- Keys Writings 2014, Part 1
- Noah, The Movie
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 2
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 3
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 4
- Global Warming
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 5
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 6
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 7
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 8
- The Beast of Revelation
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 9
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 10
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 11
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 12
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 13
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 14
- The Grand Tour
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 15
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 16
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 17
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 18
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 19
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 20
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 21
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 22
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 23
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 24
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 25
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 26
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 27
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 28
- Keys Writings 2014, Part 29
May 25, 2014
When seekers learn about the left hand path and the Dark Brothers they instinctively assume that they are not a part of that direction. And why do they assume this?
Because their intentions are good. Not only this but they want all kinds of good things – like world peace, eliminate poverty, equal rights, sharing wealth, do away with weapons of mass destruction, increase the level of education, increase human rights to name a few. Surely this seeker with such good values couldn’t be one the bad guys side, could he?
Don’t be so sure.
If a hundred randomly selected people were to meet a representative of a the Dark Brothers and talk with him over coffee, a good ninety of them would go away thinking the guy was a nice guy with good intentions and ideas. They wouldn’t have a clue as to what his true intentions were or where they would take us.
A small handful would sense that thee was something off in the guy and pay a lot of attention to the exact wording that comes out of his mouth. These would read between the lines and see that something was amiss.
If you meet a supporter of the dark side he is not going to stand out as some sinister figure who wants more crime, prostitution, slavery child abuse etc. Instead he will often come across as squeaky clean.
Take a look at that list of good intentions we made. He would be for all of them.
Let us pick just one – world peace.
The Dark Brothers and all their representatives want world peace and will openly call or it. The problem is that they want it on different terms than the Brotherhood of Light. They want to establish world peace by suppressing, by use of force, all dissent and points of view contrary to their thinking. Their idea of world peace is something like North Korea where there are no challenges to authority because all the people are controlled by fear.
Of course, they will not tell you this but they will tell you how much they are in favor of peace and such talk will sound benevolent to those who ignore their own souls.
The Brotherhood of Light will tell you what they want to accomplish and then proceed to do it. The Dark Brotherhood will pretend they want to do the same thing but then cleverly steer their acolytes toward a different end that was hidden from them.
The main dividing line between the two brotherhoods is the Principle of Freedom. This tells us that we should seek maximum freedom through the use of minimal force.
For more on this principle go here:
Now what creates a inroad for darkness is that it is necessary that those on the right hand path use some force. For instance, the threat of force must be used to prevent murder, rape theft etc. Unfortunately, this gives the Dark Brotherhood an inroad to use more force than necessary while claiming that they are no different than the good guys.
The Dark Brotherhood teaching on the use of force at first will seem reasonable, but then they will, inch by inch, turn it up a notch at a time until a bewildered following will discover that they are no longer free.
On hindsight the wrong use of force, which is in the direction of slavery, seems obvious. For instance, just about all people today see that the Southern States were wrong in using force to keep slaves. But it was different if you were back there. They saw the work the slaves did by force produced good results so this made it a good thing in their eyes.
For instance, maybe a community needed a new school built and several slave owners donated their slaves for labor. After the school was finished the people looked upon the structure and declared it “good” and thought to themselves how good it was that they had slaves to build this for them.
Most people today can look back on this and see the illusion the people were under.
But does the illusion still persist?
It does and only the circumstances have changed.
Today many slave away working hard hours to pay more taxes than they desire or think is just. The government takes the money from this slave labor and builds many government buildings and employs many bureaucrats to work therein and they stand back and say: “This is good. It is a good thing that we tax these people more than they want to pay so we can do all these good works.”
Question Five: If the slave labor doing good works in the first example is wrong then is the slave labor to pay the unwanted taxes for good works today wrong also?
Will a future generation look back on us as we look back on the illusion of the slave owners in the South?
Explain your thinking.
Being the “soul of the universe” just means the current focus of interplay between spirit and matter is on humanity – as it was on the quarks in their time and the atoms in theirs.
I would say being the “soul if the universe” will be an important role from here on out and the focus will stay in us and our role. We will eventually become one with our Monads and Sons of God and our significant role in the fulfillment of the plan is pretty much guaranteed to be center stage.
We are just getting started in our function of the soul of the universe. Our soul energy in our bodies use intelligence to give them their form from the cells to the whole body itself. The organization of the universe by humans hasn’t really began yet as you can tell by looking at the random forms out there organized mainly by gravity, inertia and other forces.
The imagination of man cannot fathom what will take place among the stars and galaxies when human beings throughout the universe assume their rightful place billions of years hence.
March 26, 2014
The Trap of Illusion
I don’t consider myself a slave. I consider myself a free man with responsibilities and obligations, one of which involves paying taxes. I look around at the country I live in, and really don’t begrudge paying my fair share for its upkeep and support.
And neither do I begrudge paying a fair tax to support my country. That was not what I was referring to. I was talking about taxation that goes beyond fair and every person has a line where that may be, including yourself.
Apparently the taxes you now pay is an amount you consider just, so of course this doesn’t make you feel like a slave. But suppose you had to pay a 90% tax and your children were going hungry. Then how would you feel?
Actually, if we include all the hidden taxes the average person in the United States pays more than a 60% tax. Because much of it is hidden we tend to not feel so cheated. In ancient Rome it was common to have a slave run a business and the master took a third of the profits and allowed the slave to keep two thirds. This proved to be a good incentive to keep the slave working hard. Variations of this practice was carried on by some in the Old South. Some slaves actually made pretty good money and dressed quite flamboyantly. Others were not so lucky.
The point is that many pay more in taxes than slaves in times past and, unlike you, they feel they are paying more than their fair share and a good portion of their money is being wasted. This causes numerous people to work for many hours where they could be enjoying themselves instead. If you are contributing in a way that you consider fair then of course you would not feel like a slave, but if you have to give much more money to an all powerful government than you desire or think is fair then you are a slave to a powerful master.
What we have to look at here is not what certain individuals consider fair but what the taxpayers as a whole feel. I’m not in a high federal tax bracket so I would not grumble for myself there but I am just as outraged if my neighbor has to pay an unfair tax as if it were myself. As far as other taxes go I think the payroll tax is too high for what we get, our sales tax too high and property tax is too high. If the money were well spent and efficiently managed I would feel much better about it.
The Swiss have a lot fairer system than we do because the citizens prevent the federal government from getting out of control. The maximum federal tax there is 11.5% and if a married couple make less than $30,000 they pay nothing. The capital gains rate for individuals is zero and they pay about a third of the property tax of the United States. On top of this they have no national debt.
Now if our country were run like Switzerland there would be few who would feel like slaves to the system and people like me would be happy to pay their fair share – because it would actually be fair.
Switzerland, the most Democratic nation on earth, with a history of Democracy for 800 years does definitely not fit into the accused stereotype of an irresponsible people voting themselves free stuff to their ruin. On the other hand, we as a republic are following this path.
I associate slavery with misery.
A slave isn’t necessarily miserable. Many slaves in the Old South, after they were emancipated, said they were happier as a slave than a free person. After the fall of the Soviet Union many didn’t know what to do with their new freedom and were said to be happier in their slave state until they adjusted. That, of course, doesn’t make it right, for maximum freedom of choice is the destiny and right of all humanity.
In addition, many can be happier in a bad situation because they have a good attitude than others in a good situation with a negative attitude.
I would like to know whether you think I’m aligned with the Dark Brotherhood because of my current beliefs in this area.
I think you are one of the most honorable individuals I have met and you do your best to follow the highest you know. The world would be a much better place if there were more like you.
That said, all those who have not passed the Third Initiation are susceptible to the trap of illusion and even people with the best of intentions may find themselves throwing support behind an idea supported by the Dark Brotherhood now and then. Way over 99% of the population support some type of beastly authority for instance.
The key for seekers is to follow the highest they know. When they do this their illusions will eventually be revealed. When revealed the highest they know will move up a step and to stay on the right path they must then take that step.
Only when illusion is dispelled can the disciple make a conscious choice to follow the right or left hand path. Until that time he must follow the highest he knows.
May 28, 2014
Global Warming Logic
Here are some of the highlights of my posts to The Statesman on Tuesday.
The logic of the Left makes absolutely no sense. They want to place our top priority on dealing with the effects of an increase of CO2 while placing other probable disasters that would be much more catastrophic on the back burner.
This is comparable to a crazy guy heading full steam ahead over a cliff while putting all his attention on trying to correct bad radio reception.
For one thing, we have had about eight times the current CO2 in our atmosphere in the past and life continued to thrive. There are a number of threats many times more serious than an increase in the fairly harmless CO2.
Here are some.
(1) The threat of an asteroid. The question is not if but when this will happen. In the past an asteroid wiped out about 90% of life on earth and another hit could destroy the human race. We have more technology to deal with a threat like this than we do climate change, but we are at the mercy of chance if the threat comes.
(2) A solar flare. Again the question is not if but when. In 1859 we were hit by one that knocked out telegraph systems all over America and Europe. If one happened again and knocked out all our electrical systems chaos would be the result and some estimate that this would result in the deaths of the majority of Americans through starvation and mob rule.
For less than $79 billion we could take measures to protect our grid from this event, which is overdue.
(3) A magnetic pulse created by an atomic explosion in our atmosphere. This could be accomplished by even a rogue nation such as North Korea and the results would be similar to a solar flare.
(4) Nuclear missiles headed our way. This can be overcome by missile defense and if Reagan’s plan were carried out without Democrat protests we could be safe right now. Instead Obama has cut funding for missile defense and reduced support for our European allies.
This may be the greatest threat we face but we want to place many times the attention on human caused CO2 emissions instead.
Future generations will look back on our judgment and by comparison the flat earth people of the Middle ages will look pretty good.
What is amusing about comparing my approach and that of the Left to global warming is this.
I am about 10% as concerned over the danger from humanity as they claim to be but about ten times more willing to support projects that will actually reduce CO2 emissions. Go figure.
May 29, 2014
We’ve established that we should only borrow money as a nation for national emergencies. Wouldn’t it be great if our leaders understood this simple idea?
The main source of revenue is our taxes and we are often hit up for tax increases nationally, state and locally.
What kind of situation or demand would justify a tax increase?
Here are some that are often put forward.
(1) Additional benefits for the poor, minorities, disabled, unemployed etc.
(2) More money for education
So, what do you think justifies a tax increase and who should bear the burden?
Check this site out. Enter your last name and it will search through 250,000,000 names in the United States and tell you what percentage of them voted Republican or Democrat.
May 30, 2014
It is interesting that JJ said that Saddam was a big threat to global freedom, but many people see America’s intervention in Iraq as abusive, politically and oil driven. It turns out, Saddam had no nuclear weapons after all. So unless you can foresee the future, you will be inclined to say that the US commit an abuse by invading Iraq and interfering with the freewill, the sovereignty and the maturity of Iraqi people.
Any opinions on this JJ? You did argue for the caterpillar principle and so on.
First, let me compliment you for standing your ground and taking the heat here while continuing to be polite. We have no problem with different opinions if they are presented respectfully. Unfortunately, on many forums, like the Statesman, this does not happen.
Just imagine what would have been the result if either the United States or England had decided to take Hitler out in 1938 just before the start of the war. They would have been subject to enormous criticism and attack. Many would have claimed that Hitler was not a real threat and we were just war mongers interfering with a sovereign state.
This would have been one of the most benevolent actions in the history of the world yet no one would have known. If something does not happen then it does not exist, even as a possibility in the minds of most people. Few would have believed that Hitler was going to unleash such mayhem on the world.
So it is with Saddam Hussein. Because he was stopped in his tracks it appears to many that he wasn’t much of a threat after all.
In truth there was a lot more evidence that Saddam was a threat than there was for Hitler in 1938. He attacked a free country. He invaded Kuwait and forcefully occupied it. Why did he do this? It was a first step for him in acquiring domination of the oil in the Middle East. He was going to continue his aggression until he had the power to control other nations that depended on middle eastern oil. At that point he could have merely bought nuclear weapons from several nations.
Fortunately, he was stopped by George H. W. Bush. That did not stop his desire for conquest, however. After Saddam was captured we learned quite a bit from him, thanks to the expert interrogation of George L. Piro, an FBI agent who was assigned to develop the former dictator’s cooperation. After creating a positive relationship and some trust Piro got quite a bit of information out of him. Saddam did say that he was successfully disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War and he created a great bluff to make the world think he had them. He said that his goal after the first war was to get sanctions removed and once this happened he would rebuild his arsenal and develop nuclear weapons.
He came close to getting the sanctions removed several times and if George W. Bush hadn’t taken him out then it would have only been a matter of time before this happened. France and Germany were already dealing with him on the black market and much of Europe was looking forward to buying his oil again.
Once the sanctions were removed and Saddam had lots of revenue he could have purchased nuclear technology from North Korea, as they had a close relationship.
We have plenty to worry about in the world at present, but I am convinced we would have a lot more to deal with if Saddam was not taken out. I felt this in the core of my being from the time of the first Gulf War and was very disappointed the Bush One did not finish the job and take him out then.
DK on socialism, capitalism and education
JJ places a fairly high credibility on AAB/DK. But quotes like the ones you gave point out to me a fairly common mentality of the time, one susceptible to the fallacies of the day, and not one inspired from a higher level. Just my view. I don’t place nearly as much value on the AAB/DB writings myself.
Even though he is a master he is not infallible. The Beaver Principle applies here. Even though the beaver is in a lower kingdom than ourselves he can still build a better beaver dam than a human can.
DK is far removed from human affairs, especially the business world. The principles he teaches in support of freedom apply well but sometimes he is way over idealistic about how supply and demand should be handled – and this is because is is not involved in the fire of human day to day living as we are.
I’ll comment more on this shortly.
May 31, 2014
Soryn quotes DK;
The control of labour by capital or the control of capital by labour must also go.”
The control of labor by capital: for instance, money driven corporations with no social awareness whatsoever.
I have never encountered a corporation with no social awareness. Can you name one for me? I’ve called on many thousands of business and corporations in my sales career and I never came across one without some social awareness. Most of them are very concerned about their community.
Actually, I think DK spoke correctly here but worded it in such a way that many wrong and damaging interpretations could apply. Some could use this teaching as an excuse to use force to implement this ideal and that would be contrary to his teachings about freedom.
If the Molecular Business were universally adopted then this statement would come true, but it would be accomplished through free will and not the use of force – which DK was against.
The control of capital by labour: freedom for science, art, education and spirit from dictators or from the private interest of big businesses and corporate powers that seek to commercialize everything.
That is a stretch to get all that out of DK’s statement. For instance, for science, education and art to prosper in today’s world capital is needed. Without it, not much research or education would get accomplished.
We cannot just snap our fingers and use force to accomplish DK’s idea but it will take some time to evolve through free will. In saying this I am not saying you believe in such force.
Let us examine the statement. He says two things must go:
(1) The control of labour by capital
Here is the negative part of the situation created by those in power over labor as related in my treatise on the Molecular Business:
Since the beginning of business history the basic mode of operation has been the same: the man with the bucks has power to initiate a commercial endeavor. If he has a degree of common sense he succeeds and makes it profitable. In the process he hires a number of employees to work for him. Because he is the initiator he has full life-and-death power over their jobs, of which there is always a scarcity. Because of the scarcity of employment the initiator (or “boss” as we will call him) assumes a position of tremendous power over the lives of these subordinates. Any hint that they may be terminated fills them with foreboding fear and distress. Thus the boss assumes life-and-death power (concerning career) over his subjects just as a king, or dictator, has life and death power over his people.
The boss, therefore, establishes for himself a little kingdom, and for eight to ten hours a day he rules with supreme authority. Only after the workday ends do the subjects regain their freedom to run their lives, hobbies or additional work as they see fit.
As a kingdom grows, so grows the bureaucracy of the king. Alone he cannot control (or govern) the lives of all his subjects, so he selects others who agree with his philosophy and gives them power to be governors, or overlords, over the lives of the people. The people have no voice in the selection of these overlords but are chosen completely by the decree of the king. Each overlord has the same power as the king over the subjects, but controls a smaller group. The overlord is subject to the king just as the people are subject to him and he maintains his power as long as he pleases the king and stays within the guidelines of His Eminence’s philosophy. Thus, the overlords are not free, for they are also subjects, but they do have the advantage of power of dominion.
Correspondingly, we can easily see that as a business grows, it becomes a microcosmic kingdom. The boss cannot control the whole enterprise so he selects a bureaucracy of overlords. These overlords (executives, vice presidents, supervisors, foremen) direct the working lives of the employees and have the same power over their lives as the Number One Boss, except over a smaller number. The employees have no voice in the selection of these overlords but are chosen completely by the decree of the boss. The overlord is subject to the boss just as the employees are subject to him, and he maintains his power as long as he pleases the boss and stays within the guidelines of His Eminence’s philosophy. Thus, the overlords are not free, for they are also subjects, but they do have the advantage of power of dominion.
(2) The control of capital by labour must also go.”
And how does labor control capital? It does this through the unions and other means of making demands. I believe that what DK was looking for was the end of the unhealthy condition where the worker feels like a slave under his boss and company. Then because of dissatisfaction he seeks to control his destiny through unions and demands. Both sides of this coin hurt productivity, hinder happiness and peace of mind.
The coming cooperative society patterned after the molecular business will make these problems unnecessary for in this system the employees will own the company and have a say on wages received and how the company is run. The election principle will do away with the feeling that you are being suffocated by an unjust boss and ownership will do away with the need for unions.
Soryn quotes DK again:
“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.
Notice he says “an attempt to produce unity I education. He does not mention the use of Big Brother type of force. Here is what he did say about unity from the same book – Externalization of the Hierarch
“Cooperative unity differs from an enforced unity in that the subjective spirit and the objective form are functioning towards one recognised end.”
Cooperative unity through free will is the goal. This is not something to be had with most governments today.
Soryn quotes D K again:
There must eventually be a closer tie-up between the educational system, the legal system and the government, but it will all be directed to an effort to work out the best ideals of the thinkers of the day.”
Public education: free from the arbitrariness of private interest or from government abuse. Affordable for everyone, with no discrimination in the advantage of the rich and powerful.
He doesn’t say that private interest will be out of the equation. A private system can be as much or more cooperative than a public one. He’s also speaking of a future when there will be greater freedom and democracy. In a free world there will be nothing to stop the creation of a private educational system if desired. The point is that when a system is demonstrated that works well then others copy it and a cooperative union is the natural result.
Soryn quoting DK
“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.”
Like those corporations and rich countries that exploit the resources and the labor of the 3rd world countries (via force and raw violations of the human rights).
He is talking about a system that will evolve in the future, perhaps hundreds of years in the making. Part of that evolution involves corporations helping third world countries by employing their masses so eventually they become wealthier and independent. There is no easy way to go from poverty to abundance in the world at this time, but it is slowly happening.
The above quote is one of the worst statements he has made and can be used to promote communism by force as Benjamin Crème does. DK is either just plain wrong or used bad wording to express his views.
Let us suppose that we adopt the idea that the “resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all.”
If we take this literally then we need to invade the oil rich middle eastern countries and force them to share their oil and riches.
I think that what he was getting at is that as the nations become more free and prosperous that they will develop a natural inclination to share. People will share with people and nations with nations through free will.
In your quote he said, “The new world order WILL NOT IMPOSE a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations.”
Soryn quoting DK
“National material assets and the needed commodities will all be provided for under an entirely new system. – Private enterprise will still exist, but will be regulated; the great public utilities, the major material resources and the sources of planetary wealth – iron, steel, oil and wheat, for instance – will be owned in the first place by a governing, controlling international group; they will, however, be prepared for international consumption by national groups chosen by the people and under international direction.”
Again, this is poor wording or he is just plain wrong. For one thing it disagrees with the quote I just gave. Let me give it again:
“The new world order WILL NOT IMPOSE a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations.”
In the quote you gave it sounds like the guy with a few acres raising some potatoes and wheat couldn’t do what he wants with the produce but would have to turn it over to an international organization for redistribution. If so, he would have no incentive to work as happens in communist countries like the old Soviet union.
That is crazy talk whether it comes from a master, angel or devil. It sounds like he is advocating a similar doctrine to Hitler and he despised Hitler and all he stood for. He is usually very encouraging of freedom. It makes me wonder if Alice A. Bailey got the transmission right on this.
If he envisioned a sharing through free will of the people and nations, fine I support that, but his wording could be interpreted in other directions where freedom is compromised.
Your comments have been in so many directions that I cannot possibly comment on all of them. Let us try and cover one subject at a time instead of the shotgun approach.
Another example: the majority in the US decided that the idea of Obamacare is best so they voted Obama. Do you have anything against this decision taken by the majority? I sure don’t. … Bottom line is: the majority must be respected.
Where do you get the idea that an elected president follows the will of the people??? Every president does a number of things that anger the majority. There has never been a proven majority in favor of Obamacare and if many lies had not been fostered on us a great majority would have opposed it from the beginning. There are still a lot of people uninformed about it.
As it is, the latest news from the Obama supporting Washington Post tells us that the majority, 55% presently disapprove of Obamacare. I personally think the number is higher than that. LINK
If we had a system where the people have the final say, as they have in Switzerland, Obamacare would have never passed. It is a nightmare in progress.
Where do you get the idea that an elected president follows the will of the people???
I didn’t say that.
It sure sounds that way. Here are your actual words:
“Another example: the majority in the US decided that the idea of Obamacare is best so they voted Obama. Do you have anything against this decision taken by the majority? I sure don’t. You like it or not the majority decided FOR universal health care (and maybe for a good reason,”
It really sounds like you are saying that because the majority voted for Obama we voted for universal health care.
In voting for most of us it comes down to these choices for president.
(1) A candidate that rarely represents the voter’s will.
(2) A candidate who will sometimes represent his will.
It seemed reasonable to think that people voting for Obama also voted for Obamacare, as it was one of his main “selling points”.
There was somewhat true in 2008 but not so much in 2012. The main reason Obama won a second term was because he very successfully portrayed Romney as a mean, evil SOB that didn’t care a whit about the little guy. For many it was the choice between the corrupt guy they knew and the one who would be even worse.
I have never encountered a corporation with no social awareness. Can you name one for me?
Well, that’s because you only look at what’s happening in the US.
You make a link that shows abuses made mostly by governments and people but no corporation is singled out as the bad guy. Let me repeat again:
Can you name one corporation for me that has no record of social awareness?
June 1, 2014
More on Floating Cities
Curiosity on JJ’s ethnicity
JJ, just a small curiosity.
I get this vibe from you that you are biased towards business, commerce, material abundance, individual freedom, capitalism and libertarian-ism. You also seem to side strongly with the right and oppose the left all the times. Dewey seems to be a Jewish name, so I would make a wild guess and say that you are probably 99% Jew. Am I right?
You’re picking up the wrong vibe on the Jewish blood. None that I know of. Most of my ancestors are from England. My consciousness is far removed from the typical religious or materialistic Jew. I have devoted my life to the spiritual path, often at the sacrifice of material things.
It is only the Left Hand Path that I am opposed to and that is the side that decides against the Principle of Freedom. With freedom comes free enterprise and abundance – and that is only a good thing from a higher point of view. Also workable social programs will emerge in a free atmosphere compared to those that do not work when forced upon us.
Creme’s comment that the ‘world is full of disciples’ is wrong. The world has only a handful of active disciples on the physical plane. The world has legions of aspirants and a small number of probationary disciples, but very few accepted disciples.
That quote is actually from Alice Bailey and DK. 😀
Though is seems to be a description of what Creme is doing now.
DK said in one of his books that there were only a little 300 disciples on the whole planet so Keith is correct in his perception that the world is not “full” of them, at least as we understand the term.
Let me ask you something. If you were to vote for the ideas and the system proposed here by DK, based on your understanding of how economy and human coexisting work, would you vote Yes or No?
DK did not clarify exactly what the system was to be except to indicate the people and nations of the future will be more cooperative, more sharing and more benevolent and I vote yes in proceeding that direction.
There seems to be a point that you really misunderstand and that is this. All systems and enterprises and customs relating to the life of humanity do not function perfectly and many flaws are revealed on the road to relative perfection. This includes the gift of freedom as compared to a state of being controlled by the authority of the Beast – or outside source.
On hindsight we can see many flaws in the Old Soviet union where there was very little free market (mostly the black market) and the people were severely controlled.
After its fall and the people had a lot more freedom and some complained. Even though most liked the freedom others concentrated on the flaws revealed. People had to take more personal responsibility and if they did not then they seemed to suffer even more than before. Chaos seemed to reign for a while but after the people adjusted few now would want to return to the old system. The extra freedom revealed flaws that needed to be addressed but that didn’t mean freedom was evil.
Whenever you compare two systems you will almost always find that the one with the most freedom to act will be the one that is most successful and beneficial to the people.
This applies to endeavors to create abundance, choose your mate, your fiends, choose what you want to join, how much you want to participate in any legal interest, choose who to represent you, choose where you want to live and what kind of residence, chose the food you eat and what supplements you take, chose your doctor, healthcare plan etc.
Some would agree with all that except he free market. They think this must be controlled by force. In this attitude they are making a huge mistake.
Would you want someone stepping in after you fell in love and telling you that you must never see your true love again?
Of course not. Yet some would tell a person in love with his business, which provides much happiness to his customers that he has to change it into something he soon will not even recognize.
Maybe this same authority tells him that relationships has too many risks. Sometimes people even kill each other. Marriage is bad, therefore, for your own good, I am saving you, even if it is against your will.
Sounds ridiculous but this is what many try to do with free enterprise. Because everything does not turn out to be sunshine and roses some want to take away all (or a lot of) freedom in free enterprise.
The key piece of knowledge is this. In an atmosphere of freedom there will ALWAYS be more progress toward the desired goal than in an atmosphere of control by a self appointed elite.
Either a person believes in the Principle of Freedom or he does not. If he does then he can be of use to the Brotherhood of Light. If he does not then he will be of very limited value for they do all in their power to bring the desired results through the power of maximum free will.
June 2, 2014
Either a person believes in the Principle of Freedom or he does not. If he does then he can be of use to the Brotherhood of Light. If he does not then he will be of very limited value for they do all in their power to bring the desired results through the power of maximum free will.
So in the lack of a definite response from you concerning capitalism, I will assume that you recognize the obvious flaws of capitalism, contrary to what you previously believed.
Where do you get the idea I am changing my mind on capitalism or free enterprise? I believed in free enterprise yesterday and do today.
And what response do you want? No system is perfect but for our present consciousness it is the best we have. It certainly has proven more beneficial than communism and gives European countries the prosperity they have.
I think maybe Larry Woods had a good point in using a consistent name. Free enterprise encapsulates the Principle of Freedom as it applies to making our economic machinery work. Some crony capitalism is not so free, where the government decides the winners and losers. Free enterprise is more representative of those who can manage their business without undue interference or contributions from governments.
Just because we are not perfect human beings does not mean free enterprise is evil as you insinuate. It would make just as much sense to say that windmills are evil because they kill some birds.
Now, let’s get to your principle of freedom.
This is another case where you fail to see the forest because of the trees, because you fail to see how this principle is dependent upon other principles.
As I said, the maximum individual freedom exalted by capitalism and libertarianism will quickly shift toward maximum material individual freedom, which is exactly what is happening today
And freedom to pursue material things like a new car is a bad thing in your mind? Wow.
where you get a small minority of insanely rich people, that have tons of individual material freedom
And how does someone who works hard, creates jobs and produces products people like hurt you or me? I’d guess that any hurt to you is in your imagination because Bill Gates getting wildly rich has not hurt me or anyone I know in the least.
On the other hand, governments increasing our taxes or making a dumb regulation can instantly affect our lives for the worse.
but the freedom of the majority is severely affected
What have you been smoking? How does Bill Gates getting wildly rich take away from the freedom of the majority? The technology he developed has enhanced the freedom of the majority.
and the exalted individual freedom of that minority
Bill Gate’s wealth has given him some extra freedom. And my knowledge that I have gained has given me a lot of extra freedom also. Those who gain extra freedom through effort do not diminish the freedom of others. Just because I have some extra spiritual freedom takes away nothing from you and neither does Bill Gates with his material freedom.
is corrupted by separation and materialism.
Some rich are corrupted but so are many of the poor. What else is new? Humans are not perfect.
Bill Gates is giving away billions of dollars to help the less fortunate. It sounds like he is trying to be a good guy.
Applying the principle of freedom does not always entail pacifism. This is where you are confused.
I’m not confused on this at all.
On the one hand, you agreed with FORCE, in the case of removing certain dictators – Saddam
Yes, Saddam invaded another country and tried to exterminate the Kurds, without provocation and needed to be removed to unsure maximum freedom for the whole.
but on the other hand you demand PACIFISM when it comes to SEVERE and DEMONSTRATED corporate abuses on 3rd world countries.
I do not know of any corporation that has invaded a country and enslaved them. Show me such a thing and I’ll definitely support a change of leadership by any means possible.
Paying low wages in the third world where such wages still improve the quality of the people’s lives is not a bad thing for it gives the people more freedom That is why they take the jobs.
As a matter of fact, the US invading Saddam was a clear violation of both your principle of freedom and caterpillar principle.
Wrong wrong wrong. It enhances freedom to remove a dictator who invades other countries to enslave them and seeks to exterminate a people, just as removing Hitler enhanced freedom. If you don’t think removing a Hitler type of aggressor enhances freedom then you have a problem.
Second, because the US imposed their political ideal – democracy – to Iraq, thus violating their freewill and the caterpillar principle.
You can’t really impose freedom or democracy. You can only offer a people a chance at it which we did. Whether or not they are successful is now up to them.
You do not seem to understand the Caterpillar Principle. The principle is you do not interfere with a circumstance where the life is moving forward on it’s own struggle. Suppose some stupid kid took the cocoon and buried it in some dirt where it had no chance to survive? If I saw such a thing I would remove he dirt to help it where it could not help itself, but then leave it to grow through its natural struggle.
Similarly we had to help the Jews during World War II because they were in a circumstance where they could not liberate themselves. We also had to help the Kurds to save them from extermination from Saddam.
While, my idea of enforcing human rights respects BOTH principles:
How about the right to operate your business as one sees fit? That is a pretty huge human right you seem to oppose.
First, the imbalance created by the big businesses (that rule America and the civilized world) are a sure threat to world peace, justice and FREEDOM.
Are you living in the Twilight Zone or what? Where are these businesses that are so threatening? No business is forcing me to pay them anything. None of them are taxing me, regulating me or making me buy anything I do not want. All they do is offer me products and services I can take or leave. None of them force anyone to work for them. Why you think this threatens world peace is an amazing thought.
It is the leaders of governments who threaten world peace. An argument can be made that the bankers sometimes assist but they are intertwined with governments and heavily regulated.
So enforcing human rights acts purely on the basis of the principle of freewill.
It depends on the situation. Most human rights abuses are caused by the governments of the planet and it is those entities that you need to target.
Just because you accuse a business of human rights violations does not make it so. I haven’t seen you give one clear cut example yet. You throw out all kinds of nebulous stuff but never come up with one good example to support your accusations. Platitudes and talking points are not convincing.
Bottom line: I recognize that we have an issue. That issue is world imbalance created by big businesses that threaten the stability of both developed and developing nations and ultimately the peace and freedom of the world. What should we do? Let’s start with those human rights that everybody accepts but nobody respects, shall we?
I do not see any major human rights denied because of free enterprise but see many that are greatly enhanced. On the other hand, there are many human rights violations caused by governments. We could start by doing something to give females in the Middle Eastern countries basic human rights and to be free from female mutilation. Then in some places Christians are being persecuted or exterminated because they will not convert. I do not know of any business that comes close to a human rights violation like these.
The dark brothers are having a good laugh at you for supporting GW Bush invading Iraq.
You have strange logic indeed. You think the Dark Brothers are happy when a tyrant they support is overthrown but are gleeful when a private enterprise employs people in a Third world giving them an opportunity for a better life. Your reasoning is upside down just like Benjamin Crème who you seem to idolize.
I just demonstrated you in plain simple logic and factual evidence that Bush committed an abuse of power. He even regrets it himself as stated below!
Cutting and pasting does not make your case which is extremely weak with an appeal to the low information crowd.
He disrespected the UN security council, and quickly started the war preventing the ongoing diplomatic approach that was preferred by the UN security council (Saddam already did what the UN asked of him in 1990-1991). US then proceeded to impose their political ideal to Iraq by MILITARY FORCE (while they made use of Saddam before when they supported him invading Iran and ignored his usage of chemical weapons).
You obviously haven’t studied the history but are merely repeating talking points. Instead of dealing with the actual principles of freedom you are creating a diversion into a topic that we have already spent a book’s work of discussion about. If you really want to find the truth of the matter go to the archives and read the many thousands of words covering this subject. We have covered this so much most are weary of I and do not want to go all over the arguments again. I’ll just sum it up with these words:
According to UN Resolution 687 authority was granted to resume the war in Iraq at any time.
The fact is that the first war with Iraq began because it attacked Kuwait with the intention of further expansion. The world community justly responded to stop this Nazi-type aggression and made war against Saddam and drove him out of Kuwait. After this the war was not declared over but a cease fire was arranged through U.N. resolution 687. The deal that Saddam signed on to in order to enact a cease fire and save his skin was that he would destroy all his weapons of mass destruction and not build any more. He also agreed to honor the civil rights of his people.
The deal was that if Saddam did not live up to his agreement (WMD and civil rights) then the cease-fire could end and the war would resume. No time limit was placed on this.
Bush and Blair enforced resolution 687 as well as the new one (resolution 1441) that was unanimously passed November 2003. Bush is accused of initiating a new war. It is not a new war, but an old one that was legally resumed. Bush and Blair merely enforced UN resolutions that others dragged their feet on because of their own oil contracts with the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. After 1441 Bush did not need a new resolution saying basically the same thing all over again.
By supporting Bush’s intervention in Iraq you advocate for a violation of the principle of freedom
I haven’t seen such upside down thinking since reading Benjamin Crème.
You think that removing a tyrant who seeks to exterminate a people (Kurds) is contrary to freedom yet a company giving people jobs is against freedom. You are a piece of work.
June 3, 2014
The Blur Factor
Even though there have been some excellent comments it is useless to drag on this conversation on the Gulf Wars any further. We covered this ad nauseum years ago to the point where members complained and now we are doing it again. Sorim has his mind made up and we are not going to change him.
This argument illustrates just how difficult it is for many seekers to see and understand the Principle of Freedom. Both sides are intelligent but see things in a totally different light. Part of it lies in degrees of discernment but that is not all. Another big part concerns the values held by the individuals in this and other debates. I’m not just talking about this group but people throughout the world.
Group one places a high value on group and/or individual freedom believing that being able to pursue goals with a minimal hindrance and control will bring the greatest possible happiness and prosperity.
Group two believes that too much freedom is reckless and leads to abuse and must be regulated and controlled for the greater good. If it so happens that the greater good does not materialize then they do not retreat but want more controls.
The interesting thing is that both groups will say they support the idea of freedom. It is easy to see why group one believes this but how does group two justify believing this?
It amounts to basically this. Too much freedom brings abuse, which they see as interfering with the greater good and reducing freedom in the end. Therefore, freedom must be regulated and controlled so we can have even more freedom. That may sound strange, but it is basically their mindset.
Here is where the blur factor comes in. Group one does support some control for obvious reasons. They support laws that suppress the actions of the thief, the murderer, rapist and the general harmful lawbreakers.
Group two will take these controls with which all agree and say, “A certain amount of control is a good thing and actually enhances freedom. We propose a few more that will be for our own good.”
The problem with group two is when they get their additional controls they are never satisfied but always want more and if they are unchecked tyranny will be the end result.
The difference between the two approaches is group one will specify the controls they want and that will be it. Very seldom do more controls need to be added.
Group two cannot specify how much they want to control us for our own good for they do not even know themselves. They merely watch for unseemly results they see from human nature and when it occurs their solution will be more control. The problem is that even when they manage to secure their controls humans will still misbehave and then still more controls will be needed. When group two gets involved in this vicious cycle and is not checked the freedom of the masses becomes suffocated until the time comes that they can’t even celebrate a touchdown because Big Brother will not approve.
The Principle of Freedom is what separates the two brotherhoods. The Brotherhood of Light supports progress in the arena of maximum human freedom and the Dark Brotherhood see humans as too stupid to have such freedom and that they need to be controlled and told what to do for their own good. The leaders are highly motivated because they see themselves as deserving power over the many but will have the freedom that they will deny to others.
The freedom they think they are obtaining is an illusion because they are slaves to their own selfish desires which will eventually become their undoing.
June 4, 2014
Re: The Blur Factor
My reply to Keith had so many typos I deleted it and am herewith posting a corrected copy.
As long as we continue to view all ideas as coming from either the left or the right, we are never going to evaluate the merits of the ideas themselves.
We must also consider that there is a difference between the right and left hand path and the political left and right.
The main difference between the two paths is the Principle of Freedom, and we do not want to synthesis the two paths here at all. Do we want a combination of 50% maximum slavery with 50% maximum freedom or do we want 100% maximum freedom?
I, for one, want 100% maximum freedom and will struggle for this as long as I have breath.
Actually a permanent synthesis is close to impossible, as the two sides will always struggle until one prevails so you will end up with the people in a state of freedom or slavery.
The political Right is appropriately named because it supports the Principle of Freedom from the spiritual Right more than does the Left but has far from a perfect record. When dogma is at stake they will often be on the side of the Beast and the political Left will be on the side of freedom. As far as sex, drugs and rock and roll, the political Left has the Right beat in the freedom area. In areas where religion does not have a strong influence the political right usually has an edge in the freedom department.
So, yes a synthesis of the two political views would be good, but a synthesis of the right and left hand path would mean a victory for the Dark Brotherhood.
“I am a point of light within a greater Light.
I am a strand of loving energy within the stream of love divine.
I am a point of sacrificial Fire, focussed within the fiery Will of God.
And thus I stand.
I am a way by which men may achieve.
I am a source of strength, enabling them to stand.
I am a beam of light, shining upon their way.
And thus I stand.
And standing thus revolve
And tread this way the ways of men,
And know the ways of God.
And thus I stand.”
Those who seek the right hand path must stand and stand firmly.
Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE