The Principle of Freedom, Part 4

The Principle of Freedom, Part 4

Let Freedom Ring

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

THE FATE OF THE SIGNERS OF THE DECLARATION OF INDEPENDENCE.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The words of Isaiah are fitting here:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

June 20, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Distortion of Good

The Distortion of Good

We have had some thought provoking posts on freedom illustrating flaws on the left and the right. It sounds like many of you identify with the Libertarian Party. Their philosophy does indeed support the true principle of freedom much more than the two mainstream parties (in the US) and many by their talk seem to believe its principles, but by their walk often betray them.

The trouble with the Libertarian Party is that their principles are too big of a leap for the average freedom lover and that is one reason they often get less than 1% of the vote.

What we are looking for is the principle that should govern freedom for an enlightened people.

The basic problem in seeing the principle was worded well by Lawrence:

“Imagine a line extending off in two directions. Label one side “Left” and the other side “Right”. On the “Left” side we have the people who want to use force to implement their view of fairness, e.g., universal healthcare, economic equity, etc. On the “Right” side we have very similar people who want to use force to ensure morality, e.g., ban abortions, flag burning, and instill family values and democracy, at the point of an assault rifle if necessary.”

Both sides see certain ideals that they consider “right” and “good” and then unfortunately are willing to restrict freedom in others to achieve that goal.

Djwhal Khul made an interesting statement about disease that applies to our social ills.

“Disease, both physical and psychological, has its roots in the good, the beautiful and the true. It is but a distorted refection of divine possibilities. The thwarted soul, seeking full expression of some divine characteristic or inner spiritual reality, produces within the substance of its sheaths a point of friction. Upon this point the eyes of the personality are focussed, and this leads to disease.”

This Fourth Law of Healing not only applied to disease of the physical body, but also to the problems of humanity as a whole.

Let us take a system that did cause pain and suffering to its people such as communism in the Soviet Union before its collapse. Most of us would agree that this was not a very desirable system. Even so, it had its roots in “the good, the beautiful and the true.” And what was that? Its two main ideas were equality and sharing. Is there anything wrong with these two principles? No. Not at all. In fact they are two ideals that the Brotherhood of Light are attempting to steer humanity toward.

If equality and sharing are two great ideals why then was the USSR seen as the “evil empire” and the source of so much pain and suffering imposed upon its own people? They presented the ideal of equality and sharing, yet there was little equality or a sense of true sharing there. The evil capitalists actually shared more value in wealth and the poor among them were in good shape compared to some average Russians.

What then was the root cause of their failure?

The answer is quite simple.

Instead of teaching men to do good and allowing good works to spring forth through free will Communism attempted to implement the “good” by the use of force. This is a negative principle believed in by the Dark Brothers which could be stated thus: “Restrict freedom of others (the decision makers excluded) to whatever degree necessary to create the desired end.”

Even Hitler had many ideals he and others considered good such as family values, sexual purity, a powerful government to prevent injustice, higher education made available to all and of course the evolution of Germans into supermen.

Now let me make an all important point here. The problem with Germany was NOT the belief it had in any of its ideals. Instead the problem was that they took action to impose their value of “good” on others through the use of force.

In an atmosphere of freedom that which is truly good and usable will manifest as a plant growing from a seed, but in an atmosphere of restriction even the most wonderful of all seeds cannot sprout and grow, but will suffocate and die.

Thus the philosophy that has come out of Nazism or Communism poses very little threat in an atmosphere of freedom. It is in the imposition by force of an idea of good that negates the growth of the good and nourishes the exact opposite of the desired end.

Let us suppose that you were an idealistic vegetarian and became supreme dictator of the United States. Now you have all this power you think you finally have a chance to “make a difference” and seek to make people do the right thing. You issue a decree that meat eating is against the law and anyone who kills an animal gets life in prison. You also outlaw all hunting and fishing. There. That ought to do it. Now everyone will live the good life as you do and will live happily ever after. Right?

Not quite. Overnight the value of beef cattle goes down to close to zero and ranchers have no means or desire to take care of them. Within a month millions of cattle are starving to death, breaking out of their fenced areas, and getting hit by cars.

Pigs become an even greater nuisance. At least we can get milk from cows but now pigs have nothing to offer and within 90 days the entire species is threatened.

To solve the problem you start up government subsidy programs to take care of neglected farm animals. This puts a great strain on the economy and soon you see that you are very close to economic collapse.

This problem is amplified by great numbers of the most productive citizens leaving the US to live in other countries where they have the freedom to eat meat. To solve this problem you close the doors to those wanting to leave. Even so, many risk their lives to escape to foreign countries.

You are outraged by this and demand that Europe and England return the fugitives so they can be shot as traitors. They refuse so you go to war for three “good” reasons.

(1) To retrieve and punish the traitors.

(2) To “convert” Europe and England to the vegetarian way of life. The slogan your armies are indoctrinated with is “free Europe!”

(3) War will take everyone’s mind off the bad economy and when the war is won you can tax the defeated nations and thus insure continued prosperity for your country.

After the war begins, France in desperation detonates a nuclear device in Washington hoping to kill you and end the madness. Fortunately for you, you were visiting friends in Hollywood and yet live to promote your cause. You now launch a full scale nuclear attack and destroy half the population in Europe. All the other nations of the world no longer are neutral but combine together as one force to fight against you and defeat you. The saying abroad is that you make Hitler look like Mother Teresa.

This just angers you and increases your determination to prevail.

As the war that may end all life on the planet rages on one thought goes through your mind. You cry as you think this thought because the world so misunderstands you.

“Can’t these people see that I just want to help them and save the animals at the same time? Why don’t they see the love that I have to offer? When I win this war (and I don’t even believe in war) I will make things right and a great era a peace and brotherhood will manifest. Then they will understand that I only mean to do good.”

The trouble is that millions of animals that you hoped to save are dying painful deaths through radiation poisoning even as you think these good thoughts.

Fortunately for the world there are no idealists who have supreme power over a major nation. This may seem like an unrealistic parable to you, but let me assure you that there are many idealists that would indeed unleash great misery on human kind if they had the power to restrict freedom.

I once attended a dinner where the founders of a well known environmentalist group were the speakers. I was horrified at some of their beliefs and even more so at the approval they received from the audience.

They advocated the attainment of political power so they would be able to force people out of their homes in major cities and turn them back to their pristine condition so the wild animals could multiply as they did before Columbus.

I wondered when I heard people clapping for them if they realized that Boise was on their group and that if those they were cheering had power that the audience themselves would become homeless and starving.

If we truly want to see the Aquarian Age evolve along positive lines the people will need to exercise common sense in an atmosphere of freedom.

May 27, 2000

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

What is the Soul?

11/12/1999

What is the Soul?

The Bible states that God breathed the breath of life into Adam and he became a living soul.

On the other hand, the word soul is often used synonymously with Spirit, or that which leaves our body at death. Other teachers use it when referring to our Higher Self.

Soul, in a way is that point of oneness that many have referred to. Soul energy occurs when spirit interplays with matter. Thus when God placed Spirit in matter and there was interplay soul (or living soul) was the result. Soul is that point by the sea where land and water meet which is neither wet not dry, but where wet and dry interlay.

Our Higher Self as well as the Masters use the medium of soul as a means of communication with us. Thus when a disciple says he has received something through or from the soul it could be from either his higher self or a Master.

The internet is an imperfect correspondent to the soul. When we say we received something from the Internet you did not really receive it from the Internet. In reality the Internet is a medium with no form. You really received the information from another person through the medium of the Internet. In the same way a disciple is likely to say he receives from the soul when he really receives through the soul from some higher intelligence.

When a regular writer talks about the soul you must examine the context in which he uses it so you can follow his train of thought. As I said, soul is often used interchangeably with a number of things, but a spiritual internet medium is perhaps the most common used by disciples.

There are two main aspects of soul. The first is that spiritual medium that links us to higher lives. The second and not so well understood is the interplay between spirit and matter within the atomic lives who are so evolved on their own plane that they oscillate between spirit and matter and thus create the energy of soul that builds and maintains the forms for the greater lives. This knowledge will be expanded upon in the future.

Question: What is the best way to deal with problem children who seem to inherit negative patterns?

I believe that it is true that we pick up negative influences and programming – something like implanted hypnotic suggestions and they have a strong influence over many. Beyond traditional therapy, the way to overcome these influences is through mental development and then soul contact. The mind can learn to recognize negative influences and override them, but the soul can bypass them completely allowing the soul infused personality to live his life as if there is no past that can control voluntary action.

The short answer is that the best thing one can do with children is to guide them as close as possible toward the spiritual life.

Comments on Nations

Nations are great individual entities and are a lot like people and as such are responsible for their own destiny just as you and I are. It is true that some other nations attempt to influence them negatively just as other people try to influence you and I. Nevertheless, I do not blame anyone but myself for my mistakes. Nations also must take responsibility for whatever situation they find themselves in.

I’m sure that Russia and China are as nervous about the U.S. and NATO as we are about them. Therefore we should take action to increase stability.

If the people of a nation are willing to follow the path of least resistance which allows for totalitarianism then their consciousness will draw it to themselves no matter what form of government exists on paper. Thus, if they did not have communism as a totalitarian government they would have had some type of monarch or dictator which would have restricted freedoms in the same way.

There are some nations which have a democratic government on paper but in reality they have totalitarian dictatorships because their consciousness is not prepared for freedom.

At present I am concerned about the U.S., UK and Europe for their sense of freedom is being dumbed down creating a dangerous situation for ourselves. The price of freedom is eternal vigilance.

I believe a representative or democratic form of government is a big leap forward over totalitarian regimes. Never in history has a stable democratic country made war with another one. Even though the U.S. irritates France and the French sometimes irritate us there is close to zero chance we will ever nuke each other. This would only be a danger if one of us had some type of dictator surface. Freedom respects freedom. Our nations are not perfect, but there is enough freedom to create stability between us.

I do believe that the United States Constitution is a light to the world, but this document also owes a great debt to England and France as well as some inspiration from Indian tribal government.

When my nation does something right, I will support them, and there are some things they do which is beneficial to the world. But when my nation goes in the wrong direction I will not support it just because I happen to live here.

As far as Hollywood goes. It is not all bad either. They gave us Yoda.

I stand by my statements on Russia and China. I did not call them evil, but dangerous. Russia is experimenting with democracy just as Germany was before World War II. They also have many political parties vying for leadership just as Germany did making it possible for a fringe group to take control as the Nazis did in Germany. If I remember right Hitler only received 23% of the vote. If a majority were required he could have never become chancellor.

China is dangerous because the leadership there would like to take Taiwan back by force if necessary. If this first aggression were to occur the leadership of both the U.S. and France may feel it necessary to go to war. Without a first aggression there would never be a second one. There is about a 50/50 chance China will make a first aggression here and that my friend is a dangerous situation.

All for one…

The fourth Ray is very strong in this group. This is the Ray governing the principle of harmony through conflict. This fourth ray along with the fifth governs humanity itself and is the primary ray influencing the whole of Planet Earth. This is one of the reasons that we humans have such difficulty escaping its influence. The goal of the Brotherhood at present is not to eliminate all conflicts, but to shift the center of conflict from the physical plane to the astral and mental. Once this is accomplished we will at least escape the danger of blowing ourselves up.

Nevertheless, in the coming age of peace, primary conflicts will be eliminated from the physical plane, but they will be intensified on higher planes. The interesting thought about all this will be that there will be some realization that harmony is derived from conflict and the lights of the race will see harmony as the end of all enlightened conflicts. Some of those who lack spiritual vision will wonder when all the peace is supposed to break out.

Nevertheless, if the age of peace unfolds as planned it will be a great improvement over what we have today.

Today many look back at Columbus and the early explorers, the founders of the U.S. Constitution and other innovative thinkers and find much fault with them because they did not seem to stand up for some of the things we consider today as “good.” But a 1000 years from now humanity will look back at us and wonder why we lived in such a veil of ignorance and followed the current beast with such non thinking obedience.

All historical initiates must be judged by the times they lived in just as it is hoped we will be.

Acceptance

Having a completely open and inclusive list such as this has it’s place, but having a true teaching situation where everyone wants to learn is also a positive thing. In order to have a positive situation where the concentration is on learning then others who wish only to teach and those who do not wish to learn must be excluded.

Exclusion is not always a bad thing. It also has it’s positive aspect.

When DK did his work through Alice A. Bailey he selected 50 students and excluded all the rest of the aspirants. Then when a student caused a problem he dropped them from the group. This was necessary for him to accomplish his work.

Nevertheless, to be inclusive to the highest possible degree is always the goal and for this cause I stay in this group and encourage openness to all. This prevents the exclusion of a true seeker who may be overlooked by an exclusive list.

On the other hand, those who merely seek to learn and don’t want to deal with conflict will have a place to go.

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

 

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 the famous statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Today the 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 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.
http://listverse.com/2015/08/25/10-most-absurd-things-to-ban-on-politically-correct-college-campuses/

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. They are demanding that conservative commentators not be allowed speak on campus. Make America great hats are called symbols of hate and those who wear them are attacked or banned.

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 lean 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 2015 Rasmussen poll revealed 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 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 not for hunting, but 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.

DK Quotes on freedom:

For the first time in human history, the lines of demarcation between that which is right from the angle of the spiritual values (the essential freedom of the human spirit) and that which is wrong (the imprisonment of the human spirit by materialistic conditions) are clearly perceived by the majority of the nations of the planet. (Understanding of Humanity after WW II) Discipleship in the New Age Vol II, Page 220

“The freedom of humanity and the liberation of its power to be self-determining (which is an aspect of freedom) has become the dearest ideal and the best thought of the thinkers in all nations. In the last analysis, it is this interference with individual and group freedom which is the worst sin of the evil men.” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 266

Nothing of true value is to be gained by any arbitrary or autocratic activity on the part of the spiritual Hierarchy. That is one of the lessons to be learnt, as the work of the totalitarian powers—in the past and today—and its effects are noted. Under the totalitarian system, freedom is curtailed or abolished, the free will of the individual is denied and prevented expression, the individual is regarded as the appurtenance of the all-powerful State and held in that position by police regimentation; individual development is of value only in so far as the interests of the State are served, but the individual himself—as an independent divine unit of humanity—is non-existent, from the totalitarian point of view. Would you, therefore, have the spiritual Hierarchy of our planet work along totalitarian lines, enforcing peace and comfort, taking steps to arrest evil by force and working for the material well-being of men? Or would you have the Masters lead humanity itself, through right understanding, to take the needed action, even if it involves trial and error and a much slower process? Would you have mankind standing on its own feet as intelligent agents of the divine Plan? Or would you have them treated as irresponsible children who must be energetically protected against themselves? Is it not better for the rapidly awakening intelligence and activity of men (in every land) to be trained to recognise the essential unity of all human beings, and so be led to take the action needed which will endorse that unity, which will work for the entire group of human beings in all lands everywhere, and which will also and at the same time preserve the individual and the national cultures, alongside a universal civilisation and a world-wide system of divine recognition? It is toward this general freedom and the intelligent activity of the free individual that the Hierarchy is steadily and successfully working; the concept of unity and of united activity for the good of all is far more widely grasped and understood than you perhaps realise. The totalitarian approach works toward an imposed unity and one which will include all peoples and bind them down to a uniformity of belief—politically, economically and socially—and which will and does basically ignore the spiritual values, putting the State in the place of that divine spiritual centre where spiritual reality is to be found. Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pages 670-671

“The material goal which all who love their fellowmen and serve the Hierarchy must ever have in mind and at heart is the defeat of totalitarianism. I do not say the defeat of Communism, but the defeat of that evil process which involves the imposition of ideas, and which can be the method of the democratic nations and of the churches everywhere, just as much as it is the method of the U.S.S.R. This we call totalitarianism. I would ask you to have this distinction clearly in your minds. Your material goal is the defeat of all that infringes human free will and which keeps humanity in ignorance; it applies equally to any established system—Catholic or Protestant—which imposes its concepts and its will upon its adherents. Totalitarianism is the basis of evil today; it is found in all systems of government, of education; it is found in the home and in the community. I refer not here to the laws which make group relations sound, possible and right; such laws are essential to community and national well-being and are not totalitarian in nature. I refer to the imposition of the will of the few upon the total mass of the people. The defeat of this undesirable tendency everywhere is your definite material goal. Externalization of the Hierarchy,” Page 701

“Freedom is an essentially spiritual attribute, underlying the entire evolutionary process; this should always be remembered as a strengthening and conditioning reality by all men everywhere. It has survived aeons of opposition from the principle of enslaving selfishness and is largely responsible, at this time, for the struggle in which we are all participating.” Rays and Initiations, Page 428

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