Milky Way Galaxy – Age 5

The Universe of Galaxies – Age 1 (relative to the rest)

According to this principle as the forms in the universe get larger and larger their evolutionary age gets younger and younger and thus their observable form gets less and less complex.


As each of the forms reaches the end of its evolution or approaches the age of 100 the majesty of their form becomes more complex and more excellent in grandeur.

For instance, the complexity and intelligence in organization of a cell is far ahead of the human kingdom because it has the evolutionary age of 90 compared to 50 for us, but when we achieve that same age of 90 our own complexity and intelligence in organization (through the Molecular Relationship) will far exceed that of the cell.

As we move up to a galaxy we find that there is organization but it is rather loosely knit together with stars in seemingly random placement until you look at the whole then you can see a spiral organization that has beauty, but not a lot of complexity yet. This is because the galaxy kingdoms are only about 5 years old, but when they reach 90+ they will reach a complexity that will far exceed anything humans can do.

Because the evolutionary age of the universe is only about one or so I predicted a loose organization of the galaxies that the astronomers are now just discovering and have called it “the end of greatness” in the universe.

If the universe were to not evolve this would be true, but with the knowledge that the universe is still young we can then see that this loose organization that they have discovered is not the end of greatness, but the beginning of greatness, the end of which will defy the imagination of any thinker or Master on the planet.

June 9, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE


The Principle of Freedom Part 3

The Principle of Freedom Part 3

Let me quote from a previous article:

“Just as the one who was deceived into thinking he could not walk. discovered the truth, and now wants freedom in an extended area so will it be with you and me. If we attempt to restrict freedom outside of our ring-pass-not then the time will come that we ourselves will find our own freedoms restricted. If we attempt to restrict freedom within our ring but in an area where we have no personal interest then the time will come that an area of interest for ourselves will be affected.”

Let me elaborate on this a bit:

Remember the story of the guy in NAZI Germany who tells of witnessing various groups of people around him being hauled off by the authorities and no one stood up for them? He himself was silent as he had no affiliation with the troubled groups. Finally, he says they came for him and when they did there was no one left who could speak up for him even if they wanted to.

This is the way it is with freedom also. If we are concerned only with our own little freedoms in our own little areas of interest then the freedom we have will be short-lived. It has been said that the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and this is indeed true, but we must be vigilant for all freedom, and not only for our own liberty in a limited area of interest. We must be prepared to defend the principle of freedom for all lives within their areas of interest as long as that free expression does not take away more freedom than it gives.

And that is the principle of freedom in a nutshell. The principle of freedom will generally be manifest if one consistently asks this question:

Will my action increase or decrease the freedom of the whole?

Using this criteria we see that the burglar violates this principle for even though he feels free to break into your house and has increased freedom from stealing your TV, the overall decrease in freedom for the whole is much greater than his little increase.

If you teach a friend to surf the internet you are adding to his freedom even though he loses a little free time doing other things. There is an overall gain for the whole and thus the principle of freedom is in play.

The problem with maintaining freedom is that people have two basic definitions of it or ways of looking at it.

(1) The first group sees freedom as an increase in benefits (usually temporary) to either self or an affiliated group, even if it involves an increase of restrictions and fewer freedoms to the many.

(2) The second group sees freedom as a lack of restriction, unless that restriction is absolutely necessary to maintain freedom of decision and action for the whole.

The problem is that the first group are in heavy illusion for an increase in benefits for the few takes away from freedom if the reception of those benefits comes by way of force, or the taking away of the freedom of many to increase the freedom for the minority.

Let’s take a real life example.

Currently (written in June of 2000) many individuals, plus state and federal governments are pursuing and suing the tobacco companies for money and benefits thinking that these benefits will give them greater freedom within their sphere.

At what price are these benefits?

Price One: An increase of taxes on the product which is a tax increase for many poor people who smoke.

Price Two: An increase of restrictions for the tobacco companies.

Price Three: If critics get their way the tobacco companies will suffer financially with a loss of thousands of jobs and the creation of a black market producing a tremendous increase in crime.

Objection: The tobacco companies deserve what they get because cigarettes are bad for you. We may take away some of their freedom, but that will be good for everyone. In fact it would be a big help if we made them illegal. Think of all the health benefits everyone would enjoy.

This is where the great illusion comes into play that provides the most powerful of tools for the Dark Brothers and is in harmony with their own philosophy which is:

“Force people to do good.”

To make smoking illegal would wind up doing more harm than good. Educating people on the health problems caused by smoking and changing public opinion so it is no longer cool to smoke is a much better long term solution.

Keep in mind that the dark side have their own definition of good and it always involves lots of benefits for those at the top of the food chain.

And what is the motto of the Brotherhood of Light?

“Promote understanding and then trust people to do the right thing.”

Now I have not smoked since I was around twelve so the subject of tobacco has little to do with me personally, but I am concerned because the increase or decrease of the freedom of a part does affect the whole and I am a part of that whole.

To force the tobacco companies out of business and thus force the consumer into a more healthy lifestyle is to encourage the path of darkness. Remain always vigilant against those who advocate force to produce an increase of benefits.

Let us group some examples of how forcing people to do good has failed in the past.

Example 1: Most notable is that the Soviet Union used force in an attempt to create equality for its people.

Result: The incentive to work was taken away and the nation went bankrupt.

Example 2: During Prohibition the United States government attempted to force its citizens to not drink alcohol.

Result: Crime was manifest where before there was no crime and mobsters like Al Capone arose and created havoc on the nation. Millions of people continued to obtain alcohol by illegal means. The situation became so intolerable that the law was repealed.

Example 3: Forcing wage and price controls in the late 70’s so evil businesses would not increase prices.

Result: Prices continued to go up, interest rates skyrocketed and there were shortages of many products.

What happens when we promote understanding and trust people to do good?

Individuals will apply the principles of health on their own including quitting smoking and going on a better diet.

Individuals will move toward a real equality and have much incentive to produce.

Individuals will begin to take responsibility for their own lives instead of working to “beat the system.”

The war between light and dark as it plays out in present time on this planet is between the philosophy of maximum freedom and maximum control at the expense of freedom..

We could also say that the war is between those who gladly receive the mark of the beast through control by authority and those who seek to escape the mark.

Drawing the Freedom Line

One of the main problems with the understanding of freedom is that the correct exercise of this principle is not black and white.

For instance we can’t say that he who loves freedom will never use force because force is sometimes necessary to insure freedom for the whole.

The force of the Allies against Hitler was a prime example.

Reasonable force to keep our communities safe from crime is another.

You can’t say that he who loves freedom will live a life completely free from discipline, constraints and law.

Justified law (which always involves some type of limitation) if made for the benefit of the whole will give more stability and freedom than it takes away.

Discipline limits a person in certain areas, but has the advantage of expanding freedom in other desirable areas.

Constraint, such as keeping drunk drivers off our highways, is a reasonable trade off for the added safety it gives the majority.

The trouble with many people who influence society is that they are extremists. For instance, those who make the laws may like the praise they receive from making laws to keep drunk drivers off our roads so they sit around and daydream of what they can do next.

Well maybe the best thing to do next is nothing. Maybe they have done enough. Even if this is the case, such schemers are not happy and they start dreaming up more constrains “for our own good.”

The theory of these mislead souls is that “even if one life is saved our solution is worth whatever discomfort millions will have to endure.”

Here is an example of this anti freedom philosophy at work:

In the late 70’s during the gas shortages they reduced the national speed limit to a maximum of 55 MPH. Now this law was so extreme that I doubt that one out of 100 driving the freeways of the country obeyed this silly rule, but what irritated me about these do-gooders was what happened when the gas shortage was over and citizens wanted to repeal the law. Many of our lawmakers refused, not to save gas now as we had plenty, but to save lives. Some thought that if we could even save one life by forcing millions of the rest of us to drive at 55 that the law should remain as it was. This thinking prevailed for about ten years until Senator Symms from Idaho introduced a bill raising the limit – thank God.

The funny thing was after the law was passed, the freeways deaths decreased in many states including Idaho. One reason, I am sure, is that there was much less frustration for drivers.

Then what really got to me was that even though there were iron clad statistics showing that raising the speed limit from 55 to 65 was harmless many still wanted to impose the lower speed limit “for our own good” because of “what might happen.”

Now what is wrong with the reasoning that it is OK to restrict the freedom of millions to save one life?

This is a great feel good statement that has a strong effect on those polarized in feeling, but what is wrong with the reasoning here?

The answer should be obvious, but for the astrally polarized it is not.

June 8, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE




A complaint I have received from readers is that me and several others are forcing our teachings upon others. This criticism indeed has an illusionary but interesting foundation. Why do I use the word illusionary? Because no force is involved. The big question is why do some feel that the making of concrete statements believed to be true is force? Let’s talk about this a moment.

Is it even possible to force your belief system upon others? The Communist Chinese and North Koreans tried it during the Korean War. These mislead souls and others who have no honor for the free will of humankind have discovered that when most souls go through enough pain, deprivation or repetitive programming they can be made to say they believe most anything; but then take them out of that situation and put them back into normal living and they will usually revert to their former beliefs. Thus even a direct forcing does not change inner foundation beliefs.

Many totalitarian regimes try to force their beliefs on their people by filtering the information they receive. The newspapers and media are only allowed to report certain types of information in certain ways. This is perhaps the most successful method of all because the opinions of the people are formed with only part of the information available. Even in this country (USA) this is somewhat of a problem. Our media does not generally cover up, but they will put much greater attention on one story than another, just because it goes along with their belief system. This causes people who only form their opinions as a reflection of general information and catch phrases to be very deluded.

Nevertheless, in all circumstances there are always a certain number who see through the illusions. During communism in Russia there was a large number of people who knew that the headline on the front page of the newspaper Pravada was not the important news. The important news was always hidden in small print on the back page. This was what the intelligent Russian read first and drew his greatest attention. Even in our “free” country the most important news is often on the third or fourth page, or maybe in a letter to the editor.

We often forget the person who is responsible for the discovery of truth: it is ourselves. When we realize this and take responsibility and do not give it to another we will see through the hype and illusion and recognize it for what it is.

As I reflect on the various times in my life when I have heard the comment that I am forcing my version of truth on others I see a common thread. The closer I am to a truth that a listener does not want to accept the more he feels forced.

Why is this?

The reason is that truth itself is the greatest and strongest force in the world. If one is in a comfortable illusion he does not want to see truth. If the truth is presented in the light the person feels great force because that which is seen in light is undeniable.

This is the reason that many workers in the light throughout history have often been persecuted or burned at the stake. They present the truth in the light. The illusion begins to dispel. Those in the illusion do not want the fog lifted so they do all in their power to eliminate the messengers of light. If the bringer of light is removed then the illusionary fog remains.

Truth is thus a greater force upon the human psyche than any totalitarian regime could ever hope to be.

Let’s cite an example.

Suppose that your kindly and beloved grandfather taught you that two plus two equals five. Because you loved and revered him so much, you accepted this data without question. In fact, because of your respect for him you thought it was wrong to even doubt him. Other people made fun of you for this belief but that did not matter. Your respect for your grandfather was greater than fear of criticism. Then a friend comes along who has no desire to make fun of you, but feels it is time you added this important truth to your life.

Here is how the dialog goes:

Friend: Come here. I want to show you something.

Deluded Person: What is that?

F: I have five apples here I am putting on the table. Do you agree that you see five apples before you?

DP: Yes, I suppose.

F: Now I am taking two of those apples and moving them to the other side of the table. Am I correct in saying I have moved two apples?

DP: Yes.

F: Now I am taking two more apples and grouping these with the other two. Did you witness me moving two sets of two apples?

DP: Of course.

F: Notice that I have moved two apples and then taken another two apples and added them together. So two apples plus two apples equals how many apples?

DP glances at the four apples and gets a terrible feeling in the pit of his stomach as truth stares him in the face. It is impossible that his kindly grandfather could have mislead him, yet there seems to be four apples before him and the fifth is on the other side of the table.

“This is a stupid trick” he shouts as he turns the table upside down. “Take your bag of tricks and get out of my house and never darken my door again!!!”

The man feels very angry. This trickster has tried to force his version of truth upon him and has insulted his beloved grandfather. How dare him!

This is not the end of the matter, however. The deluded man cannot escape or erase from his mind the image of the two apples plus the two apples equaling four apples. He keeps trying to put it on a shelf or erase it completely, but it comes back to haunt him with much greater force than Chinese brainwashing.

As this image looms before him he is faced with a choice: either accept the truth as it was revealed in the light of day or pretend that the truth does not exist. If he eventually accepts the truth he will accept the messenger back as his friend. If he knowingly rejects the truth he will see the messenger as an enemy and try to either discredit or destroy him. He will oppose any type of debate or free thought on the subject and shift his attention to an illusion that makes him feel comfortable.

Now the problem with spiritual, philosophical or political truth is that the proving of it is more complicated than two plus two equals four, yet the principle that reveals it is very much the same.

Undistorted facts put together in a logical way will lead to the greater reality of four which, if gazed upon by the soul, will be undeniably true.

The trouble is that few people are able to look with vision upon the greater reality because their present illusion is comfortable and they do not wish to have it destroyed.

All kinds of excuses are made for not looking at the truth. Here are some of them:

My religion was good enough for my parents so it’s good enough for me.

One person’s version of truth is just as good as another’s.

That is your truth, it’s just not mine.

Truth is relative.

I do not wish to listen to your babble.

And then, of course, there is: “You are trying to force your version of truth upon me.”

If you feel forced by another’s viewpoint it is probably because there is some truth in it trying to force its way out.

Let me end this with one of my favorite quotes from A Course in Miracles: “The truth is true and nothing else is true.” Two plus two equals four and does not equal any other number in the universe. There is a point of truth that is always true and can be recognized by all who tune into the universal soul. I commit myself without apology to do my best to present the highest reality possible to those who use their free will to see things as they are.

June 4, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Principle of Freedom, Part 2

The Principle of Freedom, Part 2

The New Slavery

A reader brought up an interesting possibility and that is a potential “tyranny of the majority” over the minority.

This is a possible occurrence, but it is rare in government. 99% of the time when there is tyranny it is the tyranny of a minority over the majority.

For instance Hitler and his NAZI party were a minority who exercised tyranny over the majority.

Lenin had minority support in his tyranny that took away freedom and cost the lives of millions.

Nero never checked with the will of the majority when he performed his nefarious deeds.

So when has a majority approved of tyranny over a minority?

An example often given was during the early history of the United States the blacks were a minority tyrannized by the majority.

I submit to you that this is not true. Never during the history of slavery in any country was there ever a vote called for that called for a decision by the majority as to whether there would be en enslaved minority.

Even when we go back to ancient history we find that there was always a minority who kept slaves. Because these slaveholders were much more wealthy on the average than non slaveholders they had much more influence than the average people and had power as a minority to maintain slavery.

When America was young a minority of wealthy people imported slaves to this country. The average good-hearted people who opposed the practice did not stop them because:

(1) There were no laws in the young territory to prohibit slavery.

(2) It was dangerous to oppose the wealthy and the powerful.

Up to the time of the American Civil War slavery was enforced by a rich and powerful minority.

When Lincoln was elected president the South largely succeeded from the Union because of fear of the new President’s views on slavery. Lincoln’s “nation divided” speech terrified them. His famous words that “a nation divided against itself cannot stand,” shook them to the core. That a nation half free and half slave cannot continue to exist was like a war cry. Then when Lincoln pressed for the prohibition of slavery of new states the South felt overwhelmed and fearful that they would lose their grip.

Many teach today that the war was fought to save the union and not over slavery, but I submit that if there had been no slavery issue there would have been no war. The South definitely broke off from the Union because of the issue of slavery and over the fear of Lincoln’s views on the matter. There were other factors, but slavery was the prime cause.

Now here is my main point. At the beginning of the civil war the free states had about twice the population as the slave states and in addition to this many people who lived in the slave states were against the institution a slavery. For one thing, we know most of the blacks were against it. Combine this with sympathetic whites and you have at least a third or more of the South who were opposed to slavery. Therefore, if a vote had been taken from the whole of the people of the United States, North and South, we would have had close to 70% vote against slavery. It is beyond dispute that a majority of people at that time were not in support of it.

If the South had been allowed to exercise their independence then it is possible to have had a situation where a majority enslaved a minority, but as it was the Majority (the North) followed its sense of duty and freed the slaves preventing this situation from materializing.

I cannot think of one time in history where a majority actually voted to support a tyranny against a minority – injustice perhaps – but not tyranny.

The Book of Mormon makes an interesting statement about majority rule:

“Now it is not common that the voice (majority) of the people desireth anything contrary to that which is right; but it is common for the lesser part of the people to desire that which is not right; therefore this shall ye observe and make it your law–to do your business by the voice of the people.

“And if the time comes that the voice of the people doth choose iniquity, then is the time that the judgments of God will come upon you; yea, then is the time he will visit you with great destruction even as he has hitherto visited this land.” Mosiah 29:26-27

It is interesting that as the South approached a situation where the majority of the people may have supported slavery that they were indeed visited with great destruction.

It is also interesting that after Hitler had assumed power and influenced the majority to persecute the Jews that his nation and system of government were also destroyed and even the country was split in two after the war.

Even though there was not a majority vote available in ancient times I can think of one great example where a majority exercised tyranny over a minority, and that was during the time of Moses. Of course they did not have a majority rule type of government for the Pharaoh was seen as the absolute Monarch with power over life and death. Nevertheless, from all accounts the majority seemed to support the Pharaoh in enslaving the Hebrews.


Unlike the South where only a few slaveholders received much benefit the majority of the Egyptians profited from the slaves. The whole of the Hebrew race did all the grunt work, the dangerous work and much building and construction that was of benefit to the majority. Thus the majority became dependent on the slaves and developed a selfish interest in maintaining the institution.

If therefore the principle enunciated in the Book of Mormon is true then the Egyptians should have been ripe for destruction.

And indeed they were and the Powers That Be saw to it that destruction came by calling Moses to deliver the famous plagues that finally forced the Egyptians to free the slaves.

Now the interesting thing is that history repeats itself according to the law of cycles and correspondences and it is prophesied several times that we shall have a future correspondence to the time of Moses.

Isa 52:1 Awake, awake; put on thy strength, O Zion; put on thy beautiful garments, O Jerusalem, the holy city: for henceforth there shall no more come into thee the uncircumcised and the unclean.

Isa 52:2 Shake thyself from the dust; arise, and sit down, O Jerusalem: loose thyself from the bands of thy neck, O captive daughter of Zion.

Isa 52:3 For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.

Isa 52:4 For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause. 52:5 Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed. 52:6 Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I. 52:7 How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth!

Isa 52:8 Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.

This is indeed a fascinating prophesy. Whereas the ancient slaves were sold into slavery for money we are told that in a future age there will be a working class like the ancient Hebrews that sell themselves “for nought.” In other words, they will place themselves in the same position as were the ancient slaves, but where the ancient slave was sold on the auction block the new slave will acquiesce to the situation for no fee changing hands at all.

Who would be so foolish to yield themselves into slavery for no payment?

Answer: The modern taxpayer

Notice that the number of taxpayers in the civilized nations is shrinking to smaller and smaller numbers who provide more and more services to larger and larger numbers of people?

Was not Isaiah farsighted in stating that “they that rule over them make them to howl.” The poor taxpayer certainly comes close to howling at times.

Now because the non taxpayer (and minimal taxpayers) can vote, this means that he who is not contributing obtains the position of telling he who is contributing how his money is to be spent.

In many countries we are approaching the time when the majority will be receiving benefits through the government that is from the earnings of others. When a person receives such benefit he will tend to vote to sustain the benefit no matter how unfair it may be to the persons providing it. In his mind he is voting for greater freedom for himself, but at the expense of the free choice of the person providing the money.

As we approach this circumstance where the majority receive hand-outs through the government from the slavery of hard working taxpayers we approach a situation where we have a majority who have a vested interest in continuing to increase taxes and tyrannize a minority.

In the United States it is now difficult for a politician to get elected unless he promises lots of federal dollars to a greedy majority who feel that it is right to take what does not belong to them. (Remember we defined greed as wanting more than you have a right to have).

When we therefore approach this situation where the majority choose to take that which does not belong to them we approach a situation where the nation is “ripe for destruction.”

The prophets tell us that when this time comes there will be a gathering of Lights from among the nations and that the leaders will attempt to stop the gathering so they can continue to get the benefits (taxes) from the slaves. There will then be great signs and wonders similar to the time of Moses and a new nation will be created where greater freedoms will be enjoyed than has ever existed upon the earth. Isaiah tells us that this new nation will be so successful that the great, the rich and the kings of the nations will bring their wealth and gold and silver to this gathering of Lights. In other words, it will turn out to be one of the greatest investment opportunities of all time.

Where will this new nation be? That is a great mystery, but will be revealed in the future. The location has been waiting untouched for thousands of years and none have foreseen it even though it is hinted at in the scriptures.

June 3, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE


The Principle of Freedom Part I

The Principle of Freedom Part I

I hope none of you took my associating Jesus with 666 seriously. I was just illustrating how most anyone could be made to look like the beast. In fact there used to be a web site where you wrote in your name, or any name for that matter, and it calculated 666 from that name entered using various numbering systems.

This illustrates how most people are looking for the meaning of the number in the wrong direction.

Now back to the subject of freedom.

From what we have discussed thus far I asked readers to make an attempt to reduce the principle of freedom to a sentence or so.

Lawrence made a good comment on this principle concerning our relationship to the government:

“An essential political principle that determines whether freedom is enhanced is the nature of government power. For example, the founders of the United States endeavored to create a government where the power of the state was strictly limited, where government might only do that which is permitted, whereas individuals could do anything that is not prohibited.”

That is a good principle Lawrence. The government should only do that which we permit, but the individual should be able to do all that is not prohibited. When the government begins assuming powers that we the people have not granted it then it becomes a beast that seeks to destroy freedom through the use of fear and intimidation.

But what we are seeking here is the core principle. Once we understand the principle and follow it then we will never be enslaved again.

How does one become free?

(1) By deciding to make a choice wherever possible rather than let all the choices that govern your life be made for you.

Free will involves more than just living in a situation where you are not restricted from the outside. More importantly, it involves a decision to decide and take responsibility for your life. He who does not take responsibility for his life and actions within that life will not be free.

(2) Placing a greater value on freedom than one does on security that seems to be offered through the giving up of freedom.

(3) After deciding on choice and placing value upon it one must see through the illusions that will trick him into freely giving up his freedom. This is, in the end, the only way freedom can be lost – by giving it to another through your own free will. Once the true path of freedom is seen this path must be followed, for if it is not pursued, and time passes, the night will come and the vision of the path will dim.

Jesus said: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.”

What does this mean?

In a way it is too bad that the discussion of freedom is mainly limited to people in the arena of politics. Many people in metaphysics and philosophy shy away from the subject as much as they do a fundamental religion. Yet this should not be, so for freedom is the defining principle that determines the division between that which is good and that which is evil as we move from age to age. It is the main dividing line between the Brotherhood of Light and the Dark Brothers

The reason our definition of good and evil changes over the ages is because our capacity to understand and experience freedom changes.

In ancient times it would have been considered evil to even think of disobeying the tribal leader for the members of the tribe had no concept of what it would be like living outside the authority of the tribe and making his own decision to influence his destiny. Now in this age, as our ring-pass-not has expanded, our view of good and evil have also moved to higher place. Today the closest thing to an ancient tribe would be a cult and a cult that is tightly controlled by a leader who makes all personal decisions for members is considered evil. Controlling your own evolution and destiny is today considered good.

To see the principle of freedom playing itself out you must find the ring-pass-not for humanity, your country, your group, your family and yourself.

If you are not familiar with the term “ring-pass-not” you can search the archives for we have discussed the principle in depth. Simply put it is the limit of a persons consciousness beyond which the exercise of free will is not possible. The way the seemingly impossible becomes possible is through an expansion of the ring.

Let us say that a hypnotist tells a subject that his legs are useless and he cannot walk. If the subject accepts this suggestion then his ring-pass-not does not include walking. The possibility does not even enter into his consciousness. Let us say that a few days pass and he discovers the truth of the terrible suggestion. What happens? Suddenly his ring-pass-not expands and he walks. The sphere of his power of decision has now greatly increased over what it was when he was deceived for now he can make decisions concerning all areas of his life that includes walking.

He discovered the truth and the truth set him free – to a greater sphere of freedom.

In his state of deception he could have cared less if someone sought to impose rules and restrictions on walking for it would not have affected freedom as he knew it. But now he can walk, any attempt to restrict him from doing this wonderful exercise would be considered an infringement of the highest degree.

Before his ring-pass-not expanded he had no idea that he even could exercise the power of free will in the arena of walking.

Even so it is with us.

There are many things that we can do that we do not do. Either the idea has not even entered our consciousness or we are just mesmerized into believing that we are powerless. Our freedoms are within our ring-pass-not and it does not even enter into our heads to look beyond the ring. We do not usually even look beyond the ring until we enter a point of tension (another principle discussed in the archives). A crisis of some kind will often force us to look outside the ring for answers.

Now here is the problem with understanding the principle of freedom. Each of us has our ring-pass-not at a different level. Just as the guy who can walk will get very upset at regulations on walking whereas the person who cannot walk does not care, even so it is with us. One person will get very upset at restrictions of freedom within his ring, but another person who does not see himself as affected will not care.

But should he care?

Yes, definitely. Just as the one who was deceived into thinking he could not walk discovered the truth and now wants freedom in an extended area so will it be with you and me. If we attempt to restrict freedom outside of our ring then the time will come that we ourselves will find our own freedoms restricted. If we attempt to restrict freedom within our ring but in an area where we have no personal interest then the time will come that an area of interest for ourselves will be affected.

For instance, those who call for more control and regulation for the good of the whole may soon find that others will want to regulate something they support, such as herbs and vitamins (also for their own supposed good).

What then should be the core principle governing our support of freedom?

All freedoms to act within a person’s desires should be respected and not restricted at any time with the following exceptions:

(1) An action that would definitely cause harm or restrict the freedom of others to the extent that the negative is definitely greater than the positive.

Example One: Some wish to take away our freedom to drive over 55 MPH on the freeway because it would save lives. In this case, no one can definitely say you will be harmed by going over 55 or that the positive effect outweighs the negative. Therefore, freedom should not be infringed. (Incidentally when they raised the speed limit here in Idaho fatalities actually decreased).

Example Two: A man wants the freedom to burglarize homes. In this case there would be a definite harm caused to the homeowner as well as a loss of his own freedom to use the stolen items. The negative definitely outweighs the positive therefore the man’s freedom to burglarize should be restricted.

(2) The majority of a group with whom you form a voluntary part supports or votes for a restriction.

Example One: You move into a nice neighborhood which has restrictive covenants supported by the majority of homeowners. You want to raise pigs in your back yard, but this freedom is prohibited. This is justified because you were aware (or should have been) of the restrictions when you moved in. Also the homeowner’s society does not prevent you from raising pigs. Instead of moving to a restricted area you could have bought a house in the country and raised pigs to your hearts content.

Example Two: You think a few drugs never hurt anyone and you want the freedom to sell cocaine to kids. In this circumstance, even though you may be half crazy and believe you are justified, you should cooperate with the will of the majority. If you do not agree with the majority seek to implement change.

Let us pick a more gray area. Suppose you need to smoke pot for medicinal purposes for it truly eases your pain and discomfort, but the majority are against you or anyone else having it?

Again the person should attempt to respect the will of the majority but seek to educate them and change the law. He also has the option to break an unjust law, but be should willing to suffer the consequences.

There is safety in supporting the will of the majority for the majority will rarely vote for an extreme. It may be true that Hitler ran for office in a democracy, but because of the number of parties he only received about 23% of the vote. A majority would have never elected one with such extreme views.

Jefferson put a lot of emphasis on majority rule. Let me quote:

“Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.” –Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809

“We are sensible of the duty and expediency of submitting our opinions to the will of the majority, and can wait with patience till they get right if they happen to be at any time wrong.” –Thomas Jefferson to James Breckenridge, 1800.

“If the measures which have been pursued are approved by the majority, it is the duty of the minority to acquiesce and conform.” –Thomas Jefferson to William Duane, 1811.

“Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men.” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790.

Yes, it is true that the majority will often support restrictions that some individuals do not support, but the good and safety of functioning within the will of the majority far outweighs the potential tyranny of a minority and all major tyrannies in history are ran by a minority.

Question: What about laws and restrictions that go contrary to the will of the majority.

Answer: Those who adhere to the principle of freedom have the right to seek to overthrow such laws.

(3) A person has the right to make any legal restrictions he wishes in his own domain or property,

Example One: A restaurant has a rule that you must wear a tie if you are to eat there. You may not like that restriction, but you should respect the owner’s right to place limitations within his own dominion.

Example Two: You enter another person’s home and you are told that it is a rule in the house that no one can wear shoes and you are asked to remove them. One should honor such restrictions within the domain of another.

For a society or group to maintain the highest level of freedom to which their consciousness will allow the individual must be willing to submit to reasonable rules within the above three categories.

May 30, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Immortal on Youtube


The Revelation of the Keys of Knowledge

Now Available free on Youtube. See links below


The Immortal is the story of an average truth seeker who stumbles across a fascinating teacher, only to discover that the man is John, the Beloved, the Revelator, an Apostle of Jesus, perhaps the most mysterious man in history, comes alive in this book. Legend has it that John never died and still roams the earth as a teacher. John finds JJ Dewey, the main character, to teach him the Twelve Keys of Knowledge to prepare the world for the new age of peace. The first question addressed in Book I is WHO OR WHAT AM I? The student gives all the standard answers…and they are all wrong. The lead character then realizes he is under the tutorage of no ordinary teacher and must apply himself in a quest for knowledge.

Here  are links to access Book I on Youtube


Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Calculating 666

Calculating 666

A reader gives a thought provoking thought:

He asks how many know what “Joseph Smith” transliterated into

Hebrew characters equals?

Yod 10 J

Vav 6 O

Samech 60 Se

Pey 70 Ph

Samech 60 S

Mem 40 M

Yod 10 I

Tav 400 Th



I don’t know if anyone else noticed but the numbers presented here add up to 656 – not 666. It always pays to check out everything for your self – you never know what you might discover.

Actually the reader must have made a typo for the letter pey equals 80 and not 70 which does make the result 666.


Joseph in the Hebrew is spelled with the letters Yod, Vav, Samech and Fey instead of Pey. This changes the total to 586.

To find Joseph’s real number in the Hebrew we must take into account that he always signed his name as Joseph Smith Jr. Yod and Resh for JR in the Hebrew ads a value of 210 to the 586 totaling 796.

Now if we really want to find the Antichrist perhaps we should check out the big guy himself.

6+6+6=18 and 1+8=9. Thus 9 is the key multiplier of the beast.

If we take the values of the letters of the name of Jesus and multiply them by 9 here is what we get.

J = 90

E = 45

S = 171

U = 189

S = 171

——- Total


Jesus is called the Christ or the Messiah which has the same meaning in Hebrew. Here again we get:

M == 117

E == 45

S == 171

S == 171

I == 81

A == 9

H == 72

Total Again: 666!!

Thus Jesus the Messiah is double 666. Maybe we’d better burn our Bibles.

Moving ahead to present time let us see where the beast will manifest:

The real name of Bill Gates is William Henry Gates III. Nowadays he is known as Bill Gates (III), where “III” means the order of third (3rd). By converting the letters of his name to the ASCII-values (which are used in computers) you will get the following:

B I L L G A T E S 3

66 + 73 + 76 + 76 + 71 + 65 + 84 + 69 + 83 + 3 = 666

The Pope bears the title Vicarius Filii Dei. These words were not invented by the Reformers, or bigots, but were used several hundred years before the Protestant Reformation. In Roman Numerals, the letters of this title which have assigned value add to 666. For VICARIUS: V = 5, I = 1, C = 100, I + 1, U (or V) = 5; for FILII: I = 1, L = 50, I = 1, I = 1; for DEI: D = 500, I = 1; totaling 666.

Clinton also is suspected of being the beast. (written in May, 2000) Here is a web site dedicated to his exposure:

Then yet another web site seems to seriously think that David Hasselhoff is the beast. This is located at:

The World Wide Web is abbreviated as WWW and VAV for W in the Hebrew has the value of 6. Thus WWW= 666.

There used to be a site where you could put in most any name and it would use some system and convert it to 666. That doesn’t seem to exist any more, but here is one that will tell you your number based on standard numerology.

Many there are who look for signs outside of themselves rather than relying on the Spirit within. This principle cannot be emphasized enough so I will quote a few paragraphs from my book to remind us of the teaching.

“Well,” I stumbled again, clearing my throat, “if I am one with God, then I must be God with a big G.” It sounds weird to say that, but that’s my answer.”

“Are you confident in that answer?”

“Sort of.”

“What makes you sort of confident?”

“I’ve had several coincidences pointing me in that direction. I figured they must have happened for a reason.”

“So you had some signs leading you toward the answer?” John smiled.

“I guess you could say that,” I replied.

“Have you read what the Master said about signs?”

“I think he said several things, didn’t he?”

John got out his old Bible again and turned to Matthew chapter sixteen. “Read verse four,” he said, pushing the book toward me.

I carefully held the old book and read: “A wicked and adulterous generation seeketh after a sign…”

I just about dropped the book. “I remember reading this scripture, but I never thought about it in the context that is now entering my head. I thought the answer may be that I am God because of signs, but Jesus said the wicked seek signs.”

“You were not actively seeking a sign,” John assured me, “but several appeared to you and you thought they meant something.”

“So are you telling me they didn’t mean anything?” I asked, somewhat disappointed.

“It is true that there is a reason or a cause behind each happening,” John replied, “but when people see coincidences they often read much more into them than should be. Suppose you roll dice hundreds of times. Sooner or later you will roll seven three times in a row. Does that have any deep meaning or did it happen just because you rolled the dice many times and the law of averages tells us you will eventually roll three sevens?”

“So, you’re saying that coincidences just happen now and then?”

“Generally, that is the case, but then every once in a while coincidences are contrived by a higher power. But what usually happens when a coincidence happens to a superstitious person, much more will be read into it than is based in reality.”

“So the fact that both Wayne, Lance and that Dark Brother mentioned man and gods was just coincidence and means nothing?”

“Not entirely,” John replied. “You, Wayne, and Lance have been friends for many years and as such tune into each other’s frequency and share many of the same thoughts. This greatly increases the chances that you will all come up with similar conclusions on various ideas. What happened with you three was not nearly as much of a coincidence as you thought. You were looking for an answer and you were happy that something finally seemed to jump out at you. It was no coincidence, however, that the Dark Brother jumped on this. It served his purpose.”

“So, what about the answer, then,” I asked. “Is it right or wrong?”

“Let’s regress just a moment,” John said, putting his fingers together. “Why do you suppose Jesus said a wicked and adulterous generation seeks for a sign? Now in reality wicked means mislead. So how is one misdirected who seeks for a sign?”

“I’ve never thought of looking for a sign in a negative light. Most people see signs as a positive thing.” John was silent, evidently waiting for a concise answer. I continued, “OK, let me see. If we use a sign to guide our lives then we are using something outside of ourselves. Perhaps we are supposed to look within.”

John smiled. “There is hope for you yet. I think your light is increasing. Now what is adulterous about seeking a sign for guidance?”

“That’s a tough one. I don’t see a lot of relation there.”

“There is a lot of correspondence here, said John. “Answer me this: What is adultery?”

“It’s where a person betrays his marriage partner and has a sexual relationship with someone else” I replied.

“And who is your spiritual marriage partner supposed to be?”

“You mean someone other than my physical wife?”


“Could it be God?”

“You are correct. This is taught throughout the scriptures. The Israelites are called the Bride of Jehovah throughout the Old Testament and the Church is called the Bride of Christ in the New. Both Israel and the Church are symbols of those who have the light of the Spirit of God within them. So how does a bride of Christ or God commit adultery?”

“Perhaps by leaving God and leaning on or uniting with someone else, or another God.”

“Very close,” said John. “The brother of light senses the Spirit of God within himself and has made a commitment to follow it and be one with it, similar to a marriage relationship. If he actively seeks a sign outside of himself for his main source of guidance, this causes a shift of attention away from the Spirit. So his God becomes a false God outside of himself and the inner God is ignored and betrayed. He has committed adultery against his only true source of guidance, which places a black wall between his personality self and the God within.”

“Fascinating,” I said, feeling like Spock again. “So the New Agers, who are always teaching about the God within – yet at the same time are always seeking coincidences and signs – are really teaching one thing and doing another?”

“They are not alone,” John smiled. “On the other side of the spectrum, the very religious also seek for signs rather than an answer from God through prayer as they claim to teach.”

(End of excerpt)

May 30, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE