McCall Gathering, 2007, Part 2

This entry is part 2 of 54 in the series McCall Gathering 2007

 The Transition from the Age of Pisces to the Age of Aquarius

JJ: What I consider the greatest aspect of slavery in the modern age is taxes, because in that way we are like the slave in the Roman Empire who had to give a half or even less of his profits to his master. The average taxpayer today has to give 50% of his income to his master. The only thing different is that we can circulate around more and go from job to job. So we have moved ahead, that which was slavery then just moved up on a higher turn of the spiral. We are going to talk about the beast a little later on and how the powers that control us produce slavery in the mind and this has to be escaped and can only be escaped through the soul.

Audience: There was a show on TV where these Anthropologists were looking at the bones of some victims in Herculean and Pompeii, and they were looking at the bones of a 12 or 13 year old girl. There was overwhelming evidence in her bones that she had been malnourished and worked to the point where there were actual bruises on her bones indicating that the amount of work that she was forced to do. Today you have to work to make a living, but that is not slavery, that is, just the nature of reality.

2nd member: We are talking about getting to keep all of the money you make and how much time is really you’re own and they enslave our minds today with the use of emotion and propaganda.

JJ: Not all the slaves got to keep most of their profits as there were a variety of relationships there. It was just the ones that had a good master and it is possible that bad masters outweighed the good masters by a large margin. Some of the slaves did not have any freedom at all, but others did.

Audience:  I would just like to see this cycle finish, right now it still feels as though we still have the slave mentality and if nothing else than all this taxation without representation needs to stop and if we continue to cycle and come full circle than we should be able to develop that also.

JJ: One of the things about evolution is that we increase freedom and then move forward and throughout history freedom overall is just slightly increased. Then we made a big surge with the creation of the United States. We made a big surge in freedom and this wounded one of the heads of the beast as it were to death, as the scriptures tell us. But then the deadly wound was healed and the power of the beast was able to creep in and take more control again after the foundation of the country was laid.

Slavery is an evolving thing. We evolve from one point to another to another and another, and we do this as individuals as well. As individuals we are enslaved by our own thoughts and our own belief systems. We shed certain beliefs and we go on to a greater sphere of freedom and then we shed other beliefs and things that hold us back and then move on to an even greater sphere of freedom. Society does this and we as individuals do this. You can look at this in your own life and maybe in the last ten years you have greater sense of freedom inside of you now than you did then. Yes, Larry.

Larry: I think a lot of people feel that they are enslaved but they are the ones that are enslaving themselves and they are afraid that they are going to loose their job and afraid of how they are going to take care of themselves. It’s their own fear that really enslaves them and not the fact that somebody is standing behind them with a whip, forcing them to be a slave.

JJ: Right, if a person has the right state mind then he can actually be in an oppressed position and not feel as enslaved as someone who is totally free. For instance, look at Brittany Spears and Lindsey Lohan. We look at them and think, these people are completely free, (Laughter) but they are misusing their freedom and they probably feel enslaved to a degree.

This is what is creating such a frustrating life for them. In the greatest point of freedom you can still feel enslaved and at the point where you are most restricted that with the right state of mind you can feel free. I look on my most enslaving conditions in my life, I will not go into detail, but what I learned from these points of enslavement was how to feel free within my own mind in a very awkward situation and I found myself being in a greater state of freedom than those who were apparently in a very free situation.

So a lot of freedom is a state of mind but we want to match the state of mind with physical reality. We want to free people physically that holds them down. And this is one of the things that we are going to have as we move into the Aquarian age; we are going to move into greater and greater spheres of freedom.

What we have right now as we approach the Aquarian Age are two forces converging, the forces of darkness and the forces of light. The forces of light and freedom have certain plans and there are forces that are entering into human consciousness, the forces of darkness are trying to move us in the other direction back towards slavery, and would like nothing better than for us to go back in the stone age. These could also be called the building forces and the destructive forces. The dark and light forces are very active in the world today and they are on a collision course with each other. We are approaching a great point of tension and when the dust settles we will learn as to whether we will be moving forward towards more light and freedom or moving backward and loosing much of what we have gained.

So we have this clash between the Piscean and Aquarian age. I believe we have just passed over the cusp of the Aquarian age, which means we have a couple hundred years to go before we get solidified. And until that time we have all this residual effects from the Piscean age. We have all these people still sacrificing to churches, giving money just to build stone churches that really do not accomplish very much. They give money to priests and who knows what they do with it. A little bit is accomplished, you see some of these guys on TV where they ask for donations to feed a child in a third world country and that is good but generally the money given to churches does not really accomplish much. In other words, what we have is a residual effect of sacrifice from the Piscean age and much of that sacrifice is not intelligently put to good use, it does not go to where it will really help to make any kind of great change.
The mistake people make is that they think everything about the Piscean age is bad. Well, not everything is not bad, it is just the fact that we are moving into a new age and there are certain things that we have to let go of. With the Piscean Age we have to learn about what did not work and let it go. We have to learn about what did not work about sacrifice, which is the key ingredient of the Piscean age. When we give our money we should give it in such a way that we know what is being done with it so we know that our money is being put to good use.

Now how many times have people given their money to what they thought was a good cause and it winds up doing something that actually does more harm than good. This happens with our taxes, organizations, churches, and not only to churches but also to all kinds of other benevolent organizations, and all of them whether they be good or evil have a really nice sounding name. But everything that sounds good is not necessarily good.

One of the things that I always ask when somebody asks for a donation is, what percentage actually goes to help these kids or this cause? Half the time the telephone solicitor says, well I am not really told. If they are not really told than it means that not too much is going to where they are saying it goes to. If a large amount goes to a good cause than they will use that as a selling point. I have heard some of them only have about 20% that goes to overhead, which is good and others when you look into it maybe only 2% goes to where you think the money is going to.

One of my first jobs in advertising was selling advertising in a police magazine and I think about 2% of the money we took went to publish the magazine and to the policemen. That was the easiest advertising I ever sold. When we sold it the salespeople spoke with a voice of authority and this seemed to work well. This was back in 1972 when there were hardly any long distance sales because the watts line was extremely expensive back then and not too many people had one. All of us loved selling that police magazine because we could speak with a voice of authority and we could tell that people would get a little bit nervous when they heard that authoritative voice. (Laughter)

But anyway just a very small percentage went to the police magazine and the police were happy to get their magazine published for free. We also did one for the Jaycees and that was a lot harder to sell because people were not afraid of the Jaycees and everyone was afraid of the police. Now you get calls from all these people and it does not put the fear of God in you like the old days.

During the Piscean age they would give their money to their priest, prophet, or leader and they would not question it, because they were told, give this money and it will get you into the kingdom of God it would please Jesus. You would get a notch up higher in heaven and would get more of a reward by giving this money. Did they get any reward you think?

About the only reward they got was the discipline they got from giving the money itself. To get a reward from giving a gift the gift actually has to produce some good. If the gift goes to a place where it does more harm than good than the only reward you will get is the feeling of giving the gift at the time and that will be about all.

We are approaching a time when the two great energies are meeting with each other. I am not going to go into the details of the energies because much of what is good today, people are calling evil. A lot of that which is evil, people are calling good. So even if I were to spell it out in this room there would be much disagreement, people over here would say this good and people over there would say no, this is good.

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

The Three Principles

May 24, 1999

The Three Principles

Question: Do you think that we can retain our blind spots and still attain spiritual enlightenment?

The group has made some good observations about the blind spot. There are lots of correspondences possible and we, as a group, have explored the idea from several angles.

Here’s an interesting idea for you. Remember I said that the blind spot must be revealed from without rather than within? Now imagine God as one life in the beginning. Now imagine that It comes to a realization that something is missing in It’s wholeness. Now imagine that God reflects Itself to infinity and by reflecting from the reflection the blind spot of even God is revealed. Creation thus illuminates a missing void in the life of the One God.

As reflections of God we must also find and bring light to our blind spots. This is often hard on the old ego and there is a natural resistance for many to even acknowledge that a specific blind spot exists.

True enlightenment does come as light is thrown on the dark areas. As with my singing voice I was reluctant to admit that much improvement was needed, but when the light was thrown on the truth of the matter I was forced to face it or live in a fantasy world.

There may be blind spots in the formless worlds, but it does us little good to speculate on them at this stage of evolution. But in addition to the physical blind spot it is very beneficial for us to contemplate areas where they may exist within our seeing on the emotional, mental and personality levels.

Earlier we talked about the principle of freedom as a key that must be understood before we can make an accurate decision for the path of light.

I do not want to offend anyone by suggesting that perhaps most of us have not yet reached this point, but, on the other hand, I would be negligent in my duty, if I knew points of preparation for the great Decision and failed to present them to you.

It may be of interest to note that even if the average seeker decided he wanted to take the dark path that he would be far from acceptance into the Dark Brotherhood. If a such a person were to pursue the Left Hand Path it would take around seven lifetimes of selfishness before he would be considered a reliable disciple of Self. The Brotherhood of Light is not the only one who wants reliable disciples. The Dark Brothers have standards of their own and have little use for zealous servants with little understanding of their goals.

The Dark Ones do seek to manipulate the masses through illusion and astral control and some crazy guy with a goal to become a demon is of little use to them.

Perhaps the most distinctive difference, but also a subtle one, is the Principle of Freedom.

If you go ask a hundred people on the street if they believe in maximum freedom for themselves and others you would probably get a hundred people saying yes. On the other hand, if you were able to examine their belief systems and how they play out in their voting and actions we would find that in many cases 99 out of the 100 support unnecessary restrictions of freedom.

The problem arises where programs arise that restrict freedoms in areas out of a person’s concern. If a person does not drink alcohol he is usually not bothered about restrictions on the freedom to drink.

If a person is a vegetarian he is usually not bothered about restrictions on eating meat.

If he does not go white water rafting then he is not bothered about restrictions on this type of recreation.

If he does not take natural vitamins then he is not bothered about restrictions on their sale.

There are exceptions, but the problem is that the majority are selfish enough to only be concerned about the restriction of freedom in areas that directly effect themselves. The trouble is that if we do not stand up for freedom for all, even those we disagree with, then the time will come that no one will stand up for us when our own freedoms are taken away.

The reason I listed earlier five different areas where there is general disagreement about the use of freedom was not to create arguments, but to illustrate that the understanding of freedom, even in a much above average group like this, is not a cut and dried thing.

Only through touching the Spirit of God through the soul can two become one in the understanding of freedom.

In considering the true application of freedom one must balance his thoughts through a triangle of principles.

They are:

(1) The Principle of Freedom

(2) The Principle of Harmlessness

(3) The Principle of Peace.

Let us now pick a deed that we know is in error. Let us say a burglar breaks into your place and steals your valuables. How has this person violated these three principles?

Now let us pick a person who we generally believe was in the right – Jesus. Why was he accused of violating these principles? Were His accusers correct?

The principle of freedom is most difficult for average humanity to see clearly. One of the problems is that almost everyone thinks they understand it, but few do. This is illustrated by the wide variety of opinions people have on the five points I mentioned earlier.

The wise person will filter ideas through the three principles of freedom-harmlessness and peace and relate them to each other to decide if the actions to be taken will create more harm than good. Some things take great reflection to come to the most harmless answer. With the abortion war, for example, there seems to be no good answer as it appears that suffering will occur no matter which side wins.

(1) Freedom

If a burglar breaks into your home you loose several freedoms. You may loose your freedom to feel secure. If he steals your TV set you will lose your freedom to watch TV until you get a new one. If he steals your stereo you will loose your freedom to relax to your favorite music.

(2) Harmlessness

He has caused you harm, because you suffer loss. You now may have to work extra hours to replace the stolen items. Then if they have sentimental value they may be irreplaceable.

(3) Peace

Before the burglar came you felt secure in your home and rarely gave a second thought to feeling insecure, but now your peace is destroyed. You sleep more lightly and every creak and noise you hear at night makes you jump. You are on edge now and don’t seem to have the peace you had before.

When we look at the results of the burglary and see the disturbance of these three principles then it becomes obvious that we should do everything in our power to take away the freedom of others to burglarize homes. By taking away some of the freedoms of the thief to burglarize we increase the power of the majority to utilize the three principles.

So it would seem as if the judgment here is quite cut and dried right? If we consider the three principles it should be easy to tell who is breaking the universal law.

It would seem so, but because the hearts of many are set upon “being” instead of “becoming” there is high resistance to teachers who seek to bring an increase in freedom. When this attachment to “being” is too great then all things will be seen upside down and people will “that call evil good, and good evil; that put darkness for light, and light for darkness; that put bitter for sweet, and sweet for bitter!” Isa 5:20

Such was the case of those who hated Jesus. The Master taught: “Ye shall know the truth and the truth shall make you free.” Instead the religious leaders thought that if people accepted Jesus they would have less freedom as they would have less control over the people. They just wanted things “to be” the way they had always been.

Jesus taught harmlessness with such teachings as: Love your enemies and your neighbors…

But the religious leaders thought that such teaching would harm them because the faith of the people in these new teachings would take away attention from them. These teachers may even find themselves out of a job. Is that not harm?

Jesus often spoke and taught about peace. He even greeted his friends with a simple “peace be unto you.” Even so, the authorities in the land felt terror in their hearts whenever they heard His name spoken.

On looking back it is easy to see the folly of people who thought they were being harmed by great leaders and innovators. We laugh at the people in the days of Columbus who were afraid to travel on the great waters for fear of falling off the edge of the world, but we do not have to look far to find people today with a corresponding mindset. Their number is legion. There are many today who seek to crucify in one way or another those who merely seek to enhance the principles of freedom, harmlessness and peace.

True freedom, true harmlessness and true peace is difficult to judge with the concrete mind, but when higher spiritual contact is made it is the easiest thing in the world.

Question: How does the popular emphasis on “being” instead of “becoming”

distort the vision of many on the three principles?

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives (Like this One) 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

 

Freedom is Freedom

236

Chapter Three –

The Second Division

Slavery Is Freedom, Or Maybe 

 Ask anyone if he is for freedom and he will say, “yes, of course.”

It is interesting that everyone in the universe sees himself as a supporter of freedom. Hitler saw himself as fighting for freedom. Terrorists claim to fight for freedom. Southern slaveholders fought the Civil War in the name of freedom. One of those freedoms was the freedom to continue to hold slaves, which they thought was essential to their own financial freedom. Lincoln found himself perplexed at such an odd view of this sacred right.

Most communist revolutionaries who enslaved their people saw themselves as fighting for freedom. Fidel Castro presented himself as a freedom fighter.

So, are all people really for freedom? If so, who is left that is restricting freedom and enslaves so much of the world? Surely, there must be quite a few people out there who are against freedom or there would not be so many restrictions and so much tyranny in the world.

Just as in the first chapter we illustrated that the general public is deceived as to what a Democrat and Republican is, this chapter will attempt to illustrate a second important fallacy, which is that most people do not understand what freedom is. This misunderstanding of freedom is another great illusion that is dividing America and the world.

One of the reasons for the great division boils down to an extension of the division of the feeling and thinking nature. Some believe they are for freedom because that which they support makes them feel free. Others see freedom as that which seems to be a logical application of the principle as they see it.

Both groups can be totally wrong. Feeling you support freedom does not make you right, as feelings are often illogical. Thinking you support freedom can also be illusionary, as many have gaps in their reasoning process.

Before we can proceed, the question must be asked: what is freedom? In other words, how can we ascertain who really is for freedom and who it is that thinks he is for it, but is deceived?

First, we need to identify why any person, even he who embraces an enslaving ideology, sees himself as an advocate for freedom.

The reason for this is simple. No matter how flawed the system of government, there are always a few who will benefit, even if it is on the backs of the vast majority.

Castro, for instance, fought the revolution in Cuba in the name of freedom and now the nation is enslaved. Was Castro wrong? Not from his point of view. He fought for freedom and now he is one of the freest men in the world. He can do whatever he wants. He even has the freedom to execute or imprison all those who oppose him. He has the freedom to impose his will on any of his subjects. He has the freedom to speak his mind without fear of repercussion. From a warped way of looking at it, that is more freedom than any American has.

Let us call this the Castro Principle of Freedom, which is illustrated as follows: “I am free if I get my way. To hell with anyone else who feels his freedoms are trampled on.”

By this principle, the slave owners could proclaim they were fighting for freedom: “I am free because slavery frees up my time and makes me money, giving me the freedom to do as I please.”

Now, when the average person looks at these examples he may smile, nod his head and agree that there are ignorant people indeed who swallow the Castro Principle. Fortunately, he thinks he is far removed from such harmful thinking. But is he? We shall see.

It is obvious to the thinking person that true freedom is much more than freedom for a handful of people at the expense of the many. Let us, therefore, give a more universal definition.

True freedom occurs not when a few are able to act according to their will at the expense of the many, but when the maximum possible number of people in a group or nation are able to act according to their wills, as long as they are not directly harming others.

Incorporated in true freedom would be the ability to access, without restriction, our individual homes. Not included within the principle would be the ability of a burglar to access your home and to take what he pleases. The total freedom of a few burglars would mean a lack of freedom for the many. The burglar believes in the Castro Principle of freedom. The homeowner, on the other hand, exercises the True Principle of Freedom.

Now, it seems as if the difference between the True Principle and the Castro Principle of Freedom is very obvious, that all but a few very selfish people would know it when they see it, but such is not the case. When it comes down to a choice between the benefit for the few at the expense of the many versus the benefit of the whole, most will choose the benefit of the few if they are among the few who benefit.

When a person is one of the few, the temptation is great to believe that he is on the side of true freedom, even if his choice enslaves the many.

Why is this?

Because human nature tends first to look at what benefits us as individuals, and, more often than not, ignores the problems suffered by others. A person has to consciously stretch his heart and mind to identify with the whole, and to support the benefit of the whole rather than a fraction of that whole.

Unfortunately, the Castro Principle of Freedom prevails, more often than not, even in the land of the free.

When it comes down to choosing the greater benefit for the individual or the group, most will choose the individual.

When it comes down to choosing the greater benefit for the individual’s group or all the people, most will choose the individual’s group.

When it comes down to choosing the greater benefit for the individual’s political party or all the people, most will choose the individual’s party.

When it comes down to choosing the greater benefit for the individual’s state or the whole nation, most will choose the state.

When it comes down to choosing the greater benefit for the individual’s country or the world, most will choose the country.

Those of us who thus choose so selfishly may not be fully justified in condemning Castro for seizing his own brand of freedom. After all, maybe the only difference between him and most of us is that he just had more opportunity to hijack the freedom of the whole of his country.

Let us consider next a few examples of how the freedom of the many is hijacked by the few.

 

Taxes

Perhaps the main source of grumbling about loss of freedom from the general public is around the taxes we pay. Taxes rarely go down and almost always go up. Taxes are taken from us by force of law, and a high percentage of tax revenue is spent in ways that are contrary to our will.

Almost everyone cringes with disbelief when hearing the report of a million dollars granted to study the sex life of fleas, or a quarter of a billion dollars to build a bridge in wilderness Alaska to accommodate 50 people and to pacify a congressman.

Perhaps nothing angers us more than when Congress gives themselves a pay raise of 25% with our money, when we are lucky to stay even with last year.

To make matters worse, over 97% of federal taxes are paid by the top 50% of wage earners.1 What does this mean to the 50% who pay little or no taxes?

Because the Castro Principle sways most of them, they couldn’t give a rat’s behind if the “rich” half pays more taxes. In fact, if it means the non-taxpayers will receive additional government benefits, they will insist the rich “pay their fair share” and fork over more money.

Should the non-taxpayer have a voice in how much the taxpayer has to pay and how the money is spent? As it is, the lazy freeloader has as much say in the matter as the guy working 100 hours a week to feed his family. But if the freeloader can get a bigger handout by increasing the workingman’s tax burden, the Castro Principle will nudge him in that direction.

Many economists have warned us for some time to avoid the situation where over half the people who do not pay taxes dictate how much is to be taxed and how it is to be spent. If this were to occur, we would then be in a situation where we could quickly be destroyed economically. It would basically be like children, who earn no money, telling their parents how much money they have to give them and how the money is to be spent. It wouldn’t be long before the house would be full of toys and everyone would be eating candy bars for breakfast. Within a short time the regular bills would go unpaid.

Even so, we are reaching the point where those who do not understand what it takes to earn a dollar will tell the more responsible half how their money will be spent.

   This puts us in the situation very closely paralleling the Israelite slaves in ancient Egypt. The slaves did all the work, while the Egyptian taskmasters just sat back and told them what to do. Consequently, the Egyptians saw the slavery of the Israelites as essential to their own freedom, just as did the slave holders in the Old South. This is why the Pharaoh did everything possible, and even risked his entire kingdom, to stop the slaves from escaping. Their Castro view of freedom was at stake.

On hindsight, we can look back and clearly see that the Egyptians were selfish and violated human rights in forcing the slaves to provide for them while they did not work themselves. But turn the situation around, place it in our day, and the vision becomes obscured by our own Egyptian-like self-interests.

And what is that paralleling situation in our day? It is quite simple. Obviously, modern taxpayers would correspond to the slaves. Who are the taskmasters? These are composed of three groups.

The first group is the almost 50% who pay no federal taxes, yet receive the benefit of taxes. As a group, they have great power in that they can vote in representatives who will do their bidding. These have power to demand the taxpayer work on their behalf, just as did the ancient Egyptians in relation to the slaves.

The second group is comprised of those who receive their income from taxpayers through the government. These folks may pay some taxes themselves, but because their income comes from tax revenues, most have little resistance to tax increases. Often a tax increase to others means a pay increase for them. Of course, there are some conscientious public servants, but many of them are oblivious to the uncertainties of life in the private sector and the capital needed to insure success. If you want proof, just look at Congress. When they want more money they just impose more taxes, while making sure their own pay raises insulate them from the pain. The private sector, then, not only has to deal with the increased taxes, but also has to redouble their effort to make a profit.

The third group is composed of powerful people who have significant wealth. Some of these pay a reasonable amount of taxes, but others work the system and pay very little. Members of this group receive more benefit from the money paid by taxpayers than they pay in to the system. The idea is that heavy taxation does not hurt them, for it usually just increases their own power base.

If we add up the numbers in all three of these groups, we find that they total much more than half the population.

Taxpayers are at the least partial slaves of those who take more from the tax revenues than they pay in. Little do these taskmasters realize they follow the Castro Principle and are the modern-day Egyptians.

The only difference between ancient times and today is that some modern taxpayers get to keep enough money so they are better off than the non-taxpayer, but that could change. Just take a look at where we have gone with taxation in the last 100 years. What if the burden increases correspondingly during the next century? The income tax started in 1913 as a basic 1% tax on the “rich.”2 Look where it has spiraled since then. It’s a scary thought of where we may be in another 100 years.

Another thing to consider is that only about half of the taxes collected come from income taxes. There are hundreds of subtle ways that all of us pay additional taxes. Many of them are paid by the unsuspecting consumer in increased prices for their purchases.

When I first saw the movie Ten Commandments, I was puzzled as to why the Pharaoh was so stubborn and would not free the slaves. But, if you think of what would happen if all the major taxpayers of today fled to a new land of Canaan, the picture becomes crystal clear. Those who receive more from taxes than they pay would become alarmed and do everything in their power to force the taxpayers to return, just as the ancient Pharaoh did.

“But there’s no escaping death and taxes,” says one. “Some will always benefit more than others.”

The fact that some benefit more than others is not the problem or the point. The major problem that is leading modern taxpayers into slavery is that non-taxpayers, and those who receive more than they pay in, have equal input in decreeing how the taxpayer’s money is to be spent.

Suppose you help your needy friend and give him some money each week out of the goodness of your heart. Then he approaches you and says that you have to pay more and that he has as much right as to how your money is spent as you do. You would become angry, wouldn’t you? The guy is applying the Castro Principle of Freedom at your expense and you do not like it.

Even so, each taxpayer who pays more to the government than he receives should be outraged at the fact that others who do not contribute are attempting to tell him how much he should be taxed and how the money is to be spent.

So, how can the modern-day slaves obtain their freedom? The answer is not to do away with taxes. The State will always need a certain amount of revenue, and most people are willing to pay a reasonable tax if they receive a benefit and have some say-so in the matter.

The taxpayer must obtain freedom from those who do not contribute, yet wish to control him. To obtain this, any increase in taxes should have to be approved by the taxpayers themselves in a public referendum. If one does not pay income taxes, he should not be allowed to vote higher taxes for those who do.

To oppose such a measure is to seek to follow the Castro Principle, where your freedom or will is increased at the expense of the freedom of others.

 

Social Programs

The main reason taxes are so high is because of the plethora of social programs. The situation creates a vicious circle. Congress shows their greatest creativity in dreaming up social programs to score points with a handful of voters. Then they seek a way to increase taxes so only a minority will be affected at one time as they promote their social cause, making it sound benevolent.

Most will admit that some social spending is okay, and most taxpayers would not complain if they were not taxed in so many differing directions, including hidden taxes. But the problem is that a little socialism is like a little pregnancy. Once the tax-and-spend process starts, it’s only a matter of time until birth is given to a financially crippled society that begins to break down and eventually even lose its power to defend itself from internal as well as external enemies.

The beginning and end of social programs reminds me of the story of boiling a frog. If you boil a pot of water and just throw in the frog, it will be alarmed by the scalding hot water and immediately jump out to avoid pain and death. BUT, if you place the frog in a pot of cool water and gradually increase the temperature, the frog will not be alarmed, nor will it perceive the danger until it is too late. Instead, it will voluntarily stay in the pot until it is boiled to death.

The answer as to why this occurs is simple. Because the water is increased in temperature just one degree at a time, it seems that a single degree is not enough to cause alarm, so the frog just stays put.

So it is with social programs. Each program adds another degree to our economic peril, and it always seems that there is no cause for alarm. Our politicians promoting the good cause will tell us something like this:

 

The cost of this program is very small when we consider the number of people it will help. The average cost to the taxpayer will be less than fifty cents per day (or some other small figure) and look at the benefit.

 

Then, to sell their scheme, they may promote something like:

 

  • If your child qualifies, he will have his education paid or subsidized.
  • Many people without healthcare will receive treatment.
  • We can work on a cure of your favorite disease.
  • We can give grandma free drugs.
  • We can pay rich farmers (ignore the poor ones) to not grow sugar beets.

 

This list could go on forever. In addition to making the increased spending of your tax dollars sound so small, they also apply the guilt factor:

Without your support and your fifty cents a day, cute little children will go hungry, old people will die and your neighbor will probably have a heart attack. You don’t want that, do you? Then shut up and don’t complain. It’s only fifty cents, you cheapskate!

 

The taxpayer feels small if he complains because everyone else doesn’t seem to be complaining. If he complains, it will look like he wants little children to starve. Of course, he doesn’t want little children to starve.

This brings us to the core of the problem with social engineering from the top down. A point is never reached where authorities are satisfied with social interference. No matter how many programs are in place, a new one that sounds like a good cause can always be dreamed up.

Senator Blowhard thus introduces a bill to protect squirrels from getting run over by cars. If you complain, you may be met with:

“What’s the matter, do you hate squirrels so much that you are not willing to pay five cents a day to save the cute little fella’s life? What kind of person are you, anyway?”

We wind up being hit with five cents here and fifty cents there – a quarter the next day and then another dime. It all seems harmless until the pot starts to boil, and then we become paralyzed by the heat as the end of life as we know it approaches.

The problem with the socialist approach of government is it violates the prime directive of the True Principle of Freedom and supports the Castro Principle. If a social program is not approved by a majority of those who are supplying the money, then those who are on the receiving end are enjoying greater freedom at the expense of the many who are being forced to pay. These who may condemn the Castro Principle as it applies to Cuba cannot see how they are embracing it as it applies to them.

Now, the ideal would be that all social programs are financed by freewill participation; but, at the very least, no taxpayer should be forced to pay money into a system unless there is majority support from those who pay. We are a long way off from such an ideal and will continue to drift away until… until what?

Until citizens realize the truth of the Castro Principle in comparison to the True Principle of Freedom.

When the takers realize they have become the modern Egyptians, and the providers understand they are the modern slaves working against their will for their benefit, then things will begin to change.

But, this will just be the beginning of change. To complete the change, something else must happen. And what is that?

The realization must come that social needs can be fulfilled by staying within the perimeters of the True Principle of Freedom. Not only can social needs be taken care of through cooperative free will, but the way would be paved for abundance and wealth for the nation, as a whole, that would far exceed anything ever witnessed in our history.

In the meantime, every good citizen should cease supporting the Castro Principle of freedom – social benefits they receive through forcing the many to pay.

To some this may sound harsh, but remember this. Abraham Lincoln sounded harsh to the South when he elaborated the True Principle of Freedom as it applied to their system. It sounded so harsh that they fought it tooth and nail at the cost of hundreds of thousands of lives. But, then when they lost the war, they really won. The slaves were free and both the slaveholder and the previous slave were the better for it.

 

 

Over Regulation

Over regulation, resulting in larger government to control regulation, results in restriction of freedom, which lowers quality of life for all.

Just as we can’t seem to establish several social programs and be happy with that number, neither can we have basic regulations and then move on to better things. Instead, the creative minds in Congress go into overdrive when their thoughts drift toward the need to restrict all that out-of-control freedom going on out there.

We have all heard of silly “dumb laws” passed generations ago that are still on the books. Just type in “Dumb Laws” in Google and you’ll find hundreds of them.

Here are just a few old laws that will tickle you.

 

  • In Devon, Connecticut, it is unlawful to walk backwards after sunset
  • In Marshalltown, Iowa, horses are forbidden to eat fire hydrants
  • In Oklahoma, molesting an automobile is illegal.
  • In Alabama, boogers may not be flicked into the wind.
  • In Alaska, kangaroos are not allowed in barbershops at any time. (I didn’t know there were any kangaroos in Alaska)
  • In Arizona, a man can legally beat his wife, but not more than once a month.
  • In California, it is illegal to detonate a nuclear device in city limits. (I guess it’s OK to blow up a few farms with one.)
  • In Denver, it is unlawful to lend your vacuum cleaner to your next-door neighbor.
  • In Connecticut, any dogs with tattoos must be reported to the police.
  • The only legally acceptable sexual position in Washington D.C. is the missionary position. (I’ll leave that one alone.)
  • In Florida, having sexual relations with a porcupine is illegal. (Talk about an unnecessary law!)
  • In Georgia, no one may carry an ice cream cone in their back pocket if it is Sunday.

 

Here are a couple of dumb ones of recent date:

In the old days, they passed laws telling us silly things we couldn’t do, but, in September 2005, the Oregon Supreme Court, under pressure from the ACLU, ruled that Section 1 Article 8 guarantees that the right of free expression makes sex in public or on a stage legal. A separate ruling made it unconstitutional to place a four-foot buffer between the performers and the audience. Now that should make for some interesting interplay.

In Emmett, Idaho, a judge has been using a 1921 law still on the books to prosecute pregnant teens. The crime is for having sex before marriage. Those who have sex and do not get pregnant are not prosecuted, just those who are with child who cannot deny they had sex.

We see some odd warning labels on various products such as:

 

“This product not intended for use as a dental drill” — On an electric rotary tool.

“Do not use in shower” — On a hair dryer.

“Do not eat toner” — On a toner cartridge for a laser printer.

 

We see these and just figure that the manufacturers must be very stupid, but they are not the ones to blame. Instead, you can rest assured that the cause is too many laws passed by creative legislators and too many lawsuits.

Some crazy guy probably did use an electric drill on his teeth and sued over the damage because there was no warning label not to do so.

You can also rest assured that someone used a hair dryer in the shower and another thought toner would be good to eat.

Unfortunately, dumb laws allow dumb people to sue smart people for their own dumb mistakes.

Some of the new laws are not funny.

Because of a vote on an initiative in November 2005 in California, it is legal for teenagers to get an abortion without telling their parents. This seems odd to me even if you are an abortion zealot.

The ACLU defended the rights of NAMBLA to promote itself. NAMBLA advocates male adults having sex with little boys.

In June, 2005, the Supreme Court ruled that local governments have the authority to seize private land and turn the property over to private developers for economic development. This put the fear of God into many conservatives and liberals alike.

For the past couple of years many laws have been passed aimed at the Christians by attempting to restrict the wearing of religious items, displaying religious symbols, and to even control the singing of Christmas carols. Where I live there has been a movement afoot to remove a cross on a hill that is on private property.

This type of legal attack goes far beyond any desire to prevent a state religion, as was the design of the Founding Fathers.

I am not a member of any religion myself, but if others want to wear a symbol of any religion in any circumstance, I am not offended in the least. If someone wants to put up a cross or a statue of Buddha, so what? Whatever happened to a live-and-let live attitude?

There have even been efforts to outlaw vitamins and herbs unless prescribed by a medical doctor.

Perhaps the dumbest laws that have been passed in recent times concern wage and price controls. They have been attempted in various legislative packages time and time again (and fail time and time again), and still we have touchy-feely do-gooders with good intentions fighting to bring them back.

Feeling that something like this SHOULD work doesn’t make it work. As soon as wage and price controls are implemented, all kinds of evils creep in; among them are black markets, shortages and public anger and discontent. Then the companies that are controlled will find ways around the controls and the price goes up anyway. Eventually, when the controls are lifted, the price on the original item will jump more than it would have without the controls.

The puzzling question to be addressed is this: if we are indeed headed toward disaster because of too many laws, taxes and social spending – like the dumb frog boiling by degrees – why is it so difficult to turn things around, even after we see what is happening to us?

The answer to this has always been seen as very complex, but it is not.

Most will agree that Congress and the Executive Branch are the root cause of our financial excess. The problem seems to be that there is nothing we can do about it. The mystery is that many good people run for office making warm promises of financial and legislative responsibility, but then something happens to them after they go to Washington. A short time after arriving, they change and become just like everyone else and vote for spending like drunken sailors.

To many this seems like a great mystery, greater than the Big Bang, and it will only drive you crazy if you think about it too much.

I beg to differ. The answer is very simple. Please memorize the next sentence: Our leaders have the wrong job description.

Wrong job description? What does that have to do with anything?

It has everything to do with the problems in Washington. This is the reason that, after well-meaning legislators spend a few months in Congress, the common people start calling for the “bums” to be thrown out.

So, what is wrong with their job description, or, perhaps we should first ask – what is it?

When we ask this question, we must answer it as seen in their eyes rather than the exact words of the Constitution. What legislators see as their job description is much more important than any black- and-white words on a piece of paper.

Basically, they see their job description as doing two things:

 

(1) Passing legislation. This includes making laws and dreaming up new taxes to raise money.

(2) Spending money.

 

Now, the Founders expected Congress to pass some legislation and spend some money, but they had nothing in mind like the boondoggle mismanagement we see before us today.

Spending money is now one of the two major points of their job description – at least in their own minds. In fact, spending money and bringing home the bacon and pet projects to their home states is probably more in the forefront of their minds than making laws ever was.

If we then examine the two points of their job description, it becomes perfectly clear why we can send a seemingly good person with good intentions to Washington, and within months he seems to turn into a clone of the good-old-boys network that exists there. He then becomes just as corrupt as anyone else.

Consider this. We elect someone who we think is a good and decent public servant of the people. What does a good servant want to do?

He wants to do a good job.

How does he make sure he does a good job?

He finds out what his job description is and then he does it well.

If a representative thinks his job description consists of making laws and spending money, then what will he do if he is good reliable public servant?

Right. He will make laws and spend money.

Because this is his perceived job description, then what will be the evidence in his own mind that he is doing a good job?

Right. He will see himself as doing a good job if he makes lots of laws and spends truckloads of your money. The more laws and money he moves through the system, the more satisfied he is with his work ethic.

When the representative relaxes for a moment, the media comes out of the woodwork and screams that we have a “do-nothing Congress.” This, then, makes our representatives feel guilty that they have been slacking, so they make even more laws and spend additional billions of dollars to get a little positive media attention.

We, the public, have been in error in criticizing Congress as being a bunch of good-for-nothing bums. We have been wrong. Our representatives are skilled at their job description that WE HAVE ALLOWED TO CONTINUE, and, if anything, they deserve praise for going even beyond the call of duty.

We are the stupid ones, not them. They are doing their jobs; we are the slackers.

If we do not like what they are doing and doing well, then the solution is simple beyond belief.

Change their job description!

What, then, should be their job description that would make for a happy, healthy society?

Before we can create a job description that is right, we must realize what is wrong with the current one.

Perhaps a parable will help:

 

A Man Just Doing His Job

A family received a fine inheritance and elected an enterprising person as a contractor to build them a suitable house in which to live. To do this, they gave him access to the funds of the inheritance and gave him a reasonable salary. The man understood that he was supposed to buy building materials and then use them to build the house in which the family was to live.

He went ahead with his assignment and, after a while, a house was built. It was comfortable and all were happy for a time.

The family, however, never told the man the job was done, so the man continued to work as before and bought additional building materials. At first, he used them for remodeling and improvements, but soon became frustrated because there was only so much he could do. He realized that he would be out of a job if he did not think of something, so he decided to do more building. He then added a family room, extra garage and shop in the back.

Some of the family members liked these additions, some did not, but no one told him to stop or that his job description was to be changed or curtailed.

He soon found himself idle again and felt guilty he was doing nothing for his pay, so he built a guesthouse in the back. Some family members liked the idea, some did not. After this was accomplished he found himself idle again, so he built a swimming pool and added a gym. It wasn’t long before someone saw him getting some sun by the swimming pool and called him a lazy bum. This made him feel guilty again and he got back to work. He next hauled in some expensive rock, beautifully landscaped the whole place and hired a crew of expensive gardeners. After this, he added another wing to the house.

On and on the man continued until a banker called the family and explained to them that their inheritance was all spent.

The family was aghast, called their representative and said, “What is this? You have spent our whole inheritance and all we have to show for it is a monster of a dwelling much too big and elaborate for our needs. There are many other things we could have done with our inheritance to bring joy to the family but, instead, you have squandered our assets. Explain yourself.”

The contractor shrugged his shoulders and said.

“All I did was my job, and I did it well and received praise from many of you. If I did not spend the inheritance the way you wanted, that is your fault, for you gave me the job and told me what to do and did not restrain me from doing it.”

Just as this family contractor thought he understood his job description and sought to do it well, even so do our political representatives seek to perform well. The two objectives they see in their job description are passing legislation and spending money.

But there are problems with the two objectives:

(1) Passing legislation. This includes making laws and dreaming up new taxes to raise money.

Passing legislation is sanctioned by the Constitution and a certain amount of laws are necessary, but just like the guy who is assigned to build the house for the family, there comes a time when all the basics are completed and just a small amount of maintenance is needed. The problem is that the maintenance isn’t enough to keep the guy busy. It is true that most workers complain about being overworked, but neither do they want to be under employed, just sitting around doing nothing. A worker desires job satisfaction and he cannot obtain this unless he has real work to do.

To obtain job satisfaction, a Congressman will use his creative mind to go far beyond simple maintenance and repair to dreaming up new program after program and law after law to add to his accomplishments.

Sooner or later, his extended family will wake up and realize that most of the additions have been overkill and unnecessary.

(2) Spending money

Letting our representatives think that spending is a major part of their job description is perhaps the greatest mistake we the people have made.

Question: What happens when the allotted money has been spent?

Answer: They are out of a job.

Question: What happens when they are out of a job?

Answer: They look for more work.

Question: How do they get more work?

Answer: They raise more money.

Question: How do they raise more money?

Answer: They pass still more legislation and increase taxes.

 

Thus, we have created a vicious circle of passing legislation, raising money, spending money and then back to passing more legislation.

Can the vicious circle be stopped before the inheritance is gone?

Yes, it can be stopped, because all things are possible. What is done can be undone, that which has been created can be taken apart, and that which does not work can be transformed into that which does work.

It does little good to just look at a bad situation, throw our hands up and say “What a mess!” It’s easy to complain.

It is more difficult to do something about it, but do we must.

The first step is to have faith in the best that is in humanity – that we are capable of solving any problem, no matter how insurmountable it may seem.

That said, what is our first step?

Our first step is to realize that the ultimate power in this country (and many others) lies with the people themselves. If we believe that ultimate power lies with our leaders, then we are doomed. Few of our leaders will lead us well unless the people remind them of the real job they are supposed to do.

When we realize that we the people are the ultimate power, then real change can begin. In fact, any practical change can begin when the common sense of the people discriminates between that which will work from that which cannot.

The solution from the people is very simple. We must create a plan and then force Congress to incorporate it. The plan must come from the people because our representatives do not want to lose power, and will not touch anything on their own that diminishes it.

What would be in the plan?

Details will be presented later in the book, but one thing we could do is call for Congress to set aside a certain amount of legislative time to examine previous laws and either simplify them or take them off the books completely. They should also examine tax laws and simplify what they can and eliminate what is practical.

Jessie Ventura, the maverick governor of Minnesota, came up with a version of this idea, but nothing came of it. But it was a good idea that could be implemented if the people carried the ball.

How do we get representatives to put the brakes on spending, which can also lead to putting the brakes on taxation?

This may be the most monumental challenge to ever face a people, but remember – nothing is impossible. It can be done.

To accomplish this, we cannot just make suggestions to our representatives and expect them to get excited about acting upon them. Again, a plan must be presented for reduced spending along with the reduction of laws. Part of the plan must include some powerful incentives, or the representatives will certainly drag their feet in cooperating.

First, we must change their job description in this area. Instead of hiring them to spend money, as they seem to think is their purpose, we make known to them they were hired to manage our money and balance the budget.

Does it not make sense when an employee does a good job that he gets a bonus of some kind, and if he does not do well he receives no bonus? In the past, what reward have our representatives received if they balanced the budget or reduced spending?

None. In fact, they receive the opposite. Many are attacked locally because of reduced spending on pet entitlements.

How do we give our representatives an incentive to perform as we the people wish? The same way any employer does with his employee: he pays him a bonus for a job well done.

What a novel idea… We pay our representatives bonuses if they spend our money wisely and balance the budget.

Here are some ideas. Keep in mind these are not written in stone, but point us toward the right general direction.

For every billion dollars shaved off the budget deficit from the prior year, a bonus is set aside for members of Congress. It would be well worth it to make them all millionaires if they balanced the budget and reduced waste, but $100,000 or $200,000 for each year they perform might well be incentive enough.

Now for the good part: when the budget is balanced, the only bonus we have to pay them after this is achieved is the yearly bonus of balancing the budget. Reducing taxes could be worked on next.

If this program was implemented and enforced, I guarantee you we’d see the most liberal of spenders turn into fiscal conservatives, the likes of which we have never seen in Washington.

And, what if any of them feel guilty about receiving so much money? Then they can either give it back to the government or donate it to charity.

Whatever the case, it would be money well spent, and the positive part of this idea is that many of our representatives would like the idea of doubling or tripling their salary merely by doing their job well. This prospect would make it possible for them to pass the legislation necessary to set up the new job description with bonuses.

The only way to make this happen is to draw up a proposal and circulate it throughout the nation. Getting several million signatures endorsing it wouldn’t hurt.

When our representatives get the message that this is what we want or they may not get elected again, they will cooperate.

Copyright by J J Dewey

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

 

Discovering the New Age, Part 3

14

Discovering the New Age, Part 3

Sorting out Mind from Emotion

Freedom

Those who are stuck in the old age ruled by emotion will have a much different view of freedom than will the Aquarian thinker governed by mind and reason.

The astral approach to freedom is to take the black and white approach. This means the person will either discount rules and regulations so he can have his way or to support an excess of them to control the other guy. The Piscean character will assume that the other guy cannot be trusted with much freedom as he will abuse it whereas he sees himself as supporting freedom and he wants rules dropped that may control him.

An example would be the guy who wants drugs legalized because he wants the freedom to use them, but wants strict controls on guns as he does not own one.

The mentally polarized can see that the principle involved in both is the same. They both have a dangerous side and if we trust our fellow humanity with one then we should with the other.

The mentally polarized can see that much more can be accomplished with maximum freedom than with excessive rules, regulations and laws. The right amount of law insures freedom but excess destroys it.

There are around 40,000 new laws and regulations passed every year in this country and anyone but a madman should realize that is too many. How many can name even a dozen passed last year? Very few. There are so many that most of us broke several of them yesterday yet probably did not know what they were. The advantage for corrupt authorities having so many laws is that they can turn most anyone who offends them into a lawbreaker and go after them.

I have already written a lot about the Principle of freedom. Here is an excerpt from my forthcoming book on Principles.

The principle of freedom is a mystery just as most principles are. Why? Because it takes a certain degree of consciousness to apply the second key of judgment to understand and apply it.

When freedom is discussed among all people of divergent views it is interesting to note that all of them see themselves as struggling for freedom, even those who are enslaving others. Hitler often spoke of freedom. The Taliban speaks of their own freedoms. The Old South maintained they needed slaves to insure their own freedom. Abraham Lincoln noted this and observed that some people have a pretty strange idea of what freedom is.

Some think that freedom can only exist in a state of anarchy, but this is illusion for it takes a number of laws to insure the maximum freedom of the whole.

Others think we need laws to cover every detail of living to insure freedom, but too many laws and rules hinder freedom.

There are those who think life is not fair so they make restrictive laws to make everyone equal thinking greater freedom will result. This usually results in less fairness and diminished freedom for the whole.

The problem with freedom is that people view it from their own restricted vision. Instead of looking at it from its effect on the whole they look at it from the view of their own little isolated world. It may be true that a man could have had a slave and the slave helped him have a temporary increase in his own physical freedom, but the whole was less free.

The problem with freedom is we are looking for the manifestation of maximum freedom for the whole and to obtain this there has to be some restrictions on the individual. For instance, the individual burglar must not be given the freedom to break into homes. On the other hand, too many restrictions will suffocate freedom. Only those who see the fine point of balance in the middle and how the whole is affected will understand.

What is true freedom then? Again, it is the removal of restrictions either imaginary or real, so the power of decision has complete freedom within the sphere of its plan. Thus the true principle of freedom lies in the idea that the soul energy to accomplish is released so its life can flow through the ideas and thoughts of the pilgrim until all desires are fulfilled.

No matter what your belief system there will come trials in harmonizing the Principle of Freedom with personal feelings.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against abortion must allow the woman her freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against gays living together must allow them that freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against illegal drugs must allow the user his freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against Neo-Nazis promoting their doctrines must allow them that freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against cutting down trees must allow others the freedom of choice within their own sphere whether that choice be right or wrong — as long as no great harm is done to the earth.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against rules being laid down in a school, group or business must allow others freedom of choice within their own sphere of activity whether that choice be right or wrong — for the seeker retains the choice to work for another company, join another group or take another class.

Each potential disciple will have some final temptation to support the unreasonable restriction of others in the name of promoting his personal desire to see that which is good triumph. The deception is that true good can only magnify in an atmosphere of maximum possible freedom.

So the principle that the gathered lights will always apply is maximum freedom for the whole. The only time any freedom is taken away from the individual is when it increases the freedom for the whole. Like I say, we take away the burglar’s freedom because the burglar takes away the freedom of the whole so by taking away the burglar’s freedom we increase the freedom for the whole. The principle involved with freedom is the wholeness aspect; maximum freedom for the whole. The seat belt law is a simple little thing but it’s totally unnecessary to have a $200 fine for a seat belt infraction. It may force us to buckle up but on the other hand it creates big brother telling us what to do with outward authority over our lives.

What we need to develop is power to have our own personal freedom and do what is right because we decide to do what is right. We do right because we see what is right; to help our fellow man because we want to help our fellow man. By doing these things we can enhance the flow of the energy of God because the energy of the Holy Spirit operates on total freedom.

Where freedom is taken away, the Holy Spirit does not flow. People have gone to very oppressed nations and visited them, particularly Russia when it was totalitarian and was in full power-it’s a lot better now than it was-but when people have gone and visited these oppressed nations, people look depressed, they don’t talk to each other, there is no flow of ideas. They’re afraid that somebody will report what they’ve said. They’re afraid all the time. There is a spirit of fear. They’re doing what’s right maybe, according to the state, but they have no freedom.

The greatest evil is always generated when people are forced to do what is right. The force to do what is right has so much power behind it because they say, “We need to create a law to make this happen.” People say, “That would be good. Let’s go ahead and do it.” They don’t even think about the principle of freedom involved. They never argue the principle of freedom. When our legislators are talking about passing laws, they never think they’re taking away freedom. The argument is always over making people do what’s right. If they would only argue over what the maximum freedom would be generated. How can we make the law so freedom will not be infringed, freedom of the whole will be amplified rather than held back. There are, like I said, a small handful of laws for robberies and rapes and murders and these types of laws, are good for people but there are too many laws that infringe freedom.

For Part 4 GO HERE

Copyright 2016 by J J Dewey

Index for Recent Posts – Includes this series

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 Two Paths

 

May 28, 2016

The Two Paths

It s interesting that the vast majority of Alice A. Bailey students who aspire to taking the right hand path cleave strongly to the political left and speak negatively of the people of the right.

In stating this I am not saying that all the people on the left are bad guys in cahoots with the Dark Brotherhood, or that those on the political right are all good guys under the wing of Christ and associates.

On the other hand, it is perhaps wise to consider the Law of Correspondences and ask ourselves if there are more ingredients of the right hand path in the political right than the left. Perhaps it is no coincident that the political right identifies with the right, and the so-called liberals with the left.

To clarify this we must ask ourselves what the main difference is between the right and left hand paths as well as the political right and left.

Before exploring this we must ignore many of the angry accusations the political left and right make against each other, for some are not even founded in reality. What we want to look at is the core difference and see if there is a correspondence to the two paths.

The prime difference between those who take the right and left hand path is the principle of freedom. Those on the right hand path seek to allow the maximum amount of freedom possible to individuals, groups and even nations whereas those on the left hand value maximum control and regulation over freedom in seeking to accomplish their goals. The Dark Brotherhood does not trust the individual to set his own course and to chart his own path.

Why?

Their excuse is that human beings are flawed and because they are flawed they need direction from superior beings who can guide them better than they can guide themselves.

And who are these superior beings?

There are of course, the leaders within the left hand path. Of course they have flaws too, but such leaders always see themselves as superior to those with a different opinion than themselves and that different opinion must be obliterated through rules and regulations set up and administered by themselves.

Does this correspond to the political left and right?

Yes, it does to some extent for the main difference between the two lies in the principle of freedom.

Overall the political right espouses more freedom in the following areas.

(1) Lower taxes allowing for the freedom to keep and control a larger percentage of your own money.

(2) Fewer laws, rules and regulations that will restrict free well and free enterprise.

(3) Freedom to bear arms as stipulated in the Second Amendment.

(4) Free speech, even if it is highly offensive as long as it does not lead to obvious physical harm.

(5) Emphasis on decentralized and smaller government as opposed to centralized big government.

The political left generally wants to restrict freedom on each of the five points. They usually want to raise taxes, increase rules and regulations, increase restrictions on arms and desire to limit speech they find distasteful. It is almost always the left that decrees which speech is politically correct and which is not. It is the left that encourages sensitivity training so people a get their minds right so their speech will be in the correct alignment.

Finally the left always supports increasing the size, power and central authority of government.

Free speech is the greatest freedom we possess which allows us to move forward on the path of light and unfortunately it is under threat in the United States and much of the free world as never before. More and more people of the left are rising up demanding the limitation of speech, often in subtle ways, but sometimes openly.

Just one example is that many are coming forward expressing a desire to prosecute those who give opinions on global warming that run contrary to that of the left.

The dividing line of freedom between the political left and right is not exactly black and white. Many religious people on the right object to obscene speech, pornography, and various types of immoral behavior and would like to see them controlled more rigidly. Then there are times the political right will support excessive laws and regulations that is in alignment with their own point of view. Even so, overall, the political right supports the Principle of maximum freedom more than does the left.

Now the left will argue that freedom needs to be restricted to insure that the greater good can prevail. We need higher taxes so we can fund more social programs. We need more regulations because people are not responsible. We need to control guns because there are too many accidents and we need some restrictions on speech because wrong speech can hurt feelings and impede progress.

I wonder how many esoteric students have tried to assess the reasoning behind the Dark Brotherhood’s desire to restrict freedom. It appears that many just see them as coarse beastly individuals who are just out to do all the damage they can do.

They overlook one thing. That is that every thinking individual follows a course that he sees as reasonable for himself and others. The dark brothers are not monsters foaming at the mouth, but people with a plan. In their plan the intelligent will rule those who are not smart enough to govern themselves. This will produce order while giving those at the top freedom, security and abundance.

People are drawn to the left hand path because they believe that they will be a part of the ruling class and those they rule will benefit from their superiority.

Others are drawn to the right hand path with the Brotherhood of Light, not for power but for the joy of service and knowing that working with the Principle of Freedom that maximum progress for all will be made in the long run. They trust their fellow men and women to eventually make the right decisions in an atmosphere of freedom.

It is true that there are always risks associated with freedom., With the freedom to drive a car comes the risk of having an accident. With the freedom to own a gun comes a similar risk. Free speech carried the risk of offending people or making a fool of yourself. With the freedom to keep your money comes the risk of losing it on a bad investment.

Those on the path of light know the risks and do not mind taking a few of them. Those on the left want to eliminate all possible risk.

Those who are on the political left and right who support the principle of freedom are supporting the right hand path and those who fight against it, whether they be the political left or right, support the esoteric left hand path.

Here are some quotes from DK on the subject:

In the coming New Age, the Master is responsible for the offering of opportunity and for the right enunciation of the truth but for no more than that. *** I exact, therefore, no blind obedience. But, however, if advice and suggestion are accepted and you choose—of your own free will—to follow my instructions, those instructions must be followed accurately. *** There is not the slightest suggestion of authoritative pronouncement by a member of the Hierarchy who must be obeyed and whose word is infallible. Let this be remembered, otherwise work will not be possible, elements of danger may enter in and the present effort come to naught.*** Masters are made through the achieving of mastery and not through obedience to any person.

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Pages 5 & 7

Leave people free in all respects—with the freedom that you demand and expect for yourself.

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Page 427

Today, the Masters are dealing with the highly mental type of disciple who believes in the freedom of the human will and consciousness and who resents the imposition of any so-called authority. The intellectual man will not accept any infringement of his freedom, and in this he is basically right.****The obedience required is obedience to the Plan. It is not obedience to the Master, no matter what many old-style occult schools may say.*** The obedience demanded is that of the personality to the soul as soul knowledge, soul light and soul control become increasingly potent in the mind and brain reactions of the disciple.

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Pages 686-687

The Master is prevented by occult law from using any pressure or power in the effort to swing the minds of those whom He is influencing into unison with His. He may not impose His will upon the disciple; His desires, aspirations and wishes must not be the enforced directing agency in the lives of those with whom He is in touch. He may impress their minds with what He feels is needed in periods of world crisis. He can express to them what He feels should be done. But it remains for the disciple to decide and prove. Disciples are in a Master’s group because of similarity of ideas, even though they sense and express those ideas far less clearly than He does and see the vision as through a glass darkly.

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Page 696

For a 11 part treatise on on how DK’s views fall surprisingly to the political right go HERE.

Copyright 2016 by J J Dewey

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

Join JJ’s Study class HERE




More on Freedom

This entry is part 51 of 73 in the series 2015

Nov 14, 2015

More on Freedom

Dan writes:

By what criteria can a person that doesn’t already (think they) know how the universe works determine if a particular act increases or decreases freedom for the whole?

***

Some issues, like murder, seem clear while some, like forced/mandated insurance, are not and I am unable to pick up the common “thread” that SHOULD, logically, run through ANY/ALL issues that lie on one side or the other of the principle.

In example how does it decrease the freedom for the whole for me to exercise my freedom to steal my neighbor’s sheep?

EVERYBODY is going to kneejerk say it OBVIOUSLY decreases the freedom of the whole but specifically how?

It increases my freedom to eat mutton tonight and decreases his – that only impacts me and him, NOT the freedoms of this (nebulous) “whole”.

JJ

There are two keys for insuring maximum freedom for any group.

The first is the Second Key of Judgment and the second is the taking into consideration what the will of the majority is concerning what is necessary for maximum freedom.

Let us say that we have before us a large number of groups with a wide range of consciousness. Let us also say they can be labeled between one and ten with ten being the highest state.

The maximum freedom for group one would be much less than a group with the rating of ten. Group one would have to have many black and white rules, group two less and group three less still until we get to ten which would need few if any rules as the Principle of Freedom would be a part of their consciousness.

The leaders of each of the ten groups would have to tap into public opinion to determine the least amount of rules and laws needed so they could tap into maximum freedom and efficiency.

Now let us examine your question about stealing the sheep. Let us say that you and the sheep owner are the only two people in the area and no one else is affected by anything either of you do.

Yes, if you steal the other guy’s sheep you will increase your freedom to possess the sheep and eat mutton while the owner loses this advantage. Looking at it this way it seems that the net gain and loss cancel each other out.

Looking at freedom this way completely misses the principle. The Principle of Freedom is not concerned with possessions. He who has more possessions does not have more freedom (as far as the principle is concerned) than the one with few possessions.

The Principle of Freedom revolves around our freedom of action to obtain possessions or whatever it is we want to accomplish, do, say or think and to be able to keep those accomplishments without threat to life, limb or loss.

Person A’s goal was to own sheep and it took him a reasonable amount of labor to raise the sheep in question. The freedom that was diminished when person B stole the sheep was the freedom to enjoy the benefits of one’s labor. The thief had no labor involved so he could not steal this for himself. He could not steal the sense of accomplishment that was had by the legitimate owner.

By stealing the sheep the thief gains no skill or satisfaction of a job well done whereas the owner loses the results of his labor and his goals to grow his herd are diminished. There is loss by person A and little or no gain by person B.

The scriptures tell us that our works follow us to the next world, but our possessions do not. This is because real freedom lies in freedom to do fulfilling work and not in possession of physical things. He who has freedom to effectively labor at that which he loves can possess all he needs for happiness.

Now let us suppose that these two people were a part of a group. If person A reported the theft to the group then the feeling of safety and the ability to feel secure in their possessions would be diminished for the whole. There is less freedom in a group with a thief in their midst than a group with no thieves.

Setting up laws and punishments for theft will help to secure the freedom of each individual to work toward their goals of obtaining and securing their possessions. The freedom to work without undue restrictions to fulfill and keep your desires is essential to the Principle of Freedom.

The goal with the Principle of Freedom is then to insure that all have maximum freedom of action, speech and thought rather than possessions. Needed possessions naturally come to groups who support maximum freedom.

You mention freedom related to gay marriage, speed limits and mandated insurance.

The core question behind these and other issues is this. Does this law, regulation or action secure more freedom than it takes away?

The answer for those in groups having a lower consciousness is in the eye of the beholder and not seen clearly. These groups will have many laws thinking they are enhancing freedom when they are really restricting it. Even so, all kinds of rules and regulations are necessary for lesser evolved groups so they can slowly learn what real freedom is and to esteem it of high value.

Laws that seem satisfying for a group of low evolution would be intolerable for a highly evolved group.

When a true gathering of lights occurs the needed laws to insure freedom and safety will be much less than the counties of the world today as the laws of justice will be written in their hearts.

“Some birds are not meant to be caged, that’s all. Their feathers are too bright, their songs too sweet and wild. So you let them go, or when you open the cage to feed them they somehow fly out past you. And the part of you that knows it was wrong to imprison them in the first place rejoices, but still, the place where you live is that much more drab and empty for their departure.”

–Stephen King (From “Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption”)

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

The Left, the Right and DK, Part 2

This entry is part 2 of 73 in the series 2015

So, what are other freedoms overlooked by the Left?

We go through cycles where the political left and right take their turn in pushing us in the Right direction. Sometimes the Left pushes too far and nudges us toward the Left hand path and sometimes the Right goes too far and brings progression to a halt by too much focus on the past.

At present the political left is placing a dangerous amount of energy on limiting freedom and they are attacking the most precious freedom of all which is freedom of speech. If we lose that we will lose all of our important civil freedoms.

When I was in college in the Sixties the Left was very big on free speech. The popular bumper sticker of the day for them was “Question Authority.” They often quoted Voltaire who said, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Today he left has shifted around 180 degrees on this view and it all began with political correctness. They started putting a lot of attention on speech that could be offensive to it and then telling the rest of us that we shouldn’t say certain words.

Many made fun of them and came up with humorous lists of politically incorrect things to say.

Here is just one list.

Many saw this approach as obnoxious, but few saw it as dangerous.

Well, the danger has come full circle illustrated by the demands of some college students lately. Students at Yale are demanding restrictions on Halloween costumes, Brown University students are demanding “anti-oppression training” for college employees, Princeton students want former president Woodrow Wilson’s name and image removed from campus and in Columbia. They are traumatized because the class material is not diverse enough.

Larry Summers, esteemed president of Harvard who has always leaned left was forced to resign for just making the true observation that males at his school perform better at math than females, ending with the statement, “there is a difference in the standard deviation and variability of a male and female population.”

One of the most bizarre attacks occurred when Smith College president Kathleen McCartney as well as Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley got in big trouble for saying that “all lives matter” when they should have just stuck to the mantra “black lives matter.”

Students and much of the general population that leans left are now so offended by free speech that they support curtailing it by force of law.

A new Pew Research Center poll shows that 40 percent of American Millennials (ages 18-34) are likely to support the force of law to prosecute public statements offensive to minorities.

Even more egregious is that a Rasmussen poll reveals that 27% of Democrats and 11% of Republicans want global warming skeptics prosecuted for speaking against standard global warming theory. An additional 15% of the general public do not side with free speech and are not sure if skeptics deserve free speech.

Hillary Clinton gave a strong indication recently where her loyalties to free speech lie. She attended the famous Laugh Factory in Los Angeles and didn’t like some of the things the comics humorously said about her. When some of the video was placed on their website she insisted they be taken down and wanted the identities of all the comics. The owner, Jamie Masada, said:

“They threatened me, I have received complaints before but never a call like this, threatening to put me out of business if I don’t cut the video.”

A generation ago, when nudity, drug use and cuss words were being pushed upon us through movies and other media the Left often defended free speech and criticized the conservatives for opposing it. Now things have changed. Now conservatives rarely stand in the way of offensive speech while the Left is marching toward alarming restrictions putting the First Amendment at risk.

DK never said anything in any of his works in favor of restricting speech that may merely offend. He, of course, advised students to be wise in their speech, but never advocated force to restrict public discourse.

No matter what past history may indicate in connection with many of the allied nations (past aggressions, ancient cruelties and wrong doing), they were and are today (during WWII) seeking to cooperate with the Forces of Light and are endeavouring to salvage human freedom political, religious and economic.

Destiny of the Nations, Page 100

It looks like we are reaching a point where these freedoms may need to be salvaged again.

Freedom, A Pearl of Great Price

It is bad enough that free speech is under attack, but in addition to this almost every freedom our forefathers fought for is being diminished.

The Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear arms, comes under renewed attack whenever some crazy guy goes on a shooting spree. Yes, there are some accidents and homicides due to guns, but many more deaths and serious injuries due to car accidents. But no one calls for the banning of cars.

Why?

Because their usefulness far exceeds the damage they cause.

And what is the usefulness of guns?

The main one, which was enunciated by our founders, was for insurance to keep us free. A government will be nervous taking us too far toward tyranny if its citizens are armed and other nations would think twice about invading us when the citizens are armed with a couple hundred million guns.

We need to recall that the worst killing spree that has happened on American soil was caused, not by guns, but by 19 men with box cutters who hijacked airplanes. Yet no one called for the banning of air travel.

Again, even with great disasters now and then air travel brings much more benefit and freedom than it takes away.

Big Brother has been taking away freedoms in many other ways. If you count all the hidden taxes the average taxpayer pays more than 50% in taxes.

Government borrowing and charging the reckless debt to you and me and our children is another great inhibitor.

Excessive laws and regulations are suffocating many just trying to make a living.

Other freedoms at risk are our religious freedoms, a free unregulated internet, freedom from excessive and frivolous lawsuits and just a general freedom to speak and act with out of the box ideas.

DK supported the allies against Hitler to secure freedoms necessary to insure the coming of the New Age, but I would suppose he would be concerned today as he surveys the current situation.

Yes, some things have improved, but it will all be for nothing if we were to lose our freedom. We must ever remember these great words emphasized by numerous Founding Fathers including Jefferson.

Eternal vigilance is the cost of liberty.

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE




The Left, the Right and DK, Part 1

This entry is part 1 of 73 in the series 2015

The Principle of Freedom

A reader brings up an interesting point that most Bailey students are from the Left and see me as a heretic to the faith because I lean to the Right and this division seems unreasonable.

Yes it is interesting that a great majority of Bailey students as well as most in other new age movements lean quite strongly to the Left. If I had to guess the amount I would say I would say it was over 80%.

So, do shear numbers in majority mean that going to the Left is the true right hand path?

Not hardly. History proves that the next level of truth is always seen by the few, not the many.

Before I proceed let me note that when I speak of political divisions I usually use Left and Right instead of liberal and conservative. This is because these titles are misleading as those who are called conservative are liberal in many ways as they give more to charities, they are supportive of space exploration and technology, they look for new ways to expand on freedom, liberally embrace free speech, limited government, etc. Those who call themselves liberal are extremely conservative about conserving all kinds of things – the environment, cultures, historical sites and buildings and unfortunately lean toward the old conservative ways of totalitarian government much more than do conservatives with their emphasis on freedom..

I consider myself on the Right because I choose the Right hand path and it is no coincidence that the political left and right have taken those names to themselves as they are indicative of which path they knowingly or unknowingly support.

So what are the indications that the seeker is on the Right hand path?

As I have said many times, the key indication that one is treading the Right hand path is an embracement of the Principle of Freedom. After all, what is the core ingredient of the various initiations that have to be taken on the path to liberation?

DK said again and again that the initiations remove limitations. And what happens when limitations are removed?

Greater freedom.

How can a seeker be making significant progress toward his next initiation, which brings greater freedom if he fights against the very principle of freedom that is needed to move forward?

The problem with understanding freedom is that everyone thinks they are for it. Slave owners during the American Civil War thought they were fighting for it. Hitler thought he was fighting for it. Even ISIS think they support it.

How can some be so deluded one may ask.

The reason is that individuals tend to see freedom only as it relates to their own little world and totally miss seeing it as it applies to the whole.

If slave owners won the war they would have had more freedom to do what they wanted with their slaves. If Hitler had won he would have had more freedom to carry out his insidious designs. If ISIS gets their way then they’ll have lots of freedom to rape and pillage.

Fortunately most reading this will clearly see that the above groups did not embrace any true principle of freedom. Unfortunately, many cannot see where they are missing the principle with the political views they embrace.

Consider the ways that many miss out on the Principle of Freedom.

They accept the idea that it is okay to limit or take away freedom if their intention is to do good.

For instance, Obamacare limits numerous freedoms, but is supported by many new agers because they think it will help people.

Is that any different in principle than a slave owner using his slaves to build a school for kids?

No. The building of a school does not justify enslavement and neither does the good Obamacare does for a few justify the freedom taken away from the many – freedoms such as;

  • Freedom to not have insurance and pay your own way.
  • Freedom to keep your policy with which you were happy.
  • Complete freedom to choose your doctor.
  • Freedom to not support it with your tax or medical dollars.
  • The freedom to pay for what you get instead of being gouged with excessive payments.

Basically, choice is limited for individuals, institutions and business yet many who think they are on freedom’s side cheer on this debacle.

This is just one example of many where the Left miss the true application of freedom

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.

A reader writes:

“So, are you saying those that lean to the political left are “leaning toward the Left hand” (spiritual) path?”

JJ

The reason I use “Right” and “Left” as much as possible when I am teaching is to correlate my views with the Right and left hand path more than the literal political right and left.

The political left leans more toward limiting freedom than does the political right, but the Right is far from perfect so I do not set them up as the ideal by a long shot. Now because the political right have some areas where they also want to limit freedom does not mean they are equally egregious. One has to use the Second Key of Judgment and assess the degree each side goes off the path to liberation of the human spirit.

Both political sides are way too black and white and a black and white approach overlooks the Principle of Judgment, as well as principles in general, which must be used to see the Right hand path. Without judgment the seeker will naturally gravitate (usually with good intentions) toward the Left hand path until he reaches a point of tension where the real truth stares him in the face. At that point many will choose correctly and veer to the Right.

Another readers asks:

I feel like you talk about socialist policies, as if they were brought in by a dictator. Was it not the majority rule, that you espouse, that brought about socialist policies? Is it not then the will of the people, that enacted these policies in order to make a more just, and equal society?

JJ

If people want to cooperate in socialistic endeavors through their own free will then I am all for it, but many socialist policies, as well as many acts of Congress and presidential executive orders, run contrary to the will of the people.

Our elected representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people, but often vote against it and in harmony with pressure groups and political leaders rather than the people.

Congress barely passed Obamacare with only Democratic votes which ran contrary to the will of the people.

A big problem with it was that the people were unaware of what was in it and those who did read some of it were usually strongly opposed to it.

When passed the Obamacare bill contained 381,517 obscure words and within three years an additional 11, 500,000 words were added in attempts to clarify and expand its powers. I supposed additional millions of words have been added since.

The bill did not have majority support when passed and has low support now. A Washington Post poll in June 2015 showed support at 39% and in October 2915 a Rasmussen poll showed support at just 32%.

If we eliminated the people from the poll who were getting highly subsidized insurance at the expense of the middle class then support would be much lower.

The New York Times found that more than half the plans offered through the federal Healthcare.gov exchange had deductibles of $3,000 or more. In some states, the median deductible was $5,000 or more.

Sky-high deductibles like that high used to come with extremely low premiums. But thanks to ObamaCare’s many rules and regulations and fees, such plans are a thing of the past.

The Times notes that an Albuquerque, N.M., woman pays $4,800 a year for a plan with a $6,000 deductible. Before ObamaCare, a plan with a $2,500 deductible was available in that state for just $1,625 a year, according to a Government Accountability Office review of pre-ObamaCare premiums.

LINK

If you have a social program where a third of the people get free stuff then almost all of that group will vote for a continuation of the freebies. On the other hand, it is theft for those who are getting the benefit without paying for it, to have the power to demand free stuff from those who work hard to earn the money and pay the taxes. Any social program should be supported by the majority of those who actually pay for it.

Right now almost half the people are receiving government benefits. If we reach a point where over half receive more than they pay in then the takers will have power to demand the givers to give more and more until the country unravels and collapses.

Not a good thing.

The solutions to these problems are presented in my book Fixing America and the core of the solution is presented online free HERE.

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE




Where Are the Masters?

This entry is part 21 of 34 in the series 2010B

Blayne writes:
I am wondering if there are many masters reincarnating or have already into this time period to help humanity through this rough patch? Or high level initiates at least?

Maybe it is just me but I feel something has to give soon and I have the feeling it is going to get pretty rough soon. I feel like the Korean problem while still volatile has passed its most dangerous point and is calming down.

Still unemployment is increasing rapidly despite politicians and media pundits claiming were in recovery and of course politicians are borrowing and spending like drunken sailors.

We Have riots in Europe and the UK as students are mad the government wants to cut back the education subsidies and make them pay more as governments all over the world are bankrupt and running the printing presses or credit card so to speak to pay the bills. And yes Australia too they just had more room to inflate then the US but are in the same boat and will catch up soon.

While it’s possible things could change nothing has and there is no indication any of the people that need to be the catalyst for change are even considering it. At some point the unemployment will reach a critical mass and then you will have a bunch of pissed off people with nothing left to lose.

I just feel people need to prepare for a time in the near future when there will be no jobs and food etc will be scarce. I don’t see it heading any other way. If something changes to save the day great but in the meantime were on our own for a good stretch and were going to have to reap what we have sown as a people I think.

Hate to be gloomy and I still have a strange optimism at the eventual outcome but the in between is not going to be fun and what we see now is just barely the tip of the iceberg. Thoughts?

JJ
Unless some turnaround occurs we are indeed headed toward financial catastrophe. One just has to do the math on the increasing interest payments we are making on our debt.

There are ways to turn things around and perhaps the only real solution will come from the people themselves as politicians seem to lose all touch with common sense after they get settled into office. The new crop shows some promise but we’ll have to wait and see.

Mentally it seems logical that I should be placing all my energy into organizing something to incorporate some of the changes I have written about but my soul tells me that the time is not quite right and wait for a season. I do not think the time is far off as more people are looking for solutions as time passes.

As to where the masters or initiates are it appears that not many high on the scale have entered politics as there doesn’t seen to be much light in he halls of Congress.

An amazing number thought that Obama was a master or high initiate. His ability to read a teleprompter well seemed to have misled many. Thankfully you and I were not among them. Now, even many of his supporters are coming to the conclusion that he is in way over his head.

So, if Obama was not a master or high initiate then where are they – or do such entities avoid politics completely?

If we want to find any initiates among politicians we must know what to look for. What kind of approach would be taken by a lofty soul who is in politics? The masters focus on the line of Love/Wisdom and can be found on the plane of the mind so a high initiate would use logic and reason tempered with love.

Anyone working with the forces of light would show these qualities.

(1) He or she would not support the idea of continually spending more money than we have and strapping the next generation with high interest payments.

(2) He would support the principle of freedom and thus work to run the country on the lowest possible tax rate giving people freedom to invest their own money.

(3) He would not seek for excessive regulation and quality of laws but only essential ones.

(4) He would not use the poor and unemployed to increase his power base but sincerely seek to assist them in ways that will get the willing back into productivity.

(5) He would be a true environmentalist. He would not use the environment as a weapon to increase political power or raise taxes but seek to aid the environment in common sense ways.

(6) He would not be black and white but willing to use the principle of judgment as situations change.

(7) If he is an initiate then he will be working on initiating something new.

That said – let me throw this out to the group.

First, do you agree with the above seven points? If not what criteria would you use?

Secondly, can you think of any one involved in politics who you think could be an agent for the Brotherhood of light?

If the answer is yes then why do you think this?

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2013, Part 8

This entry is part 8 of 25 in the series 2013

March 20, 2013

Aquaponics 

I came across something new that Blayne and some others may already know about. It’s called aquaponics. Here is a brief definition of it:

“Aquaponics is the combination of a Aquaculture and Hydroponics. In these semi-closed systems, water flows between a fish tank and a plant growing bed. The fish waste in the water is used to supply nutrients to the plants. The plants and micro-organisms clean the water that is returned to the fish tank. This provides a mutual beneficial environment for both the fish and the plants, and results in two crops (the fish and the plants).”

Benefits of aquaponics?

Aquaponics uses less than 5% of the water that traditional farming does.

Aquaponics is energy-efficient: our current systems use one-tenth of the energy conventional farming does!

Aquaponic produce can be grown year-round in almost any climate in an Aquaponic Solar Greenhouse

Aquaponics has eight to ten times more vegetable production in the same area and time.

Aquaponic systems with mosquito fish eradicate mosquitoes in a LARGE surrounding area!

Aquaponics is fully scalable from indoor systems to backyard family systems to full commercial systems.

Aquaponics is pure, clean, and natural: USDA Certified Organic and Food Safety Certified.

Aquaponics is easy to learn and operate: anyone can do this!

I first came across it in an internet infomercial ad that sold it on the idea of being a way to produce food for yourself if society were to have a total breakdown. I did some Googling and found several helpful links. Here is a youtube video that gives a good idea how the system works.

Here is a site that sells various systems.

And here is the infomercial I watched. It is interesting to listen to but fairly long:

They sell instructions to build your own system and supposedly save big bucks.

If anyone in the group has any knowledge or experience with this please share with us.

 

March 22, 2013

More Threats to Freedom Part 2 

This continues my treatise.

(5) The freedom of belief. Ryan Rotela attends a University in Florida and struggles to do well in classes as well as live his religion. Then one day he was put to the test.

His professor, Deandre Poole, who is also a Democrat party official, gave some strange commands to his class.

First, he told the students to take out a blank sheet of paper and write the word JESUS in bold letters. This order seemed strange to Ryan but he complied.

Next his teacher instructed them to place the piece of paper on the floor face up. This also seemed odd but Ryan complied.

Finally he ordered the students to stomp on the word Jesus in front of them.

This was too much for Ryan. He refused and picked up the sheet of paper instead.

He thought the order was outrageous and complained to school officials. Instead of reprimanding the professor they turned on Ryan and suspended him from the class.

Perhaps, even more disturbing than this was that Ryan was the only one who objected to stomping on Jesus.

Read the story here and watch the video.

This is just one of many examples that comes over the media of how the freedom to follow one’s own harmless beliefs are being threatened within our society. Here are a few:

Not only is prayer outlawed in schools but even the mention of God or Christ is largely prohibited. Some schools do not allow religious or even patriotic symbols to be worn. Kids have been sent home or chastised for wearing shirts bearing the American flag or even flag pins.

Nothing of a religious nature is allowed to be held on any public property. This was not the way the Founders interpreted the separation of church and state for in the early days of the Republic the local courthouse was often used for church and spiritual meetings of all kinds. Prayer was common everywhere and there were lots of Bibles in all schools. Even the hated early Mormon missionaries were often allowed to hold meetings in public property.

It ay be true that the State embraced religion a bit too much for the modern tastes of the majority, but now they have gone the other extreme and are acting as an agent to mold belief and suppress that which they deem undesirable.

Big brother decides that its sanctioned beliefs are to be presented and others are not thus restricting the free choice of students.

For instance, there are scientific arguments for and against Intelligent Design, but only one side is allowed, which is the atheist view.

The Powers-That-Be are big believers in orthodox climate change theory and again only seek to have one side presented.

Then the overwhelming majority of teachers and professors are Democrats and openly give their political views in class while the more conservative views are either ridiculed or penalized.

We are supposed to be living in a free society and in a free society there must be tolerance of people expressing their views and both sides presented. We must be allowed to live our spiritual lives without hindrance from the beast of unjust authority.

 

March 22, 2013

Re: The freedom of belief 

The problem here was not that the kid was merely ordered to stomp on a sheet of paper with words on it. Yes it is true that if one sees the paper in that way no harm is done. It wouldn’t be much different than stomping on a picture of Hitler or opening a book.

There are two things at play that you are overlooking.

(1) If faced with such an order few would look at the command as merely stomping on a sheet of paper. If ordered to stomp on Jesus, a picture of your kid, your wife or your mother, few would just see the exercise as just stomping on a sheet of paper.

The command would obviously be an affront to what 99% of humanity would consider decent and would be a humiliating thing to be forced to do.

(2) Secondly, even though I could take the viewpoint of the observer and see the thing as a mere piece of paper I would consider it an affront on my free agency and normal human respect. Most likely the teacher sees the representation of Jesus as being more than just ink – as something he wants to diminish. What is his motive here? Why Jesus – why not Mohammed, Obama or anyone else? Perhaps if he, being a Democrat, first demonstrated his open mindedness by stomping on a picture of Obama he would be somewhat justified in his class exercise.

I would consider it an insult to be forced to make the symbol of stomping on a representation of any human which is interpreted by all in the room as making a statement that this particular human has no value. I would refuse a silly command like this just for the principle of the thing.

 

March 23, 2013

Intelligent Design Questions 

—JJ— For instance, there are scientific arguments for and against Intelligent Design, but only one side is allowed, which is the atheist view. ——–

Nathan In order for an idea to be scientific, possibly the most important quality it must have is that it be falsifiable. Intelligent Design is not falsifiable (capable of being tested and proven true or false by experiment or observation). There is no experiment, test, or analysis you can make to reveal evidence that could challenge ID. This is mainly due to the fact that the elements of this “theory” are too vague, which is another reason why ID is not science. It is missing the “How does it work?” component. At most, ID belongs in a philosophy class, but not in science classes.

JJ It sounds like you are talking about the Big Bang which is considered valid scientific theory. It cannot be tested or proven true or false and not all scientists accept the theory. What caused the Big Bang is more vague than the Intelligent Design teaching and it is missing “How does it work?” According to your thinking this should be resigned to a philosophy class.

But it is not. Even though no scientist can demonstrate a Big Bang can happen with no intelligent direction it is still taught in our schools.

That pretty much destroys your reason Intelligent Design should be ignored as a cause.

Isaac Newton, acknowledged by most as the greatest scientist of all time believed that Intelligent Design is proven by observation which means he saw it as falsifiable. He believed that observation alone of the eye or the ear provided overwhelming evidence that an intelligent designer was at play.

Whenever I consider our bodies and how wonderful is their design I marvel at the fact that there can be even one human in existence, possessed with any intelligence at all, that cannot see that some intelligence was behind its creation.

As I said, if you stumble across an iPod in a forest would you assume the elements just came together on their own and created it? Would that be a scientific conclusion? I don’t think so.

There are good scientific arguments for Intelligent Design. A good book to read is “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen C. Meyer. He presents a lot more scientific evidence for intelligent Design than I have ever seen against it.

—JJ— The Powers-That-Be are big believers in orthodox climate change theory and again only seek to have one side presented. ——–

Nathan Remember weeks ago? I posted that article which showed that as far as the scientific community which studies this phenomenon goes, there really is only one side to this argument.

JJ That is an amazing statement concerning a subject with two definite sides. I’d say that 30,000 scientists signing a petition that disagrees with orthodox global warming theory definitely demonstrates there are two sides to the argument. Check this out:

Let’s review our dialog. Note that what the scientists you referenced agreed upon was not even part of the argument posed by skeptics.

You wrote: The Web of Science is a database with articles from a little over 10,000 academic journals. Of that entire database, 13,950 articles can be found on the subject of climate change. Only 23 articles reject global warming or reject global warming as a man-made phenomenon.

JJ I’m surprised they found 23 fitting their criteria which is: “To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming.”

Every knowledgeable skeptic including myself would have to side with the majority here. Of course, over the past century there has been warming and man made emissions has been a partial cause. The disagreement isn’t over this technicality but on how much of a cause CO2 is and whether the apocalyptic doctrines they promote are probable. Maybe we should worry more about being hit by an asteroid and concentrate more on preparing for that than global warming. After all, global warming has never destroyed most of the life on earth. (End Quote)

If the religious orthodox global warming political theory is taught in schools then the scientific skeptical side should also be presented. Otherwise, it is like teaching only addition in math class and never teaching the kids how to subtract.

As far as ideology affecting teaching, yes it happens on both sides but the Left has by far the majority of control here. I refer to a previous article on the subject.

 

One point to make is that Intelligent Design is different from what is called Creation Science. The latter usually assumes that the earth was created in six days and is less than 10,000 years old. This is not scientifically supportable. Intelligent Design merely states that there is strong evidence that life was created by a higher intelligence. This is in harmony with esoteric thought.

 

March 23, 2013

Re: The Freedom of Belief

Dan: Your point number (1) is answered in my original reply (and again above). I said that in the absence of additional information, _I_ PERSONALLY would look at it that way and didn’t find it all that disturbing _BUT_ (essentially) that others might and I could understand that.

JJ Let me put it this way. Actions are communication symbols just as words are. To stomp on a picture or name is to issue a statement that this person is despised and hated.

Now let us say that the paper contained a picture of your mother and you were ordered at one time to stomp on it and at another time to state before the class that you despise and hate your mother.

What is the difference?

Nothing.

If you love your mother this means you are being asked to lie or make an untrue statement a thing which goes against the code of any disciple.

If it were the name of Jesus, Mohammed or even Obama I would not do it because I do not hate any of them.

If there was some greater purpose involved I could see the image as just a piece of paper or the words as just vibrations but that would be a rare circumstance.

On the other hand, many in the Middle East burn the American flag in disrespect and are being honest because they really do hate us.

Dan: Well, then I must hate/despise not only my mother but most of the rest of my family to include myself 🙂

There are a bunch of framed photographs on my livingroom wall of me, my mother, brothers and several other family members.

I regularly shoot these pictures between the eyes with my handgun/laser for trigger control practice, maintaining a proper sight picture, practicing stance, draw and etc.

I’m sure a psychiatrist would have a field day!

JJ I’m sure you do not see shooting a harmless laser at family photos in the same light as an ex wife burning or stomping on her husband’s photos as far as communication goes. On the other hand, it would be different if a beastly authority ordered you to shoot with either a laser or a bullet a picture of Marcie between the eyes as an acknowledgement of what you or he you think of her. I think the guy in the class felt that stomping on Jesus was an acknowledgement that Jesus was a worthless dude.

 

March 24, 2013

Thinking Makes It So

Dan’s comments on Jesus and shooting pictures reminds me of a scene from Hamlet by Shakespeare:

Hamlet: What have you, my good friends, deserv’d at the hands of Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither?

Guildenstern: Prison, my lord?

Hamlet: Denmark’s a prison.

Rosencrantz: Then is the world one.

Hamlet: A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o’ th’ worst.

Rosencrantz: We think not so, my lord.

Hamlet: Why then ’tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.

Is it true that thinking determines whether a thing is good or bad?

In what context would it be true and when would it be false?

 

March 25, 2013

Was Jesus Wrong?

Tom writes: How can Jesus Christ be wrong about the mustard seed? If he was really a 6th degree initiative then why did he not know there was seeds smaller then a mustard seed that can be sown?

JJ This is certainly not something I would lose sleep over no matter who said it for the purpose of the conversation was not to find the smallest seed on the earth but to illustrate how the Kingdom of God will begin as a small thing and grow into something great.

A problem with analyzing this is we do not know the exact words that Jesus used when referring to the mustard seed. The Gospels were written down from memory decades after Jesus spoke the words and who knows how accurate they are.

Your post quoted from Mark as follows:

Mark 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: Mark 4:32 But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

On the other hand, Luke words the account quite differently: Luke 13:18 Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? Luke 13:19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

Notice that in Luke’s account that Jesus said nothing about the size of the seed. It is quite possible that this is closer to his original words and other writers just embellished what he said.

But what if Jesus did say that the mustard seed is the smallest. This was a logical presentation as far as I can see for the mustard seed with the smallest seed with which the people were familiar. If he had identified the true smallest seed in the world the people would have been confused and the parable would not have had much meaning.

But the black mustard seed (Brassica nigra = Sinapis nigra) was the smallest seed ever sown by a first-century farmer in that part of the world according to some scholars.

Whatever the case, the mustard seed was probably the smallest seed that Jesus knew about and the contrast between its beginning and end made for a good example to illustrate the truth of his thinking.

Jesus probably didn’t have a clue as to what the real smallest seed on earth was. Neither do I and I do not care.

 

March 26, 2013

Re: Thinking Makes It So 

The questions: Is it true that thinking determines whether a thing is good or bad?

In what context would it be true and when would it be false?

We’ve had lots of good comments on this assignment – too many for me to comment on so I’ll just add a few of my own.

The individual’s thinking definitely determines whether a thing is good or evil in his own mind and thinking.

For instance, the teacher that ordered his students to stomp on the name of Jesus thought it was a good thing to do.

On the other hand, the student who resisted had different thoughts. He saw this as a bad thing to do.

The only difference in how the two people saw good or evil in the act was determined by their thought.

This principle also applies to groups. For instance, the Nazis as a group thought that it was a good thing to exterminate the Jews. On the other hand, the Jews had a different outlook. They definitely saw their persecution and extermination as very evil.

So Shakespeare was correct as far as good or evil is interpreted by individual or group consciousness.

Now we need to look at the bigger picture and ask if the Nazis belief that killing Jews as being a good thing really meant that it was a good thing to do?

To understand the answer we must define the principle of good and evil. We have previously defined good as that which moves us forward in our spiritual progression and freedom and evil that which takes us backward.

Therefore, the Nazis were definitely doing an evil act, even though they thought it was good. Taking an innocent life interferes with the path of the soul whose life is taken and the one taking the life suffers loss of soul contact and gains karma.

Now let us apply this to the assignment to stomp on Jesus. One thing that interferes with spiritual progression is to interfere with free will. For the students in the class who cared less about Jesus there was no problem. They could stomp on the name of Jesus, have a good laugh and their free will would not be infringed. On the other hand, the teacher’s command violated Ryan’s free will as the idea of disrespecting his messiah was repugnant to him and the teacher had to know that some would feel this way. This violation of free will puts his command in the evil category.

Let us suppose that the whole class was composed of atheists who didn’t care about Jesus. Would the order to stomp on his name be good, bad or neutral?

In this case it would not be nearly as bad as the violation of free will but stomping on the name of an honorable person is a sign of disrespect. The teacher is assisting in conditioning the students to not respect good people and if this happens on a large scale civilization deteriorates placing such actions in the evil category. It may be slightly evil if done infrequently but could lead to a great evil if people are conditioned with hate and disrespect over and over.

 

March 26, 2013

Good Grief 

As if the university is not making a big enough fool of themselves they are now adding further disciplines to Ryan who was ordered to stomp on Jesus. This kid is providing good PR for Mormons who are looked upon as not believing in Jesus by many Christians.

 

March 29, 2013

Re: Pregnancy (or not) & Intention 

Sarah asks: How can I control whether I conceive or not with no traditional contraception?

JJ First, most are familiar with the Rhythm method. This doesn’t require any extra sensory perception and is not 100% reliable.

What you are referring to is the process of tuning into your body so you can tell when it is ready to conceive or not conceive. If the seekers are tuned into their bodies during sex they can tell when a conception will occur and if they do not want a baby they can avoid impregnation.

There are two problems with this.

First, this method of tuning in is taught nowhere of which I am aware so the seeker is left on his own to perfect it.

Secondly, even if you believe in and like the concept you have no guarantee that you will have control over conception. Before this occurs the seeker must practice tuning into his body. One thing you can do is when you decide you want to get pregnant try to tune into your body when having sex and attempt to registe5r the moment when conception occurs. When you realize what this feels like you have made a large advance in the direction of being sensitive enough to control your time of conception.

Since there are not normally a lot of time periods where one is trying to get pregnant one must practice sensitivity in other areas. One way to increase body sensitivity is to pay attention to all things you eat and take into your body. This includes food, food supplements, vitamins, herbs, beverages and medicines. Shortly after you ingest something, especially if you haven’t had it for a while, see if you can tune into how your body is responding to it. Does it like it or not? Is your sense of well being greater or less?

Until the seeker becomes confidently sensitive he or she is better off using conventional birth control means. If a copper Paraguard IUD is causing problems I would switch to something else.

You might want to talk with your doctor and tell him you want to switch to another method and see what he recommends. Also google something like “safe birth control” and lots of things will come up.

In the coming age classes will be taught hat will assist students in tuning into their bodies and assuming greater control but for now we all have to plow with the horses we have.

Good luck.

 

March 30, 2013

Interesting Articles 

I read a couple interesting articles today. Take a look:

How the Massacre of 40,000 Elephants Could Lead to the End of Global Warming

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE