The Seeker’s Guide to Soul Contact, Part 12

Day 115

The Intelligent Designer

The beast of unjust authority does all it can to insure that only one side is represented and presented – his side. When the choice is between light and dark he will be against the light and support the dark. In addition, he will be against freedom and support suppression, against truth and support distortion, against God and for atheism.

The irony is that the beast will claim to be a champion of light, truth and freedom. and many fall for this illusion while he subtly subverts them all.

As far as belief goes the beast controls both ends of the spectrum. He convinces those who believe in God that his agents speak for God and can tell followers what God wants them to do and believe. Those who do not believe still seek authority and he delivers it through other belief systems such as one where the state replaces God.

In modern times society has been moving away from many illogical religious beliefs and the beast has been adapting. After all, his ultimate goal is to have his representatives be the final authority in all things and in this any real contact with God or the soul is to be shunned as fantasy.

The beast has been quite successful in securing his authoritative system in our educational enterprise. His first line of attack is to suppress any teaching or belief in God, especially as the Creator. This is done in the name of fairness, in that it would be unfair to present one religious belief over another. It is also done in the name of science. Representatives of the beast tell us that any belief in God is not logical or scientific.

Therefore when students learn about theories of creation they only hear one side – whatever is accepted by the authorities of the state.

The beast is playing off the accepted and just idea that it would not be productive to mix religious indoctrination with education. Parents do not want their kids being preached to at school. But a basic belief in a creator is a common thread running through all religions and is much more prevalent than atheism. Around 90% of Americans believe in an Intelligent Designer yet any talk of such an intelligence is forbidden to be discussed in our public schools and universities. If any teacher brings up the subject of intelligent design he is likely to lose is job.

The beast has been very successful in eliminating any debate or consideration of intelligent design in our schools and presenting a very distorted image of what is sought for. What is sought for by fair minded believers is, not to present religion, but to present the science and logic of both sides of the equation.

For instance, the human cell is more complex than the most advanced computer and is as full of industry as a large city. There are many pieces that fit together like a light bulb in a socket.

Scientific theory tells us that something much more complex than a light bulb could just come together by natural means given a long enough time. But to make the bulb functional you have to have a socket to screw it into. They say this could also be naturally assembled over a long period of time.

But here is the really tricky thing. How could two complex pieces independently evolve that would perfectly fit together so the light bulb could precisionly screw into the socket. When you think about it this simple fit couldn’t just materialize in a billion or a trillion years without an intelligent hand at work. Even when the two pieces do fit the bulb will not work unless supplied with electricity. Many units in the cell have pieces fitting together which are supplied with electrical current.

The presentation of the scientific evidence for intelligence at work in creation is just as legitimate as standard scientific theory.

It is strange that intelligence in creation is so difficult for educators to accept when we see ironclad proof of it every day of our lives.

And where is the proof? Look in the mirror. Humans are intelligent and they create lots of things. If we are intelligence in matter that creates then why not consider that there is an intelligence in the universe itself that creates?

We would have a much more enlightened educational system if both sides of controversial ideas are presented and discussed.

Assignment: Ask yourself this question: “Does my Higher Self support giving credit to Divine Intelligence for the life I see around me?”

Affirmation: “I choose to see the hand of God.”

 

Day 116

Resist Dumbing Down

The beast was unable to stop the tide flowing toward universal education so he decided to lead the parade rather than continue fighting it. To continue his base of power he needs a high degree of ignorance. Since the public insists on education his solution is for his agents to be seen as champions of education while deflecting students away from learning useful information that will lead to true independent thinking.

The beast has two lines of attack to insure maximum ignorance.

The first is to dumb down courses so important facts and true principles are filtered out. The goal is for the kids to be “ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.”

Those who watched the Jay Leno interviews of the past and Jessie Watters and others in the present see that a high degree of ignorance has been achieved.

History in particular is under attack because we must learn from the past to avoid making the same mistakes over endlessly. The power of the beast depends on us repeating the same mistakes over and over so history is a subject that is under constant attack and revision.

I’ve watched TV personalities interviewing college students and asking them simple questions about which they were clueless. Many did not know who we fought during World War II, who fought in the Civil War or which century they were in. They did not know who we fought in the Revolutionary War or the time period involved. Others did not know who the vice president was.

Some think those interviews must be fake, but research has revealed they are not. Common Core did a poll a while back that revealed that around 40% of our students are just as deficient in history and political knowledge as the humorous interviews illustrated. For instance, 57% of the students didn’t have a clue as to the time period the Civil War was fought and 25% thought that Columbus discovered America after 1750. Even more disturbing is that 44% did not know the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Schools are switching way from the crucial events in history to politically correct ones. Some are advocating the ignoring of history before there Civil War. Our colleges are offering questionable courses that divert the kids from real learning such as:

  • “What If Harry Potter Is Real?”
  • “Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame”
  • “Philosophy And Star Trek”
  • “How To Watch Television”

In addition to diverting students away from real learning the students are spending much less time in study than in the past. They spend about 50% less time in individual study than they did a few decades ago.

The beast has been particularly interested in dumbing down the United States since it is the major power in the world that can stop the various tyrannies from spreading.

American students rank 17th in reading, 26th in math and 21st in science worldwide.

That is a sad state of affairs for the nation that put a man on the moon way back in 1969.

Perhaps a sign that more dumbing down is on the horizon is a new book coming out spearheaded by Professor Rochelle Gutierrez at the University of Illinois with collaboration of 40 educators promoting the idea that math is racist and a product of white privilege. “Mathematics itself operates as Whiteness,” she says. She tells us that we need to move away from recognizing excellence in math toward more subtle types of reasoning. It is strange she is critical of white students who are good at math when many Asian and Indian students excel even more.

She doesn’t seem to realize that none of our electronic devices we love so much would be available if we did not have many people of numerous races doing the math necessary for their creation.

Fortunately, there are several bright spots in education for those who desire to bypass the authority of the beast and excel in learning. While it is true that the internet and social media is a big distraction for many a few students are using it for research and learning. If one wants to learn he can find just about anything.

Extra systematic learning is there to be had for free or a reasonable cost.

A great free source is the Khan Academy. Students who need greater understanding of their materials or just want to branch out and learn can choose from hundreds of classes. Currently they have over 40 million students world wide and haven’t dumbed down their math at all. Salman Khan, the founder, is a non white of Indian heritage.

Assignment: I mentioned that there were two avenues of attack by the beast directed at education. The dumbing down of teaching is one. What do you suppose the other is?

Affirmation: “I learn that which I decide – not that which is decided for me.”

 

Day 117

A One-Sided Situation

Another line of attack used by the beast to maintain authority is the suppression of points of views that do not support his plan.

We have already mentioned that he suppresses any type of education that even mentions a creator in a positive light. The beast is also very one sided in his allowance of political views.

Now keep in mind that his main goal is to exert controlling authority over the souls of humanity and in the past has used both believers and non believers as well as both sides of the political spectrum to further his agenda to restrict freedom for all but his appointed authorities. Therefore, at any point in time we must examine where the suppression lies to see where his plan of attack is taking us.

When we look at statistics the direction is quite obvious.

When looking at the dominance of the left and right or Republicans and Democrats we see that Democrats dominate in education from the beginning of a students education. Among Preschool teachers 75% are Democrats and 26% Republicans. This dominance increases at the elementary level to 85% for Democrats and 15% Republicans. Then in High School there are 87% Democrats and only 13% Republicans.

If these numbers seem lopsided take a look at the dominance in our universities. The Econ Journal Watch in Sept 2016 published a study that looked at at faculty voter registration at 40 leading universities. It discovered that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is 11.5 to 1. The balance gets real crazy when we get to history professors where the ratio is 33.5 to 1. This is a disturbing trend when we discover that in 1968 the ratio was 2.7 to 1. The number of Democrats in domination has multiplied over a dozen times since then. A change like this would appear to be something engineered rather than a natural evolution.

This extreme dominance gives the left power to shape history in the minds of the students any way desired, and from studies of students’ knowledge of history it seems that they are not learning the same facts concerning real events as did their parents. What has happened has been a turning aside from regular historical studies to explore history related to politically correct trends at the sacrifice of a dispassionate study of major figures and events.

If these ratios were reversed we would still have problems for whenever you get such an imbalance bias and distortion creeps in.

This has shown up in our universities by the suppression of conservatives.

Some Republican students fear for their safety and good grades and find that they have to restrain themselves from talking politics as well as pretend to their teachers that they agree with them.

Conservative speakers are often not approved and if they do get an opportunity to speak they must be accompanied by massive security and are often shouted down.

For instance, in February 2017 the Berkeley College Republicans invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak but the event was abruptly canceled when masked left-wing anarchists rioted outside the event to shut it down. Then in April threats of violence shut down an Ann Coulter speech

Berkeley received quite a bit of criticism for this since, in the past it was seen as a bastion of free speech.

Then in September 2017 a Jewish conservative, Ben Shapiro was invited to speak by the college Republicans. You wouldn’t think he would have been much of a problem for the school as he is mild mannered, has a good reputation and as no scandals attached. He even worked against he election of Trump which should have scored him some points there. Even so intolerance showed itself and threats of violence surfaced. It turned out that the school had to spend about $600,000 on security for the event and still 9 students were arrested, three of them with weapons.

This shutting down of conservative speakers has been the most newsworthy problem created by one-sided dominance in education, but there are others. Reflect on what they may be and we will continue.

Affirmation: “I must look at both sides of an argument to see the whole truth.”

 

Day 118

The Controlling Agenda

One of the most effective tactics of the beast is to shut down free speech and debate. He picks a point of view, promotes it through his appointed authorities and tries to destroy anyone who challenges it. It matters not to him whether his doctrine is true or false. What matters is that it is not questioned. As a result a hodgepodge of material that is a mixture of truth and fiction is put in circulation.

The important thing is that the authorities in charge make this mixture appeal to the emotions of the masses so they can feel good supporting it while ridiculing those who may question.

From elementary through high school numerous one-sided views are promoted until the students arrive at college. It is here that the most powerful authorities rule who are not checked by parents and local school boards. Here is where there beast has the chance to place the final nail in the coffin of independent thinking.

This is disturbing for our universities of higher learning were once considered bastions of independent thought and debate. Now if anyone steps out of line they are accused of “micro aggression.” Students are now demanding “safe places” where they will be free from hearing any opinions not sanctioned by the beast.

We recently discussed a topic under the control of the beast which concerns the spiritual side of life and God. No consideration of God or Spirit is considered being open to serious discussion by the beast and his agents. If they are discussed at all it is with ridicule.

One example that illustrates the disrespect of the agents of the beast toward the spiritual happened at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. In an Intercultural Communications course Professor Deandre Poole ordered his students to write the word “Jesus” in bold letters on a sheet of paper, then place it on the floor, stand up and stomp on it.

Amazingly, only one student had the fortitude to defy the authority of the beast. Ryan Rotela, a Christian, questioned the action, and for refusing to cooperate and questioning the correctness of such an action, he was thrown out of the class.

The professor said he was merely following instructions in the textbook and had done it before so the question arises as to how many times this happened before one student voiced an objection.

Because of the publicity the professor received harsh criticism and the exercise was discontinued but every day many subtle attacks are made toward any spiritual belief in our halls of learning and students dare not contradict them, not only for fear of a bad grade, but fear of scorn from fellow classmates.

The beast is extremely adamant that only one side of the global warming debate be presented in the halls of learning. Any teacher who presents information to the contrary is risking his job and career.

The idea presented is that manmade climate change is an established fact so it is crazy to even consider another point of view. It would be like presenting evidence that the earth is flat, they say.

This is a false comparison as well as calling skeptics climate change deniers. This is silly for no one denies that climate changes. In addition many scientists doubt that man made climate changes poses the threat presented by orthodoxy. In the first 10 months of 2017 there have been 400 scientific papers presented that challenge orthodox theory. Here is a quote from the meteorologist Anthony Watts:

“During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

“These 400 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes. Climate science is not settled.

“Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.”

LINK

As it turns out those who take the orthodox approach work under the strong authority of the beast and if they come up with any contrary opinion they will be subject to ridicule and losing their jobs.

Almost all the scientists who are in the skeptical category are outside the authoritarian system giving them freedom to voice a contrary opinion.

So why does the beast come down so hard on the side of panic over global warming?

The answer lies in control. Authoritative control is always the goal and if he can convince the world that the threat is so dire that all the nations must be taxed to combat it then he has established a foothold for world control that would be difficult to dislodge.

I have studied both sides of the climate debate and there is valuable information to be had from looking at both presentations. Our schools should not be afraid to allow students to hear both sides of the debate. It would be helpful if all they did was allow a guest speaker to come in now and then and present a different point of view.

The mind expands when it is exposed to two sides of a debate and contracts when exposed to just one.

Continue reflecting on how the authoritative system hinders real education.

Affirmation: “I will find the truth that lies between the extremes.”

 

Day 119

The Importance of History

Not only does the teaching within our schools have a problem with presenting two sides of controversial issues, but they have a major problem with presenting the whole picture. This occurs somewhat in science, but is most pervasive in history.

I thought that the teaching of history was pretty bad when I was a student in the Sixties. They covered the subject reasonably well, but the textbooks were extremely boring and to pass tests we had to memorize dates, names and events that were often forgotten a short time later.

I didn’t realize that history could be fascinating until I read something on my own initiative. I bought a copy of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shirer. After a few pages into it I was riveted and by the time I had finished I realized that history can be very interesting after all if the writer concentrates on the story and why things happened the way they did instead if merely presenting dry details.

After reading the book I thought that it would be extremely valuable if every student would read it so we could learn from the past and prevent a threat liked Hitler from surfacing again.

As it is, in the world today many erroneously compare every leader they do not like to Hitler with little idea of who the real Hitler was.

I thought that there was a problem with the presentation of history in my day, but it is nothing like the one today. The presentation was dry, but at least we gained a few details about Western Civilization, the Revolutionary and Civil Wars and famous figures such as George Washington, Franklin and Lincoln.

Today many students do not have a clue who we gained independence from, what was the cause, or time period. My generation watched those interviews by Jay Leno displaying current ignorance and we wonder what they are learning in school.

Seeing this ignorance makes one think of the famous words of George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

If students who become the leaders of tomorrow do not know the historical causes of World War II and other disastrous situations, then the danger of repeating them is high. The unfortunate thing is a World War III involving nuclear weapons could spell the end of civilization as we know it. This makes the learning of accurate history much more important now than ever before.

There are two problems that create gaps in the teaching of history.

First attention has been diverted to politically correct history with emphasis on minority studies. This would be fine if they learned the major flow of events first, but this diversion fills much of there teaching time leaving very little to examine the important historical events in detail. Consequently, very little attention is focused on our great figures such as Washington and Lincoln. Some educators are even suggesting we leave out much of history that we find disagreeable.

True history consists of the good and bad and should be presented truthfully with all its warts so students can make a correct assessment of it.

The second problem is bias. Many educators desire certain people and events be minimized or completely left out so history will read the way they desire it to have been.

The soul sees only those things that are true so the seeker seeking guidance from his Higher Self indeed needs to feed his mind with true facts so an accurate picture can be formed.

Fortunately, there are a lot of good historical books out there that can fill in the gaps for those who missed out in school, but only a handful are willing to make the effort to obtain an accurate picture of the past.

The assignment today is to assess your own knowledge and views of history. How much of it does your soul confirm is accurate?

Affirmation: “The past is a key to controlling the future.”

 

Day 120

Judging the Past

Soul contact will not give you all the true details of history but it will give you a sense of what is true and false and help you see the picture that is painted by it.

The language of the soul is the language of principles, rather than data, and inner guidance can help the seeker see the cycles and evolution of society as it moves through them.

One of the things about history that needs to be corrected by the souls of men is the erroneous idea of judging the people of the past by the values of the present.

In this age people are very focused on racial justice and civil rights. Many look back into the past and judge historical figures by their current values. This is a grave mistake as they are missing an important ingredient that affects the human mind.

That ingredient is sometimes called “groupthink.” This is a similarity of thinking that controls a group, a nation and sometimes the whole world. People are thus controlled by thoughtforms energized by the thinking and belief of the masses. The beast to control most of the people in the world uses these thoughtforms.

The errors in the past were caused by this groupthink controlling the beliefs and attitudes of the people. Today’s society looks back and judges the leaders there negatively, not realizing they are also controlled, and more enlightened people of the future will look back on us and judge us as primitive thinkers in many ways.

The accusers do not realize how strong these thoughtforms are and how difficult it is to break free of them.

For instance, one may witness a friend caught up in a cult and cannot understand why they cannot see the truth and break free. They do not realize the power of the illusionary thoughtform unless they have broken free of one themselves.

What is little realized is that same power that holds a person imprisoned in a cult holds many average people in their own destructive and distorted illusions, yet they know it not.

Some of the most potent accusations from the present is toward men honored by their achievements, but were slaveholders. Numerous Founding Fathers come under attack. Famous founders who owned slaves were Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison.

Some that didn’t own them were John and Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine and Roger Sherman.

It is interesting that all the non slave holders were from the North where slavery was not so needed and most of the slaveholders were from the South.

Those who were slaveholders found themselves involved by inheritance or necessity to need slaves to make a living. Even so, famous founders who were slaveholders evolved to see that the holding others against their will was a great evil. This is one reason that the Constitution laid the foundation for the eventual freeing of the slaves.

Here is what the famous founding slaveholders said on the subject.

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.”

— Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

“[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”

— James Madison, Records of the Convention, August 25, 1787

The magnitude of this evil among us is so deeply felt, and so universally acknowledged, that no merit could be greater than that of devising a satisfactory remedy for it.

James Madison

“There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.”

— George Washington

Washington sought to free his slaves in his lifetime but did so in his death by granting them freedom in his will.

“Slavery is …an atrocious debasement of human nature.”

Benjamin Franklin

Franklin who owned slaves in his younger yeas saw the error in it and became an abolitionist in later years.

Today many condemn the Founders without realizing the great awakening they had when compared to previous generations.

Since the beginning of recorded civilization slavery has been the norm and all people high and low accepted it as a necessity. It prevailed among all nations and no significant body of men promoted the idea that slavery should be abolished. Even Jesus did not speak against it. The word “servant” in the New Testament can also be translated as slave and none of the early Christians or the Jews seemed to have a problem with the idea.

Paul even gave this advice:

“Servants, (From the Greek DOULOS meaning slave) be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.” Eph 6:5

It was the Founding Fathers who broke new ground in human freedom and to do so they had to go against the groupthink of thousands of years of history where not only blacks were enslaved but all races took their turn.

We cannot judge the righteousness of the people of the past by comparing them to present norms, but must realize the powerful influence of the standards of their time and judge them accordingly.

Assignment: Consider other ways that people of the past are unfairly judged.

Affirmation: “I will see through the other person’s eyes before I judge.”

 

Day 121

Seeing the Past as It Was

A truth from history that needs to be understood is that the righteousness of an individual or a people must be judged by the standards of virtue that were accepted at the time. Until recent times slavery was the norm and few judged anyone as being evil for having them. Having slaves was usually viewed as a sign of success. Someone who mistreated slaves may have been subject to criticism but owners were generally given a pass.

In the more developed parts of the ancient world, such as Rome and Athens, slavery was seen as a necessity, for the people felt that without the practice civilization and quality of life for citizens could not flourish.

When the scriptures and wise teachers speak against an evil the people will often make an attempt to practice it, but there was nothing in the scriptures that advocated the freeing of the slaves. This quest for freedom had to foment in the hearts of the people and become manifest through humanity’s own initiative.

Instead of condemning the Founding Fathers we should acknowledge their initiatives in planting the seeds of human freedom for all.

On the other hand, there have been evils in the past committed where the people should have known better. For instance, the church and state killed, tortured and imprisoned those who merely questioned religious authorities. Persecuting people for their beliefs ran contrary to everything their founder, Jesus, taught. The leaders used threatening punishment to maintain their hold on authority for the beast and this type of action should be condemned in any time period as it goes against the teachings of the prophets and wise teachers of the past.

We have made a lot of progress through humanity’s mere awakening and going beyond the good that is advocated in the Bible and other scriptures.

The right for the people to vote for their leaders was a huge step forward. Then, later, to include all races and the female sex was another advance.

Then we have the restraint of religious authorities from having direct power over the people though government due to a separation of church and state. This is a step forward.

Another step is to give all races, genders and beliefs equal; treatment under the law.

Of course, no system is perfect, but civilization has made many advances. When we look in the past we must judge the people by the beliefs they had then rather than our own vision of right and wrong.

The average person sixty years ago would be judged to be extremely racist by most people today. For instance, most did not accept interracial marriage. One reason was their religious beliefs but another I heard expressed more often when I was young was that the culture and thinking of the different races was so different that it would make the marriage difficult. Just like today there were some who didn’t like people who were different than themselves, but most held their views because of groupothink – just as we in this generation hold many of our views because that’s what we are supposed to think.

The beast of unearned authority has used this groupthink or thoughtforms to control the people throughout the ages. Then when we make an advance and start feeling righteous because we are more right thinking than our ancestors the beast taps in to a new thoughtform that controls us and groupthink that takes us away from soul contact remains. The beast is far from being destroyed through our advances. Instead, he has just moved his power base.

It is very important that the correct learning and understanding of history be taught to our students. Students, of course, need to learn the facts of history, but more than that they need to put themselves in the shoes of the people of the past. When we do this we can learn while resisting the temptation to see ourselves as superior, for we have our own breakthroughs to make. If we understand how progress was made in the past then this will give us more power to make progress in the present and free ourselves from the authority of the beast and his agents.

Next we will examine the relationship of the beast to science. You would think that science would be pretty black and white not giving in to unjust authority controlling what is taught and practiced, but think again. Contemplate how unjust, unearned authority manifests there.

Affirmation: “I will replace feelings of superiority with humility.”

 

Additional comment in response to reader:

The point of the article was not to defend slavery as this has always been an instrument for the beast and still is today from a higher angle. The point is that for thousands of years slavery was accepted by just about all civilizations and usually the slaves themselves, unless they were brutally treated. There were a handful of of rebels when the treatment was harsh, but it took some enlightenment to see the manipulation of the beast in olden times just as it does today. The point is that we cannot judge the people of yesterday by the standards of today. Today we realize that many of the standards yesterday were misplaced just as future generations will realize the same thing about us. We must realize that the vast majority of people accept the standards of the day whether they be right or wrong.

 

Day 122

The Way Things Are

This quote from Jesus reveals an interesting truth about human nature.

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

“Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.” Matt 23:29-32

Jesus must have been privy to some of the discussions of the authorities of his day. Apparently, they voiced strong disapproval of those who persecuted and killed the prophets of the past and saw themselves as more enlightened and of superior caliber to past leaders. They felt strongly that had they lived in the past the would have accepted and honored Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah , Isaiah and other holy men.

Little did they realize that the greatest of all was in their midst and that they had murder in their own hearts toward him. Generations yet unborn would view them with much more disdain than the persecutors of the prophets before them.

People of today make the same mistake and think to themselves such things as, “If I had been one of the Founding Fathers I would not have had slaves. If I had lived in the South after the Civil War I would have honored civil rights and fought against the Ku Klux Klan. If I had lived in Germany during Hitler I wouldn’t have been a Nazi.”

One must be careful about judging himself so generously. Just like the authorities were mistaken about themselves and how they would have reacted in the past so are many today.

There is a very powerful force that the beast uses to control the souls of men. Previously, we linked it to groupthink or thoughtforms, but there is another phrase that clearly defines the current that sweeps the minds of the people toward a negative direction, but erroneously viewed as a positive one. Here it is:

“The way things are.”

The way things are is determined by the authorities of the world and are often full of error. It matters not if the way things are may be total wrong or harmful, if a person is a part of a group, state or nation where a way of life dominates and is accepted he will have much difficulty in going against the flow.

Suppose you were born and raised in a nation that put gays to death. Do you think you would resist with righteous indignation? All should think twice on this for often those who are positive they would be fair would be the strongest voices for enforcing the way things are with his own people.

Until recent times it was just accepted that might makes right. Most thought that if God were on your side that your people would prevail over any other tribe or nation and then to the victor goes the spoils.

Skeptics read the Bible and are appalled at how destructive Israel was in the wars it fought. But they were just following the way things were at the time. In those times the strongest prevailed and they either destroyed or enslaved their enemies. Even though ancient Israel did not live up to our standards of war they were above the standards of the day. They did not torture their enemies, unlike most tribes of the day. Neither did they sacrifice their children to the gods and they had laws that made them a stable society where other Hebrews and allies were treated fairly well.

Ancient Israel did not live up to our standards, but they were above the prevailing standards of the day.

And this is how a people or an individual must be judged. Do they just go along with the way things are and yield to the power of the beast or do they question and seek for greater truth and higher ground?

In this day and age most of the people of the world are controlled by the way things are. The way things are may be different for each nation or group, but the control is still there.

In the United States political correct attitudes are determining the way things are especially in our colleges and universities. Few are willing to buck the system and speak about controversies in old fashion clear language. Free speech is greatly suppressed. Many conform for fear of being ostracized by fellow students and may get expelled from their school. It is quite possible that a hundred years from now that such restrictions will be seen as outrageous.

Slavery existed for thousands of years with few speaking against it because that was the way things were at the time.

Violence and torture was common for the same reason.

Women were not allowed to vote because that was just the way it was. The blacks were enslaved and then denied civil rights because that was the accepted norm.

Seekers today must judge the people of the past by the currents that govern them and realize there are new currents today. There are numerous things today that “just are” and are wrong and few are going against the flow or presenting any challenges.

Let us not the mistake of condemning the people of the past for being caught in the authoritative flow of the beast when we may be doing the same thing today.

Assignment: Contemplate the way things are in your group and nation and ask your soul to show you how things really are.

Affirmation: “I will question the reality that others force upon me.”

 

 

Day 123

The Importance of Seeing the Beast

Some readers may wonder why I am putting so much attention on the beast. The reason is simple. Remember that the beast represents an outside controlling authority that most people pay more attention to than their own inner authority. If the inner authority yields to an outer authority then the inner voice of the soul will be ignored . If it is ignored then it will not be heard. If it is not heard then there is no soul contact.

If we only discuss the obstacles to soul contact in the abstract then many will agree but will not see how to solve the problems in real life. To solve this problem I must present some of the difficulties in real life where the beast hinders contact so the seeker can discover solutions.

One problem is that when some see where the true authority of the beast is that they will decide that they are on the side of the beast and desire to embrace him. They will feel that he is not a beast at all, but a source of authority they should trust.

Then there are a few others who will sense a light turning on within them when they realize what the beast really is, the extent of his power and the difficulty in freeing oneself from it in so many areas of life. Remember freeing oneself from the beast in one area does not mean you are free in all areas. Maybe the seeker will reject the beast in healthcare, but accept him in his own religion. The seeker must put the beast in his place in all areas of life.

Concerning science, one would think that the beast would not have much power there for do they not deal with mathematics, physics and facts? After all, scientists accomplish feats such as sending the New Horizons probe billions of miles through space on a 9.5 year trip and can predict the exact hour that it will arrive at Pluto.

Yes, where there are known facts and distances science can do a great job and produce exacting results.

The problem is that because science is accurate in dealing with known facts many assume that they are also accurate when dealing with the unknown when they present their theories and speculation. The beast takes full advantage of this assumption on the part of the public and uses its authority to control people’s thinking on the unknown and seeks to punish those who question his established authority.

I already mentioned two areas where this happens. The first is the attack on anyone who questions the beast’s view of creation by suggesting that a higher intelligence may have had a hand.

The second is the attack on anyone who questions the standard theory on global warming.

Real science makes progress through questioning, not by automatically going along with orthodox views, yet the beast in science, just as in health care and politics, does not like its authority questioned and will seek to destroy skeptics.

A quintessential example of this is the story of Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky developed some very unorthodox theories about the history of the solar system and the part electromagnetic forces plays in the movement of the planets. He studied legends and ancient writings from all over the planet and found numerous accounts that seemed to agree as far as catastrophic events on earth and in the skies. From them he developed a theory that around 1500 BC Venus was ejected as a satellite of Jupiter and passed by the earth in the time of Moses creating much of the destruction reported in the Bible and other literature from numerous ancient civilizations. He also presented a theory that Mars had changed its orbit.

He wrote a book, Worlds in Collision, attempting to prove this which was published by Macmillan and was a best seller being number one for eleven weeks.

The scientific community was inflamed by the book and not only ferociously attacked Velikovsky and his writings, but forced Macmillan to stop publishing it. Numerous scientists and universities told the publisher that if they did not cease publication that they would ruin their publishing business. This Macmillan became the first publisher to cease publishing and distributing a top selling book while still in demand of the public.

Fortunately, another publisher bought the rights and publication continued, but the attacks did not cease. Velikovsky has been a prime source of attack by the scientific world ever since. Even today, if a scientist dares to mention his name without adding condemnation, he is in danger of being fiercely attacked.

What is important here is not whether Velikovsky’s theories were right or wrong, but that the scientific community was so controlled by the beast that they would not allow their authority to be challenged and resorted to the equivalent of book burning by trying to prevent the public from even seeing his writings.

True science is happy to let all ideas compete and allow the best to win when more evidence comes in.

Continue to reflect on the different areas of life where the beast exerts his authority.

Affirmation: “I will not conform just because others are.”

 

Day 124

The Beast Attacks

Earlier we talked about Ignaz Semmelweis who came up with the discovery that washing hands could rid doctors’ hands of microscopic life, now called germs, and would prevent infection. Because this idea was a challenge to authority, supported by the beast at that time, Semmelweis was persecuted and eventually placed in a mental hospital where he died.

A similar fate befell Wilhelm Reich, the inventor of the orgone accumulator. Reich believed that there was a universal living energy in circulation that could be amplified with a device. He called this energy “orgone,” which fits the description of prana, the life energy that we get from the cosmos according to eastern teachings.

Once people sat in his orgone accumulator they felt like they had been recharged. He started offering it to people who were depressed or had various diseases and found out that they were greatly helped. Then he offered his services to cancer patients and reports came out about people being cured. The scientific and medial establishment felt their authority was on the line and came after him with all the power the beast had to offer.

Reich was condemned by all the major media which gave the authorities justification to go after him. Eventually, the medical community encouraged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to seek and obtain a court injunction to stop him from researching, writing, and speaking about orgone.

He didn’t conform to the letter so they invaded his facility and removed all his books and research papers and burned them. All together they burned six tons of his papers and books. Then they put him in prison where he died in 1957.

What a blot on the authorities in science, medicine and government – all coordinating to destroy this man and his work. Burning someone’s books and research goes against everything a free society stands for. Who knows what benefits we could have had if we still had his research papers today.

If the authorities in science and medicine were true and proven authorities then they would not fear any book or research done by any of their colleagues. An earned authority will allow all ideas to circulate and allow the public to go with the ones that are proven to be correct.

Maintaining authority over the treatment of cancer seems to be an important objective of the beast. Numerous innovators have been jailed or persecuted just because they have made statements to the effect that cancer can be cured, or helped, with their treatments. I met one such individual sometime ago who told me he developed an actual cure that was a combination of about 80 different herbs. He made the mistake of spreading the good news and sharing his discovery with numerous people and wound up in jail. After he got out of jail he was really careful about making any claims or going public. He did share his formula with a number of doctors under the table who used it and he told me that many people were cured of cancer by using the formula.

I read of many other accounts of doctors who have developed cures or medicines that greatly help people with cancer who end up being persecuted or prosecuted by the authorities. Part of the problem that really seems to bother the authorities is that many of the potential cures are very reasonable in cost whereas the orthodox cures are extremely expensive and make the medical establishment a handsome profit.

Here are four more doctors who been persecuted for their an unorthodox treatment of cancer taken from Dr. Mercola’s website:

Gaston Naessens – Dr. Naessens created a cancer treatment based on the theory that cancer is caused by a friendly microorganism called somatids “little bodies”) — which are present in all cells — that becomes unfriendly.

His formula, 714X, provides nitrogen to the cancer cells, thus causing this microorganism to cease excreting their toxic compounds, and mobilize your immune system to kill the cancer cells. He was subsequently put on trial for his cancer discoveries.

Stanislaw Burzynski– Dr. Burzynski, founder of the Houston-based Burzynski Institute, treats cancer patients with substances called antineoplastons. He was indicted by a grand jury in 1995 for his use of antineoplastons– his second trial that year. He was acquitted.

Ryke Geerd Hamer – Dr. Hamer’s “German New Medicine” (GNM), operates under the premise that every disease, including cancer, originates from an unexpected shock experience, and that all disease can be cured by resolving these underlying emotional traumas.

Dr. Hamer has spent time in prison for refusing to disavow his medical findings and stop treating his patients with his unorthodox techniques, and is currently living in exile, seeking asylum from persecution.

Science as it relates to medicine seems to be an area of much concern for the agents of the beast. Not only are large sums of money involved, but there is also a lot of authority exercised over the people, which thing the beast desires more than anything else.

Authorities in science, just as in other fields, do not like challenges anywhere to established authority. We will explore this further in the next lesson.

Affirmation: “I will question authority.”

 

Day 125

Closed Science

Authorities in science especially seek to control the debate concerning evolution, climate change and certain aspects of healthcare. They are very threatened if anyone not on their approved list obtains any type of voice that will challenge them in any way. Instead of debating and letting the facts speak for themselves they prefer to just silence their opposition.

The areas that involve big money, religion or public attention arouse the tightest control, but other areas of science are also subject to strong authority.

Einstein who, at one time, was the one challenging the accepted Newtonian system has now become the standard which is not to be challenged. His Theory of Relativity is considered almost sacred by all but a few scientists. Those who do have challenging ideas are quickly dismissed.

One of the interesting aspects of Einstein’s theory is how time is relative to speed. That is a faster you go the slower time goes. Scientists often gives the example of twin brothers where one twin stays on the earth and the other takes off in the spaceship to the nearest store system. In the journey the ship approaches the speed of light and by the time the twin returns the one twin that traveled may have only aged a couple years or as the other twin might have aged 10 or 20 years depending on how fast the twin traveled. They figure that the twin that traveled in the spaceship increased his speed relative to the earth and therefore time slowed down for him so he didn’t age as fast.

A twist on this at I’ve never seen answered is to reverse the relativity and see it from the viewpoint of the earth moving away from the twin’s spaceship. If you look at it in that light the twin who stayed on the earth should have aged at a slower rate.

Another sacred idea in science is the speed of light. The speed of light is about 186,000 milers per second in a vacuum and never varies no matter what. You could be on a spaceship traveling hundred thousand miles per second and shine a flashlight and relative you light will still go 186,000 miles per second. They say the speed of light always stays the same and we can never go beyond that limit.

We can’t really blame scientist for believing this because all measurements and mathematics seemed to verify it. Nevertheless a handful scientists believe the speed of light can be exceeded. For instance, the red shift of faraway galaxies indicate a speed faster than light.

What could solve all these ministries would be actual contact with an alien race. That brings us to another sensitive area of science. Most scientists are open to the fact that there is life out there somewhere in the universe since it’s so vast, but they’re closed to the idea that we may have been visited by extra terrestrials.

If we are ever are visited the first question I would want to ask is if they traveled faster than the speed of light to get here and if the idea of relativity about time slowing down actually played out for them in their travels.

Another area of science they don’t want to be challenged is the idea of the Big Bang. They say the Big Bang occurred about 13.8 billion years ago and before the Big Bang there was nothing except an infinitesimal point from which all things originated. This originating point was smaller than an atom, some say it was smaller than a quark. Some force completely unknown to science caused the point to just explode and create everything there is. When you think of it in some ways that’s much harder to believe then the ideas that some divine intelligence created the universe.

Some scientists challenge this theory providing evidence that some of the galaxies would have taken longer than 13 billion years to evolve. Some scientists think the universe is eternal and never had a beginning and others present evidence that the universe is not billions of years old but perhaps trillions. But scientists are not very open to alternative ideas especially if they involve any idea of God or higher intelligence.

Those who have challenged a lot of scientific theory have not got much traction and therefore the beast hasn’t come after them on these type of theories like they do on health, evolution and climate change. But if someone produced a best-selling book challenging Einstein’s theory or the Big Bang or something like that you would see the authority of the beast surface quite quickly.

Assignment: Religion and spiritual beliefs have been a favorite tool of the beast through the ages. Even sacred things such as the scriptures, the prophets and Jesus himself have been very useful tools. Contemplate on how this could be the case.

Affirmation: “That which appears to be is not always the truth.”

Copyright by J J Dewey

NEXT – Part 13

Links for the first 11 sections of this series.

Part 1,  Part 2,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,  Part 6Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11

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

Lincoln – Good or Evil?

This entry is part 9 of 31 in the series 2011B

Below is a compilation of dialog I had about Lincoln from the archives.

Feb 3, 2008
Blayne quoting JJ:
“Ron Paul sees Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant and thinks he fought the Civil War to increase the power of government and the civil war was unnecessary. He would not have fought to free the slaves. He thinks the were close to being freed naturally. This is very naive thinking as the South was seeking to expand slavery in all directions in and out of the United States and were not about to let the slaves go free or support any legislation that would allow this.”

Blayne:
“This is a very naive statement. Lincoln did not fight to free the slaves, in his own words he stated:

“‘My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.'”

JJ:
You left off an important part of the quote. He added:

“I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”

I did not state the reason Lincoln went to war so you are not arguing against anything I said here. That said, yes Lincoln saw his prime “official duty” to save the union, but he also had an equally strong unofficial personal moral duty to free the slaves. He expressed a strong desire for this in many instances.

When he wrote this letter to Horace Greeley he was discouraged with the war to the extent that if there was some way he could save the union without freeing the slaves he would have done it for he was worried at the time that the war could be lost. As soon as the North began to see daylight he restored his attitude and ditched this momentary notion and added the freeing of the slaves to the agenda. This was a personal agenda of his throughout his life.

Blayne:
“He also rejected the notion of social equality of the races, and held to the view that blacks should be resettled abroad. As President, he supported projects to remove blacks from the United States.”

JJ:
He presented the highest concept of freeing the slaves that he felt the people could accept. Neither he or anyone else at that time thought the masses could accept racial equality. If he presented anything higher than he did then he would have been killed before Boothe got to him.

In actuality Lincoln took no steps to export the blacks after the war and seemed to have no intention of doing this though earlier in life he thought this may be the only acceptable solution.

Here is a good quote giving his views.

“I am naturally anti-slavery. If slavery is not wrong, nothing is wrong. I can not remember when I did not so think, and feel. And yet I have never understood that the Presidency conferred upon me an unrestricted right to act officially upon this judgment and feeling.” (Abraham Lincoln — Source: April 4, 1864 – Letter to Albert Hodges)

Blayne:
“Lincoln’s main motivation was the prevention of the Southern market from leaving the union. If this were permitted to happen, the entire northern industrial monopoly would have collapsed and what was left would further disintegrate.”

JJ:
And you think this because…?

The facts reveal otherwise. During the war, when South was separate, the Northern industrial power increased — not decreased. The economy in the North boomed and the South suffered severe depression. If Lincoln merely wanted financial dominance he did not need the South to stay in the Union. The greatest amount of wealth was created for the North during the war than any other time in history to that date. On the other hand, the South suffered numerous internal rebellions because of poverty.

Blayne:
“Lincoln also destroyed the original republic, he suspended habeas corpus, instituted a draft and income taxes.”

JJ:

Habeas Corpus:

These actions did not destroy the Republic, but possibly saved it. Concerning habeas corpus Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says:

“The privilege of the writ of habeas corpus shall not be suspended, unless when in cases of rebellion or invasion the public safety may require it.”

Because of the rebellion the supreme court never found Lincoln’s actions unconstitutional.

The Draft:

Yes, Lincoln instituted the draft, but they also had a draft during the Revolutionary War. Were they also destroying the Republic? No they were creating it. The South alas had a draft.

Only 2 percent of union soldiers were the result of a draft. The rest were volunteers.

Income Tax:

Desperate times require desperate measures. He did institute a temporary tax of 3 percent on higher incomes. After the war habeas corpus was restored, the draft cancelled and income tax discontinued. How could these things destroy the Republic when they ceased to exist?

Blayne:
“And unlawfully attacked sovereign states who had every right to secede from the Union via the 10th amendment to the constitution since secession was not addressed in the constitution.”

JJ:
But they did not have a legal right to attack Fort Sumpter. This first aggression was an act of rebellion that justified a forceful response.

Blayne:

“The congress was not legally in session since the southern representatives had left and on an on it goes.”

JJ:
Of course they were legally in session for the South was no longer part of the Union.

How about the Congress of the Southern States? Were they illegal also? Should neither side have any right to govern? That makes no sense for either side.

Confederate sympathizers often blast the North and Lincoln with criticism but neglect to mention that the South instituted a draft, suspended ex post facto law, nationalized industries, also started a income and profit tax, mandated hotels and railroads had to report to government offices who was staying at their hotel and riding the trains, the city of Richmond had a passport system in place for the coming and going of all citizens. See Jeffrey Hummel’s “Emancipating Slaves, Enslaving Free Men” for a balanced libertarian perspective.

The fact is these were desperate times and desperate measure are always taken during such times and both sides did it — the South perhaps more than the North.

Blayne:
“Ron Paul simply said there was no need to fight the civil war and kill 600,000 Americans to end slavery He could have ended it without fighting slavery by buying the slaves and freeing them Instead of going to war and violating the sovereignty of the southern states and our constitution. By so doing caused quite a resentment toward blacks and the north that is still with us today.”

JJ:
As I said Lincoln tried to purchase the slaves freedom and the South wasn’t about to cooperate.

Blayne:
“Every other country-ended slavery without a war can you give any reason why we couldn’t have done the same?”

JJ:
Because slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than England. The South was attempting to expand slavery to the Western States and South and Central America when the war started. In addition England and Europe did not want slavery ended in the South and were in on a conspiracy to kill Lincoln so they could enjoy the benefits of trading with the South for the products of slave labor.

Date: Fri, 16 May 2003 05:40:55 -0600Subject: [Keysters] A Look at Lincoln

The Question:
What are the three ways that Lincoln altered the course of history for the better?

The first and obvious one is slavery. There are two groups that want to deny Lincoln any credit on this issue.

The first is the politically correct crowd who are rewriting texts books which teach the rising generation. Some of them only have a paragraph on Lincoln and give credit to the freeing of the slaves to anyone but him. If he is quoted they use a quote out of context that make it sound like his only goal was to save the union.

The second is a residual anti-Lincoln group which has never completely disappeared. These are joined by a few strong constitutionalists who adhere to states rights with little or no deviation. These also quote his few statements about saving the union as a prime goal and ignore his many arguments for freeing the slaves and making them equal with the whites.

Both if these groups judge Lincoln’s words with the politically correct standards of the present. As I said we could do this with any white person of more than a century ago and make him sound racist.

What is the truth?

Yes it is true that his prime goal was to save the union because he believed that if the union were not saved then we would wind up with a country that would not be free or worth living in for blacks or whites. Therefore, this was first in his mind.

Let me quote from a previous post: “Lincoln had publicly stated a number of times, even from his youth, that he had a desire to eliminate slavery and would do so if he ever had the opportunity. His most famous stance was made during the Lincoln Douglas debates where he stated that the United States was a house divided and as such cannot stand . It cannot exist half free and half slave. This famous debate brought him to national attention in a significant way for the first time.

“The South remembered his views when he became President and this was the main reason they seceded from the union, causing slavery to be a strong underlying cause of the war.

“During the war Lincoln made many comments , wrote many letters and had many debates with individuals about slavery and he definitely expressed a strong desire to eliminate the problem.

“As far as the Emaciation Proclamation goes. He took this step as far as was possible. He had the wisdom to realize that you can’t make major change in one giant leap so he always did what he could one step at a time.

“The next major step was taken in his second bid for the presidency, and keep in mind this was done during the heat of the war. At his urging the Republican platform supported the complete abolition of slavery and the introduction of the thirteenth Amendment.

“The platform stated that the President’s Proclamation aimed a “death blow at this gigantic evil,” and that a constitutional amendment was necessary to “terminate and forever prohibit it.”

“Lincoln was thus reelected on this platform making slavery a main issue of the continuance of the war during his second term.

“While Lincoln was still alive the 13th Amendment was passed by Congress and sent to the States for ratification. Ratification by the states was a sure thing at his death.”

So how about the argument that slavery would have naturally gone away if the civil war was not fought? After all other nations freed their slaves without war. What is left out of this idealism is that the majority of the states of the U.S. also freed their slaves without war. So why was the North and other nations able to do this? It is simple. The percentage of black slaves in the Northern States,. Britain, France and other nations was low compared to the Southern States. At the time of the Civil War there was a slave population of 3,500,000 out of a total of 9,000,000 people in the South. This was a total of about 39% of the population who were slaves. Unlike other nations who were considering the freeing of slaves the South sought to expand upon it and wanted slavery extended to western territories. The South was so dependent upon their slaves that without a war it could have existed another hundred years. Without the civil war I believe the civil rights era of the 1960’s would have been over slavery rather than the rights of the black man.

The second way Lincoln altered history for the better was in the preservation of the Union and holding intact the Country of the United States.

Now many think it would have been better to allows all states their right to secede and in normal times this may have been the right thing to do. But the reason the South wanted to secede was so they could practice slavery undisturbed (among other things). If therefore slavery was so perpetuated and secession was used for such a fowl purpose this would set a precedent for a further break up of the union for all kinds of lower purposes.

Consider the past and what happened to Rome when it started to break up. They lost all vestiges of good government and, even though Rome was not perfect, what followed was a period of the darkest hue with a loss of knowledge, education and technology unprecedented in history.

Could the break up of the union had been followed by a loss of the Constitution and all truths that were held self evident? Lincoln thought so and this was one reason he fought with all be had to preserve the union. Lincoln was an astute student of history and did not want to see it repeated in his country.

I personally believe he received a strong impression from the Hierarchy on the importance of preserving the union.

There is a time and place for all things. The time of Lincoln was the time to increase central control. Now is the time to work toward the opposite.

Civil War & More

Thu Feb 7, 2008 12:28 pm

Blayne quoting JJ:
“You left off an important part of the quote. He added: ‘I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.'”

Blayne the writes:
“A bit contradictory of him wouldn’t you agree? He could care less about freeing the slaves but desires all men to be free…”

JJ:
This is simply not true. His words bear witness time and time again that he cared very much about freeing the slaves. He did not feel he had a mandate to officially express that goal as president during the first part of his administration, but he always personally desired it and pursued it. His view on slavery was one of the reasons seven states seceded after he was elected, even before he became president.

Blayne:
“The point is he did not go to war to free the slaves but to force the Southern states to remain a part of the Union, which he had no authority to do.”

JJ:
It looks to me like he had authority, used the authority and this authority was never challenged by the other branches of government.

If the South wanted to secede to live in harmlessness Lincoln may have been wrong. Instead the South wanted to enslave their fellow men and make sure this right to slavery continued. Sure there is the doctrine of states rights, but no state has the right to enslave its people.

Blayne:
“His actions speak much louder then his words. The Emancipation Proclamation only freed slaves in parts of the Confederacy inaccessible to the union army. Union soldiers often were permitted to confiscate slaves in rebel territory and put them to work for the union army. In areas loyal to the union, slaves were not emancipated. After the war, Lincoln offered little land to the former slaves; most of the land was parceled off to his constituent power-base, the railroad and mining companies.”

JJ:
The end result was the slaves were freed and this was one of the greatest advances in liberty in human history — thanks to Abraham Lincoln — and no thanks to the Confederacy’s excuse of States Rights to enslave their brethren.

Blayne:
“Lincoln’s main motivation was the prevention of the Southern market from leaving the union. If this were permitted to happen, the entire northern industrial monopoly would have collapsed and what was left would further disintegrate.

“The economic reasons are well documented and give insight into Lincoln’s agenda. The South, which supplied 75 percent of exports, was on the verge of becoming a low tariff, free trade zone. Lincoln feared this would disadvantage the North, and in particular his rich industrialist supporters. So Lincoln imposed punitive tariffs as a means to distribute wealth from the South to northern manufacturers.”

JJ:
What have you been reading? Lincoln didn’t impose any tariffs.

There were tariffs passed that affected the South before Lincoln became president which had bipartisan support and was encouraged and signed by president James Buchanan, a Democrat. Lincoln couldn’t have imposed tariffs on the South if he wanted to because the secession had already began when he became president.

Blayne:
“Lincoln instead could have moved toward peaceful prosperity by joining with England, France, other European countries, and the Confederate states in which free trade was already going on.”

JJ:
I suppose Lincoln could have, but he wasn’t given a chance because he never had any power over the Confederacy. He never had a chance to preside over the whole Union. Let’s stick with what Lincoln did or said do rather than what you think was in his heart.

Blayne:
“Where was the rebellion? Where in the constitution is secession forbidden? NOWHERE! Thus leaving it up to the States via the Tenth Amendment.

“The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.'”

JJ:
But how about the blacks? They were people too. Rebelling for the purpose of benefiting from the profits of enslaving an entire race goes against everything sacred in the Constitution. They were only big on states rights because they wanted to maintain slavery. They were happy to violate the Constitution in many other ways. I am surprised you are so eager to defend a slave state when you are such a supporter of liberty. States rights is not excuse enough to secede for the purpose of enslaving a race and benefiting from their labor at the point of a whip. You’ll note that all the rebel states were slave states. If slavery was not the main issue then some non slave states would have also seceded.

Blayne states the draft by Lincoln was illegal:

This is from Wikipedia:

“In 1918, the Supreme Court ruled that the World War I draft did not violate the United States Constitution. Arver v. United States, 245 U.S. 366 (1918).[14] The Court summarized the history of conscription in England and in colonial America, a history that it read as establishing that the Framers envisioned compulsory military service as a governmental power. It held that the Constitution’s grant to Congress of the powers to declare war and to create standing armies included the power to mandate conscription. It rejected arguments based on states’ rights, the Thirteenth Amendment, and other provisions of the Constitution.”

Note: The Confederacy also had a draft.

Blayne:
“So-called desperate times have been the refuge of dictators and tyrants through out history in suppressing freedom.”

JJ:

Desperate times befall the good and the bad. Desperate measures have been taken by many good guys such as Hannibal, Washington, Churchill, FDR, Reagan and both the North and South during the civil war.

Blayne:

“What was Lincoln’s desperation? The southern states peacefully succeeded from The Union.”

JJ:

I wouldn’t call taking federal property by force, a first aggression, as peaceful. Also the blacks were not allowed to live in peace. Confederate sympathizers try to take slavery out of the equation, but it was central to the whole conflict. Without slavery there would have been no division of the States.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“But they did not have a legal right to attack Fort Sumter. This first aggression was an act of rebellion that justified a forceful response.”

Blayne then writes:
“Hello — Fort Sumter was in So. Carolina, a southern state that had seceded. That aggression was an act of a sovereign nation protecting its territory. The confederacy seized all but four federal forts within their boundaries of which Sumter was one.”

JJ:
And the Confederacy had no right to do this because the fort was federal property and before the rebellion all the states agreed it was federal property. Lincoln said that Fort Sumter belonged to all of the people of the United States. He was correct in this and had the right to hold on to it.

Blayne:
“Lincoln provoked that attack by trying to send reinforcements to Sumter. Now are you going to tell me he didn’t have ulterior motives when he could have resolved this peacefully?”

JJ:
There was no way to solve it peacefully and keep that which belong to the federal government. The Confederacy was determined to possess it by any means necessary including drawing first blood.

Blayne:
“To further indict Lincoln let it no go unmentioned that he conducted a war without the consent of Congress. He declared martial law, confiscated private property, imprisoning about 30,000 Northern citizens and 31 legislators without trial, censored telegraph lines, and shut down northern newspapers for opposing the war.”

JJ:
The number is usually given as 13,000. People were not put in jail for opposing the war. The New York Times and other papers as well as about a third of the Union ridiculed Lincoln mercilessly and opposed Lincoln as they now oppose Bush and Lincoln took no action. Action was taken toward those who sought to overthrow the government or to give aid to the enemy. If he hadn’t done this he would have probably lost the war.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“Because slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than England. The South was attempting to expand slavery to the Western States and South and Central America when the war started. In addition England and Europe did not want slavery ended in the South and were in on a conspiracy to kill Lincoln so they could enjoy the benefits of trading with the South for the products of slave labor.”

Blayne then writes:
“Hardly, only 15 percent of southerners owned slaves.”

JJ:
That’s a pretty big number.

Blayne:
“The South was attempting to just expand to the west period not necessarily to further slavery.”

JJ:
Where do you get this idea? It is historical fact that they attempted to expand slavery to Cuba, central America and other areas. Expanding slavery to even one new state would be too much.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“If we hadn’t fought the Civil War it would have taken a hundred years to eliminate slavery. There’s no evidence that slavery could have been peacefully ended.”

Blayne then writes:
“Well this is simply your opinion but there is no evidence to support it. Every other country peacefully ended slavery around this same time. Which suggest the USA could have done so also.”

JJ:
There’s a lot of evidence. After the war the slave owners were surprised to discover that slaves were not happy being slaves. They thought that slaves needed masters to take care of them and were amazed at how they felt when they were free to express themselves. They still tried to treat them as slaves and many blacks were killed who did not conform. This had nothing to do with the actions of the North. Any slight study of the period will reveal that slavery was institutionalized in the South much more than it was in England and wasn’t about to end soon by normal means.

Confederate sympathizers try to preach otherwise to whitewash the history of slavery, but they have no case.

Fri Feb 8, 2008 7:25 pm

Blayne wrote:
“The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others.”

JA wrote:
“What happened to the shining example or the Ensign America is to other nations? If the war would not have been fought America would not have become the example it is today if for no other reason then the time it would have taken to get to the level of freedom it is at today. Plus the actions America took during that time therefore setting an example. There is risk in all things or opposition in all things, I think that is a fact of life.

“So if people choose to break the law set by the government then it is justified because the people are the master of the government?

“That would be a journey into irresponsibility, is that what this is really about? The fear of that? What happened to the shining example?”

JJ:
Good point JA. This is indeed an amazing statement by Blayne and it reveals a potent path to many illusions.

Let’s see how this applies in different situations.

The Confederacy:

“The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others.”

It sounds like the Blacks are not considered people here. In fact a main point of debate in the Confederacy was whether or not they had souls.

How were the blacks who were definitely people masters of the government when the government was enslaving them?

If we apply this principle today then it would be OK if white people used government to their advantage and passed a law saying that all Chinese people had to be branded on the forehead and work for ten cents an hour.

If a black and white Ron Paul following of the Constitution leads to the support of slavery then we need to rebel against it and write it anew so human liberty is clearly enough defined so even Ron Paul followers can understand it and be lead away from their acquiescence of slavery and tyranny.

Sun Feb 10, 2008 3:55 am

Blayne quoting JJ:
“If the South wanted to secede to live in harmlessness Lincoln may have been wrong. Instead the South wanted to enslave their fellow men and make sure this right to slavery continued. Sure there is the doctrine of states rights, but no state has the right to enslave its people.”

Blayne then writes:
“So its ok to kill millions to preserve freedom, but not ok allow slavery for little longer to preserve the constitution, which illustrates that freedom?”

JJ:
They were NOT preserving the Constitution, the main purpose of which is the protection of life, liberty and pursuit of happiness. The Constitution was a mockery for the South when over a third of their people had no liberty, no ability to pursue happiness and not even a right to, life if they left the plantation. The main states rights that concerned them was the right to own slaves.

Blayne:
“Once again your assuming Lincoln’s motive was to abolish slavery even though the evidence and Lincoln’s own words contradict that notion.”

JJ:
There’s no assumption need here. Lincoln expressed a desire many times in support of freedom for all humans and freedom for the slaves was even part of the Republican platform in 1864.

Here’s a dialog between Lincoln and one of his closest friends, Judge Gillespie, in the days before the inauguration:

“‘Gillespie,’ said he (Lincoln), ‘I would willingly take out of my life a period in years equal to the two months which intervene between now and my inauguration to take the oath of office now.’ ‘Why?’ I asked. ‘Because every hour adds to the difficulties I am called upon to meet, and the present administration does nothing to check the tendency toward dissolution. I, who have been called to meet this awful responsibility, am compelled to remain here, doing nothing to avert it or lessen its force when it comes to me.’

“I said that the condition of which he spoke was such as had never risen before, and that it might lead to the amendment of such an obvious defect in the federal Constitution.

“‘It is not of myself I complain,’ he said, with more bitterness than I have ever heard him speak, before, or after. ‘But every day adds to the difficulty of the situation, and makes the outlook more gloomy. Secession is being fostered rather than repressed, and if the [secession] doctrine meets with a general acceptance in the border states, it will be a great blow to the government.’

“Our talk then turned upon the possibility of avoiding a war. ‘It is only possible,’ said Mr. Lincoln, ‘upon the consent of this government to the erection of a foreign slave government out of the present slave states….’

“‘I see the duty revolving upon me. I have read, upon my knees, the story of Gethsemane, where the Son of God prayed in vain that the cup of bitterness might pass from him. I am in the Garden of Gethsemane now, and my cup of bitterness is full and overflowing….’

“I then told him that as Christ’s prayer was not answered and His crucifixion had redeemed the great part of the world from paganism to Christianity, so the sacrifice demanded of him might be a great beneficence. Little did I then think how prophetic were my words to be, or what a great sacrifice he was called upon to make.”

(The Life of Abraham Lincoln: Drawn from Original Sources, Vol II by Ida Minerva Tarbell – 1903, pg 200)

The key phrase here is:

“Our talk then turned upon the possibility of avoiding a war. ‘It is only possible,’ said Mr. Lincoln, ‘upon the consent of this government TO THE ERECTION OF A FOREIGN SLAVE GOVERNMENT OUT OF THE PRESENT SLAVE STATES…. I see the duty revolving upon me.'”

In his Second Annual Address to Congress in 1862, he said:

“‘We know how to save the Union. The world knows we know how to save it. We even here — hold the power and bear the responsibility. In giving freedom to the slave, we assure freedom to the free — honorable alike in what we give and what we preserve. We shall nobly save, or meanly lose, the last, best hope of earth….’

“‘If we do this we shall not only have saved the Union, but we shall have so saved it, as to make, and to keep it forever worthy of the saving.'”

He said here very plainly that to make the union worthy of saving the slaves had to be free.

He also made sure emancipation was in the Republican platform and then executed that desire and did free them. What more evidence do you want? This is historical fact you are arguing with, not my opinion. Those Confederate endorsed Southern supremacy books you’re reading aren’t doing the job for you.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“The end result was the slaves were freed and this was one of the greatest advances in liberty in human history — thanks to Abraham Lincoln — and no thanks to the Confederacy’s excuse of States Rights to enslave their brethren.”

Blayne the writes:
“So the many other countries that freed slaves around that same time without killing 600,000 of their countrymen don’t get any credit? You have a pretty narrow view of history my friend.”

JJ:
Perhaps you need to check your own view. The other nations that freed their slaves were in a similar situation to the Northern States that freed their slaves. Emancipation in the North was natural because there were so few slaves and the economy wasn’t dependent on them. Even so, England only had about 10,000 slaves and no strict law to dominate them. They were freed there because it was proven that slavery violated the law.

When England freed their slaves only about one in 800 persons was enslaved, In the South over one in three were slaves and draconian laws were in place to sustain Big Brother in making sure it continued.

To say that the Confederate States would drop this money making human machine like England and other nations is comparing apples and oranges. England and France who had basically freed their own handful of slaves wanted it to continue in the Confederate states. So much for their moral superiority.

In the Confederacy over one third of the people were slaves — over 4 million out of around 9 million people. The South felt that they must hold on to them or their economy would collapse. Not only this but they insisted that the “right” to own slaves be expanded westward and to other nations.

You have absolutely no evidence that slavery would have ended any time soon. If it were on the verge of ending then they would not have seceded to preserve slavery.

My personal belief is that if we had not fought the Civil War that the 1960’s would have been about ending slavery rather than civil rights. Please don’t say that is just my opinion as this is obvious to all. But it is a well thought out one.

Blayne:
“You might try Tom DiLorenzo’s ‘The Real Lincoln’ for starters. The tariff had been a source of friction for a long time. It almost caused secession several years earlier. It was the real reason for the civil war.”

JJ:
If you use logic rather than following the mantras of southern supremacists you could never come to this conclusion.

First, let me point out that many of DiLorenzo statements are not true or slanted, but also look for what he conveniently left out of his book to mislead readers. A couple good articles on this can be found at:

http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27396

The tariffs were basically tariffs on the exports of the products of slave labor. Without slavery it would not have been an issue. If slavery was not the main factor then non slave states would have seceded also. This observation alone proves my case.

When the secession began the rebel states cited Lincoln’s belief in emancipation as their cause for leaving above the tariffs from what I have read. Of course, slavery was not the only issue, but it was the core issue and without it we would not have had the war.

Blayne:
“Lincoln wanted to keep it (the tariff) since it favored the north and left the south at the mercy of the north in many ways. Bipartisan? Hardly, 137 representatives from the north and 87 from the south.”

JJ:
Bi-partisan means both Democrats and Republicans cooperated and this is a historical fact you are arguing with. Let me repeat. The tariffs you demonize were spearheaded by a Democratic president and passed by voting from both parties.

It can be argued that they were unfair to the South, but the tariffs some complained of had nothing to do with Lincoln who was not yet president. When Lincoln was elected the seceding states were more concerned with his views on emancipation than they were with his views on tariffs.

Blayne:
“Again there is ample evidence that the US Civil War was not about slavery albeit slavery was used as one of many excuses. It was about hanging on to the lucrative tariffs and taxes and expanding the north while limiting the south based on slavery.”

JJ:
If you read some books that give the whole picture rather than books trying to prove the South was right you would not come to this conclusion. Nothing enflamed the South more than the threat of emancipation or curtailing their “right” to own a human being as a piece of property.

“Battle Cry of Freedom” by James McPherson is a good book that doesn’t have an agenda. It is very well written and fascinating reading.

Blayne:
“Also of note is the fact that the North was also benefiting from the slave labor as well and as Lincoln said he could care less about slavery his aim was to preserve the union, of course because it was lucrative to the north and his industrialist cronies.”

JJ:
You are distorting too many facts and quotes here. Lincoln NEVER, I repeat NEVER said he could care less about slavery.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“The Confederacy also had a draft.”

Blayne then writes:
“I never said the draft it was illegal, It doesn’t matter what the Court ruled the simple fact is no draft is addressed in the constitution therefore it is left up to the states via the 10th Amendment. Colonial America had no constitution and it was up to the states then also. A federal draft is illegal. The courts ruling is a perfect example of the precedent Lincoln set of reading extra constitutional provisions into the constitution that are not there. What part of the 10th Amendment do they and you not understand?”

JJ:
But you only criticize Lincoln for the draft. The Confederacy, which you seem to think was the epitome of States Rights also had a national draft and executed it April 16, 1862, over a year before Lincoln did. Georgia’s governor Joseph Brown warned that he saw the signs of a deep-laid conspiracy on the part of Jefferson Davis to destroy states’ rights and individual liberty.

About 25 percent of Confederate soldiers were drafted, but only 3 percent of the Union Army.

If the Confederacy did not start the national draft then Lincoln probably would not have felt the need to follow.

Blayne:
“As Thomas Jefferson wrote, ‘let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief by the chains of the Constitution.'”

JJ:
Tell that to Jefferson Davis who forced Lincoln’s hand. Why do you only criticize the lesser of two evils?

Some Constitutional Scholars think a national draft is constitutional and others do not. It is a judgement call that a Constitutional Supreme Court has condoned.

Blayne:
“The government is servant to the people and the people are its master even if the people are wrongly enslaving others.”

JJ:
See my other comments on this. So you would approve of yourself being a slave as long as “the people” are abusing you and not the government. By the way the government is people.

Blayne:
“The federal government can only own property in the states with the consent of the sate and the legislature see Article One, Section 8, Clause 17. If the state withdraws its consent then the federal government has no right to property.”

JJ:
Sorry. The Constitution does not say the states can have the property back if they secede. There is not even a hint of such thing. The federal government had the approval from South Carolina and after that approval they owned the property and the state had no right to force them to sell or giver it back.

Blayne:
“The first aggression was when Lincoln sent reinforcements showing his hostile intent.”

JJ:
It is not an aggression to fortify your own property.

Blayne:
“To further indict Lincoln let it no go unmentioned that he conducted a war without the consent of Congress.”

JJ:
His actions were ratified by Congress after the war started.

Lincoln and a lot of the country viewed the handling of an internal rebellion as a different Constitutional matter than war with another nation. Washington’s suppression of the Whiskey Rebellion was not considered unconstitutional.

Blayne:
“Where do you get this idea? So the newspapers that were shut down were trying to overthrow the government, and the legislators?”

JJ:
Basically, yes. They were thrown in jail for encouraging sedition and desertion. They were not touched for mere disagreement. You ought to read some of the articles the New York Times wrote about Lincoln and the war as proof of this. Again, the South took similar action.

Tue Feb 12, 2008 3:29 am

Blayne:
“Lincoln was destroying the Constitution. The South had seceded; he destroyed the Constitution by going to war against a sovereign nation when he had no authority via to the Constitution.”

JJ:
He did have authority and he used that authority and he did not destroy the Constitution.

Blayne:
“And they were not threat to the US.”

JJ:
Because of slavery they were a threat to the entire world.

Blayne:
“Your argument is he had the moral right to ignore the Constitution because of slavery.”

JJ:
That is not my argument. He never ignored the Constitution.

Blayne:
“Even though he stated his aim was not to free the slaves therefore your moral argument is now gone because he did not go to war on moral grounds.”

JJ:
Not so. Just before the war he said that the only possible way to avoid war is “upon the consent of this government to the erection of a foreign slave government out of the present slave states…. I see the duty revolving upon me.”

He saw that the only way to prevent a slave state was to do what is necessary to prevent a slave state. I quoted this in my last post. Perhaps you missed it.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“There’s no assumption need here. Lincoln expressed a desire many times in support of freedom for all humans and freedom for the slaves was even part of the Republican platform in 1864.”

Blayne then writes:
“Once again actions speak much louder then words although Lincoln’s own words that he could care less about the slaves also reveal his true motives.”

JJ:

You keep saying this over and over and I correct you over and over. Let me repeat. Lincoln NEVER said he could care less about the slaves. Why do you distort the words of a great man?

Blayne:
“That fact that he contradicts himself in other word only speaks to his being a slimy politician that changes his words to whichever way the wind is blowing.”

JJ:

I think he was the most consistent politician that ever lived. You have no case if you stick to quoting his actual words in context. If you just throw out “Lincoln said” and then add your own words you can make him or even Jesus sound like a villain.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“Those Confederate endorsed Southern supremacy books you’re reading aren’t doing the job for you.”

Blayne:
“Perhaps you could be more specific as to what books you are referring to and if so then you could refute their sources rather then labeling them southern supremacy books to try and discredit them without any evidence.”

JJ:
You mentioned “The Real Lincoln” by Tom DiLorenzo. That is certainly one. Most things you say about Lincoln mirrors some of the material I’ve read in Southern Supremacy material. You really sound like you are parroting what I have read in the past — almost to the extent that I can predict how you will answer next.

Blayne:
“I have and your not including the many slaves they had in the West Indies. You are also ignoring the fact that the law did not emancipate the slaves and that did not happen till later. Britain had been working on freeing slaves for 20 years already.

“http://www.history.ac.uk/ihr/Focus/Slavery/articles/sherwood.html”

JJ:
That’s a good article, but nothing in the British empire mirrored the situation of the Confederacy.

JJ quoting himself:
“In the Confederacy over one third of the people were slaves — over 4 million out of around 9 million people. The South felt that they must hold on to them or their economy would collapse. Not only this but they insisted that the “right” to own slaves be expanded westward and to other nations.”

JJ then writes:
You have absolutely no evidence that slavery would have ended any time soon. If it were on the verge of ending then they would not have seceded to preserve slavery.

Blayne:
I in fact am the only one so far who had posted any reference. Why don’t you post a reference for your percentages of those enslaved in the confederacy?”

JJ:
Here is one of many I have come across:

“The South had a population of 9 million, including almost 4 million slaves.”

http://encarta.msn.com/encyclopedia_1741500823_18/United_States_History.html

If you want a reference on the fact that The South had intent to expand slavery to Cuba, Mexico and South America read the first 120 pages of “The Battle Cry for Freedom” by James McPherson. The Boise Public Library should have the book as well as the audio of it.

Blayne:
“The evidence is that 14 other countries ended slavery peacefully. You can deny it or spin it all you want that does not make it any less evidence.”

JJ:
Yes, but let me repeat again (sigh) that slavery was much more institutionalized in the South than any of these countries or the Northern States. Instead of diminishing they were seeking to expand it. Many even thought they would lose their “freedom” if they lost their slaves. How ironic!

Blayne:
“The South wanted to expand to the West so of course they wanted to be able to have slavery there, as it was part of their economy and culture, which was agrarian. However your assertion that the soul reason they wanted to expand to the west was to preserve slavery is ridiculous.”

JJ:
I don’t believe I said this. I said they were seeking to expand slavery to the West. Slavery was not the reason they were going west, but in going west they wanted to have slaves. Please argue with what I do say, not with what I do not say.

Blayne:
“One other thing not mentioned is law like the Fugitive Slave Act, which propped up slavery. Incidentally Lincoln strongly supported that law.”

JJ:
You keep accusing Lincoln of going against the Constitution, but the Constitution was the reason he supported this act. Even though he was personally opposed to it he recognized that we were legally bound by it.

Article 4, Section 23 reads:

“No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.”

Thank God Lincoln paved the way for the 13th Amendment which superseded it.

Blayne:
“The abolition of that law would have reduced the profitability of slavery helping speed its demise.”

JJ:
But that would have been unconstitutional and you seem to be for a black and white support of the Constitution come hell or high water.

You are inconsistent here. You say the South had the right to hold slaves because of the states rights provision of the Constitution, yet you think Lincoln should have directly violated the Constitution by opposing the Fugitive Slave Act — which was basically already the law because of the Constitution.

Blayne:
“It has also been mentioned that the advent of the tractor and the cotton gin among other things would have greatly diminished the need for slaves in the South. The first tractors were steam engine and invented around 1868. The cotton gin as already invented about 1802 and later improved I believe.”

JJ:
It’s quite possible the Confederacy would have merely shifted the slaves from the fields to the tractors. I think slavery would have eventually been eliminated but it would have taken much longer than you think — in my opinion. I think Lincoln advanced the cause of human freedom a good 50 years or more. The sacrifice was great, but it was worth it.

One thing we do know for sure and that is right after his election Lincoln saw his choice as to fight or not fight the creation of a slave state. (See previous quote)

Blayne quoting himself:
“You might try Tom DiLorenzo’s “The Real Lincoln” for starters. The tariff had been a source of friction for a long time It almost caused secession several years earlier. It was the real reason for the civil war.”

Blayne quoting JJ:
“If you use logic rather than following the mantras of southern supremacists you could never come to this conclusion.”

Blayne then writes:
“You are very good as subtly trying to change the subject and the argument.

“Your little label of ‘southern supremacy’ is meant to try and change the issue to bolster you false argument that it was about slavery and the moral failings of slavery. Some might fall for this sleight of hand type tactic as it is only meant to bias readers against any disagreement to your argument. It won’t work on me however.”

JJ:

I am accurately educating the readers to the fact that most literature portraying Lincoln as a tyrant or destroyer of the Constitution are people who hold on to the idea that the South was right in its view of Lincoln. These people, of course acknowledge that slavery was wrong but see it as a problem of small significance that would have just faded away without Lincoln.

Ron Paul who has a negative view of Lincoln is closely associated with many of this bent including the Ludwig von Mises Institute which publishes his books.

Thomas E. Woods Jr., a member of the institute’s senior faculty, is a founder of the League of the South, a secessionist group. Paul enthusiastically endorsed Woods’s secessionist endorsing book, saying that it “heroically rescues real history from the politically correct memory hole.”

Blayne:
“I am not arguing that slavery wasn’t wrong and morally repugnant, I agree it is and so do those you try to pin your false label on.”

JJ:
No one is saying this today, but you and the secessionist movements minimize the problem that slavery was. I am with Lincoln in not minimizing the loss of human freedom — no matter the place, the time or the race.

Blayne:
“The issue is did Lincoln need to go to war and kill 600,00 of his countrymen in what is known as the Civil War. The answer is clearly no. Your argument is there was no other way. I contend there was and there is plenty of evidence to support there was some of which I have pointed out.”

JJ:
I haven’t seen any evidence. To compare other countries that did not have institutionalized slavery with the South is fallacious. It is like saying that the Taliban will give equal rights to women soon because other nations have. It’s not likely because they have institutionalized their bias.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“First, let me point out that many of DiLorenzo statements are not true or slanted, but also look for what he conveniently left out of his book to mislead readers. A couple good articles on this can be found at:

“http://www.claremont.org/publications/crb/id.736/article_detail.asp

“http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=27396”

Blayne then writes:

“Well the Claremont Institute crowd is not exactly the pillar of honesty, being a government subsidized think tank that shouldn’t be surprising. We could post articles back and forth but it would probably be best to read both sides and weigh the evidence. Here is an article where DiLorenzo responds to the Claremont Institute:
“http://www.lewrockwell.com/dilorenzo/dilorenzo31.html”

JJ:

I read it. He sounds like a bitter man.

The guy’s refuting people I did not quote and says nothing that effectively counters any of my arguments. He does make a lot of the same arguments you do.

Blayne quoting JJ:
“The tariffs were basically tariffs on the exports of the products of slave labor. Without slavery it would not have been an issue. If slavery was not the main factor then non slave states would have seceded also. This observation alone proves my case.”

Blayne then writes:
“This is simply not true; can you post some evidence for this assertion? Non-slaves states had no bearing. The tariffs were also on imports and were especially high on the manufactured items the Southern states did not produce.”

JJ:
Yes, there were tariffs and taxes on both imports and exports and many in the South felt they were unfair but these alone was not enough to make the South secede.

Of the four states that issued a declaration of cause of secession only Georgia even mentioned the tariff. They all complained of slavery as the main cause:

Here is a statement from Georgia:
“A brief history of the rise, progress, and policy of anti-slavery and the political organization into whose hands the administration of the Federal Government has been committed will fully justify the pronounced verdict of the people of Georgia. The party of Lincoln, called the Republican party, under its present name and organization, is of recent origin. It is admitted to be an anti-slavery party.”

Mississippi:
“Our position is thoroughly identified with the institution of slavery — the greatest material interest of the world. Its labor supplies the product which constitutes by far the largest and most important portions of commerce of the earth. These products are peculiar to the climate verging on the tropical regions, and by an imperious law of nature, none but the black race can bear exposure to the tropical sun. These products have become necessities of the world, and a blow at slavery is a blow at commerce and civilization. That blow has been long aimed at the institution, and was at the point of reaching its consummation. THERE WAS NO CHOICE LEFT US BUT SUBMISSION TO THE MANDATES OF ABOLITION, OR A DISSOLUTION OF THE UNION,”

South Carolina complains:
“Those (Northern) States have assumed the right of deciding upon the propriety of our domestic institutions; and have denied the rights of property established in fifteen of the States and recognized by the Constitution; they have denounced as sinful the institution of slavery; they have permitted open establishment among them of societies, whose avowed object is to disturb the peace and to eloign the property of the citizens of other States. They have encouraged and assisted thousands of our slaves to leave their homes; and those who remain, have been incited by emissaries, books and pictures to servile insurrection.”

Texas:
“In all the non-slave-holding States, in violation of that good faith and comity which should exist between entirely distinct nations, the people have formed themselves into a great sectional party, now strong enough in numbers to control the affairs of each of those States, based upon an unnatural feeling of hostility to these Southern States and their beneficent and patriarchal system of African slavery, proclaiming the debasing doctrine of equality of all men, irrespective of race or color — a doctrine at war with nature, in opposition to the experience of mankind, and in violation of the plainest revelations of Divine Law. They demand the abolition of negro slavery throughout the confederacy, the recognition of political equality between the white and negro races, and avow their determination to press on their crusade against us, so long as a negro slave remains in these States.”

See full text at:
http://sunsite.utk.edu/civil-war/reasons.html

How clear can the word be? How can one read these declarations and not realize that the problem of slavery was the paramount reason behind secession?

Blayne quoting JJ:
“You are distorting too many facts and quotes here. Lincoln NEVER, I repeat NEVER said he could care less about slavery.”

Blayne then writes:
“Amazing I posted a quote of him saying essentially that and now you are denying it? Here it is again:

“‘My paramount object in this struggle is to save the Union, and is not to either to save or to destroy slavery. If I could save the Union without freeing any slave I would do it.'”

JJ:
There is nothing in that quote about not caring about slavery. I already destroyed the potency of this quote by giving the rest of it. Let me repeat it again what you left out:

“I have here stated my purpose according to my views of official duty and I intend no modification of my oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free.”

Does his statement you keep leaving out sound like he couldn’t care less about slavery? An “oft-expressed personal wish that all men everywhere could be free” certainly shows that he cares, but at the time he officially had to adhere to the publicly accepted objective of saving the union. He had to be careful to stress this in a letter to the most influential newspaper editor in the United States.

Lincoln did not have enough support in the North for abolition to appear to be promoting it too much so he had to be careful in his wording.

April 16, 2011
To compare Lincoln to Hitler doesn’t make any sense at all to me. When in a war fighting for survival extreme measures are always taken and the criticisms aimed toward Lincoln could be made as much or more toward Jefferson Davis. This is a point Dilorenzo seems to be mysteriously silent on.

If one had a grudge toward George Washington he could also make a case that he was a tyrant for he used strong authority when necessary.

Like Larry, I receive a great vibration from the man when I read anything about him, even from his enemies and especially from his own words. I am certainly in good company for DK calls him a “Racial Avatar” on the side of light coming forth “from the very soul of a people, and introducing and transmitting racial quality to be worked out later as the race unfolds.” White Magic Page 298

He also says “The power which the New Group of World Servers will eventually yield, will be drawn from two sources: first, from that inner centre or subjective world government, whose members are responsible for the spread of those ideals and ideas which have led humanity onwards from age to age. This inner centre has always existed and the great leaders of the race, in every field, have been connected with it. The great idealists and world workers, (such as the Christ and His great brother, the Buddha, and those lesser workers, such as Plato, Spinoza, Abraham Lincoln, or Florence Nightingale) have all been associated with this centre.”

If DK is truly a Master working under the direction of the Christ this would mean that even the greatest of us all sees Lincoln as a great initiate.

Jesus said that we can recognize true workers and teachers by their fruits. “By their fruits ye shall know them.”

Here are some of Lincoln’s fruits.

(1) He is the most quoted president or world leader of all time and many of his words stir the soul and almost have the ring of scripture.

Many quote Lincoln’s words. Who quotes Hitler or any other tyrant?

Next to Jesus he gave the most famous speech of all time, the Gettysburg Address.

Historians almost universally rate him as our greatest president.

He freed the slaves. This was one of the greatest accomplishments by any man in history. If we had not fought the Civil War I believe the slaves would not have been free until about the 1960’s. Instead of struggling for civil rights we would have still been dealing with the slavery issue.

He preserved the Union. If we were a divided nation during World War II it is quite possible Hitler would have won the war.

He supported the construction of the first transcontinental railroad.

He supported for the Homestead Act. This act allowed poor people in the East to obtain land in the West and greatly increased the wealth of the American people.

He defied the national and international bankers and refused to borrow money at high interest and issued greenbacks that cost us no interest.

He set an example of honesty and integrity that has inspired millions.

He initiated Thanksgiving as a national holiday.

He signed a proclamation for a day of national fasting and prayer.

There are many stories giving evidence of his kindness and compassion. He planned on being forgiving and compassionate in victory – not something a tyrant would have done.

He had a great sense of humor and told many funny as well as teaching stories.

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

Freedom

Book Of Quotes

Inspirational, Spiritual & Metaphysical Quotes From The Discourses Of JJ Dewey

1  People must have a say in deciding their destiny.

2  The good that comes from freedom far outweighs the bad.

3  There are two kinds of freedom:   Freedom FROM and Freedom TO.

4  A lot of causes that unnecessarily restrict freedom sound very benevolent but the hidden result is always a good intention turned into a more negative result than if things were just left to educating the people of the ideal good and letting them make up their own minds.

5  In truth we will probably never talk about a more important principle than that of freedom. Nor will we find one that is more illusive to the understanding of seekers.

6  Many are tricked by illusion and do not see or understand the true principle and thus are unable to follow the path of freedom that that leads to understanding of pure truth.

7  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.

8  As the seeker progresses on the path adherence to freedom is always increasing and never decreasing.

9  Any decrease in the embracement of freedom signifies retrogression in progression.

10  Truth and freedom interplay and create understanding from the soul.

11  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.

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

13  The only benevolent rule is that which allows the maximum freedom of the individual and the various groups of which he is a member.

14  If the good and freedom loving people of the earth stand by and wait for God to change things, then God will stand by and allow the selfish people of the planet to set up rule until the lazy religious ones see the error of their ways and begin to forge their own destiny with the help of the Spirit of God.

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

16  All steps toward the liberation of the soul are proceeded by a greater sense and power of freedom in the life of the disciple.

17  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.

18  Freedom is an essence at the core of our very being and evolution, and terrible karma awaits he who supports a reduction thereof which results in an overall diminishing of this greatest of the gifts of God.

19  The principle of freedom is not widely understood in the world today – and even if it is understood by some, it is not trusted.

20  When we choose freedom we always take a risk. But of course in not choosing freedom we are assured a bad ending, even though the few may benefit for a short time.

21  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.

22  Many proclaim freedom and walk into slavery. Others, a very few others, proclaim and live the principle of freedom and walk into the very heart of God, drawing many behind them.

23  The important thing to remember is to keep the spirit of freedom burning within our breasts and allow those with whom we disagree to have their say.

24  Security is often offered by giving up freedoms.

25  After deciding on a choice and placing value upon it, one must see through the illusions that will trick him into freely giving up his freedom.

26  In the end, the only way freedom can be lost is by giving it to another through your own free will.

27  Once the true path of freedom is seen, this path must be followed. If it is not pursued and time passes, the night will come and the vision of the path will dim.

28  Where freedom is enhanced life is magnified and grows in power and purpose.

29  Where freedom is restricted there is a reduction in the force and quality of life.

30  Without freedom there is no life.

31  The problem with understanding the principle of freedom is each of us has our ring-pass-not at a different level. One person will get very upset at restrictions of freedom within his ring; but another, who does not see himself as affected, will not care. If we attempt to restrict freedom outside of our ring then the time will come that we ourselves will find our own freedoms restricted. If we attempt to restrict freedom within our ring, but in an area where we have no personal interest, the time will come that an area of interest for us will be affected.

32  Most natural restrictions can be overcome by the individual and made to disappear for life. Unnatural restrictions cannot be overcome by the individual and hang around to thwart him with no end in sight.

33  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.

34  The sad fact is that many who see themselves as representing Light are deceived into accepting and even promoting diminished freedom and thus become unwilling servants for the Dark Ones, until the truth makes them free.

35  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.

36  An essential part of practicing the Principle of Freedom – a dividing sword between the philosophies of light and dark brothers – is a tolerance for the freedom of others to pursue their dreams in areas where we ourselves have no interest – or perhaps even distaste for.

37  The real test of the application of this principle [of freedom] in the life of the seeker is when one is faced with the decision of tolerating the behavior of others that you would never yourself endorse – proving that behavior does not produce great risk to the whole of the group.

38  Freedom will be a concept espoused by all who seek the cause of Zion.

39  As it is the few are always eager to take away freedom from the many because of distrust. The few with influence always fear that the many will not use freedom wisely and therefore they do not deserve it and should not have it.

40  Let us encourage freedom among our brothers and sisters and give a little trust to the ultimate goodness of humankind.

41  It is impossible to take away the freedom of a person who finds the God within.

42  It has been said the price of freedom is eternal vigilance and this is indeed true, but we must be vigilant for all freedom, and not only for our own liberty in a limited area of interest.

43  We must be prepared to defend the principle of freedom for all lives within their “Ring Pass Not” and areas of interest, as long as that free expression does not take away more freedom than it gives.

44  The principle of freedom will generally be manifest if one consistently asks this question: Will my action increase the freedom of the whole or decrease the freedom of the whole?

45  An increase in benefits takes away from freedom if the reception of those benefits comes by way of force, or the taking away of the freedom of one to increase the freedom of another.

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

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

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

49  In the name of goodness, protection, mom and apple pie almost every freedom we have is under attack from one source or another.

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

51  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.

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

53  The use of force and the application of the principle of freedom is the core dividing difference between the Brotherhood of Light and the Dark Brothers.

54  Freedom is more important than any marginal risk of accident or even death on the physical plane.

55  All of the leadership among the Dark Brothers seeks to maintain power within their sphere and fear their power is threatened whenever the principle of freedom abounds in the hearts of mankind. They, therefore, project their objectives as the “good” and seek to accomplish that good by force.

56  It is appropriate to restrain someone from disrupting the freedom and peace of others.

57  True freedom is increased only when the benefit, seen as increased freedom, extends to the whole and is supported by the whole.

58  Restrictions in freedom are made where the majority has little to say about it.

59  If we desire to live in a situation of maximum freedom we must all be willing to accept changes that affect ourselves as well as others.

60  There are many who claim to be advocates of freedom who are merely deceived. If their own benefits are enhanced at the expense of the many, they are deceived into thinking that freedom is enhanced.

61  Allow people the maximum freedom of choice possible and have faith in the divinity that is in us all.

62  Freedom of speech does not allow you to come into my house and force me to listen to you reading the dictionary.

63  The use of force is only justified when the force prevents the loss of freedom or life for an individual or group.

64  Even in an atmosphere of prosperity and freedom those who do not wish to lose their livelihood will fight tooth and nail to preserve the status quo.

65  He who understands freedom will not support a lower speed limit to save one life in a million. To him life is freedom and the freedom of 999,999 is worth more than a single life or even several lives.

66  The principle of freedom is always where the battleground is, my friends.

67  There are indeed many things allowed under the Principle of Freedom that would be distasteful to me but the loss of freedom of one who is opposite to me in point of view would eventually lead to a similar loss of freedom for myself and that would be much more distasteful still.

68  Disciples must always look to the side or cause where the greatest freedom for the highest number will be manifest and go in that direction without thought to party or dogma.

69  I would suggest that that when we take a stand on one side or the other on the principle of freedom that we take a look at people who have been a force for good or evil and see who we align ourselves with.

70  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.

71  When freedom rings things often appear to get worse before they get better and the temptation is to go back to restricting freedom. If, on the other hand, people will let freedom play out in all cases except where great harm will occur, then a sure progress is made toward the ideal.

72  People still want to over-control because they see illusionary danger in guns, gays, free speech, free trade, freedom to buy or market herbs and vitamins, freedom of medical marijuana, freedom to state your belief that a disease can be cured, a free internet and many others.

73  The path of light is that which allows the greatest possible freedom of choice for the maximum number of people while allowing for life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness.

74  Freedom always revolves around decision and not endowment of goods and services.

75  The Dark Brothers try and convince us that true freedom comes by receiving an endowment of goods or favors.

76  The Brotherhood of Light promotes the idea that freedom comes with the enhancement of the actual power of decision and the removal of obstructions thereof.

77  Without freedom there are no equal rights for as soon as you infringe on the freedom of one to enhance the rights of another then equality rights are destroyed. This makes freedom, not equality, the foundation principle.

78  The principle of freedom deals with an endless benefit that will resurface again and again until the seeker is finally one with it and will never lose it.

79  He who sees freedom as belonging to the power to possess will not see himself as being free in relation to money until he has possession of it.

80  He who comprehends and accepts the principle of freedom does not see the principle playing out in the temporary possession of money, but is happy to have the opportunity to decide in that direction if he wished.

81  The true principle of freedom lies in the idea that the soul energy is freely released so its life can flow through the ideas and thoughts of the pilgrim until all desires are fulfilled.

82  If freedom is allowed to flow through individual entities, corporate entities, and group entities then water will reach its own level and the end will be good even though there are problems in the middle.

83  Some of the most intelligent people demand freedom for themselves above financial security.

84  True peace comes from the Spirit of God, which is the Spirit of freedom or the soul.

85  Freedom is a principle that is worked out in practice rather than speech only.

86  The principle to look for is always maximum freedom, not a free-for-all.

87  The principle of freedom expands when man sees the Christ in his fellow man and develops a basic trust in the general goodness of people.

88  Because the right to bear arms helps the principle of freedom (as well as responsibility) more than it hurts I wholeheartedly endorse it.

89  I always support the principle of freedom unless that freedom turns into some type of boomerang that takes away more freedom than it gives.

90  The life of freedom should be allowed to flow in all directions and should only be restricted for the purpose of protecting or manifesting a greater freedom, or for freedom affecting a greater number of people.

91  Gun control is seen by some as a way to enhance freedom, but the truth is that gun control does not enhance freedom any more than the ownership of slaves brought freedom to the Old South. The mistake in vision is very much the same.

92  Gun control is a method of enslaving the desires of many law abiding citizens to bring an illusionary freedom for those with an opposing ideology.

93  The Principle of Freedom dictates that we must allow the freedom of opposing points of view, even if they are repulsive to us – if that point of view does not restrict or diminish the freedom of the whole.

94  Freedom can only triumph when there is complete openness to both sides of a question.

95  Before any freedom is restricted there should be ample proof that the problem is a major one and that the restriction of freedom is absolutely necessary for the freedom of the whole.

96  If mankind will learn to judge wisely, and use their power of decision, then unjust powers and authorities will no longer hold humanity imprisoned.

Return to Quote Index

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