Was Jesus a Socialist?

April 28, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 6

Was Jesus a Socialist?

Many from alternative spirituality use Jesus along with various scriptures to convince us that high taxes and a government sponsored socialism with the redistribution of wealth is all part of God’s will and therefore a benevolent thing to advocate. These people have many friends in orthodox Christianity such as President Obama who in a speech at the National Prayer Breakfast in February 2012 basically says that those who have abundance should be happy to be taxed by government so they can give it to those who lack because of “God’s command to ‘love thy neighbor as thyself.’”

Then he adds: “But for me as a Christian, it also coincides with Jesus’s teaching that ‘for unto whom much is given, much shall be required.’”

He continues: “It’s also about the biblical call to care for the least of these — for the poor; for those at the margins of our society.”

And that is not all, he also says, “Treating others as you want to be treated. Requiring much from those who have been given so much. Living by the principle that we are our brother’s keeper. Caring for the poor and those in need. These values are old.”

Then he finishes by quoting the Apostle John: “If anyone has material possessions and sees his brother in need but has no pity on him, how can the love of God be in him? Dear children, let us not love with words or tongue but with actions and in truth.”

Wow, that really sounds like Jesus must have really been a socialist … or does it?

As I noted earlier there are 41 definitions of the term “socialism” that covers most every aspect of community and sharing so yes, I’m sure one or more of those definitions could be applied to make the argument that Jesus was a socialist of some kind. The same arguments could be used to make the case that many mainstream Christians of today are socialists for sharing, but that totally misses the case that the Left is subtly trying to make.

And what is that?

First, I’ll tell you what it is not. They are not trying to convince us that we as individuals are supposed to help those in need by giving our time and money directly to them as Jesus advocated. They have no interest in that. Instead, they want us to believe that Jesus wants us to share by giving our money to the government through high taxes so Big Brother can then give to those in need. Since about 50% of the people get money from the government that is a whole lot of need happening out there.

When we hear believers saying that Jesus was a socialist we need to understand that they are not saying he was some fringe definition of socialist that just donates his money to good causes but they are making the case that he would support higher taxes, especially for the rich, so their wealth can be taken from them by force and given to those in need after millions of bureaucrats take their cut in the form of high wages and benefits.

So the question is not: Was Jesus a generous and sharing kind of dude, but was Jesus an advocate of giving to Caesar so Caesar could redistribute according to his will?

The answer should be obvious, but unfortunately it must not be, because a lot of people, in both standard and alternative spirituality, think that Jesus was a socialist who would smile at the current government give-aways and encourage more of them.

There is a huge difference between the redistribution of wealth advocated by Jesus and that of big government people today. The difference is that Jesus taught the people what to do and let them make up their own minds. If a person didn’t want to give to the poor he didn’t have to. Jesus didn’t even follow the selfish guy around to pester him to share his wealth.

On the other hand, when Caesar, or the government, decides that you need to share your wealth it will follow you around with IRS agents and force you to share whether you want to or not.

Yes, all the President’s quotation of scripture regarding sharing with our fellowmen and women does apply to individuals using their own initiative, and if he left it at that he would have a fine sermon to deliver in church. The question is – do the teachings apply to forced sharing or tax and share?

Let us look at a couple of the scriptural arguments used to justify the government confiscating wealth and then sharing it.

One of the most popular is the story of the rich young man who came to Jesus and asked him what he needed to do to obtain eternal life. Jesus responded by telling him to keep the Ten Commandments.

To this the man responded:

“All these I have kept,” … “What do I still lack?”

Jesus answered, “If you want to be perfect, go, sell your possessions and give to the poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this, he went away sad, because he had great wealth.”

Then Jesus said to his disciples, “I tell you the truth, it is hard for a rich man to enter the kingdom of heaven.” Matt 19:16-23 New International Version

“So there you have it,” says the aspiring socialist. “The rich re supposed to give away all their money to the poor so we are just following the teachings of Jesus in advocating sharing or redistribution of wealth.”

I find it amazing that this comparison can be made with a straight face because there is a big difference between what Jesus advocated compared to the socialists and communists of today.

Jesus advocated sharing through free will. Socialists of today advocate sharing by force. – two very different approaches.

Let us suppose that after the rich man talked to Jesus he went home to discover that a thief had broken into his house and stole all his wealth. The thief then shared that wealth with his family and friends who were in need. Do you suppose the rich man then obtained a spot in the kingdom of heaven because his wealth was shared by force with the poor?

Such an idea obviously makes no sense, yet this is what many want us to believe when they quote this scripture. They seem to think they are helping the rich to enter the kingdom of heaven through taking their wealth by force.

If the taking of wealth by force helps people enter heaven then the churches ought to hire burglars to rob from their rich members. They’d kill two birds with one stone. They will fill their coffers with cash while assisting those resisting rich on the path to heaven.

Notice that the advice of Jesus to the rich man had nothing to do with force. Did he tell the man to go to Caesar or the government and donate his money so the welfare programs of Rome could be enhanced?

No. He did not hint that he should give his wealth to government through either force or free will. Jesus did not even ask him to give to himself or his group. He simply told him to give directly to the poor through his own free will.

Then when the man refused, Jesus let him be. He did not lift a finger to force the man to comply.

This is a difficult scripture for Christians as it is a hard thing for all of us to part with our money. And it is quite possible that Jesus never intended for all the rich to part with their money. Perhaps this particular individual was corrupted by wealth more than most and parting with it would help his mind focus on spiritual things.

Joseph of Arimathea was a rich friend of Jesus who donated his expensive burial tomb. He never gave away all his wealth or else he couldn’t have assisted with this gift, but is considered a saint. Perhaps Joseph’s wealth did not corrupt his soul and he used it toward a good end – making it unnecessary to give it all away at once.

Here is the attitude Jesus said we must have toward the disadvantaged if we want to enter the kingdom of heaven:

“For I was hungry and you gave me something to eat, I was thirsty and you gave me something to drink, I was a stranger and you invited me in, I needed clothes and you clothed me, I was sick and you looked after me, I was in prison and you came to visit me.” Matt 25:35-36 NIV

Again the socialists say, “See. Jesus wants us to share the wealth if we are to get into heaven.”

But again there is no mention of Caesar or force involved. Those who attain the prize are those who are benevolent through their own free will.

There are numerous scriptures admonishing the rich to share, but not one that indicates forced sharing benefits the soul.

It is interesting to note that the authorities were concerned that Jesus was delinquent in taxes or perhaps avoiding them altogether. It is written:

…the collectors of the two-drachma tax came to Peter and asked, “Doesn’t your teacher pay the temple tax’?” “Yes, he does,” he replied. (He apparently lied here to protect his master)

When Peter came into the house, Jesus was the first to speak. “What do you think, Simon?” he asked. “From whom do the kings of the earth collect duty and taxes— from their own sons or from others?”

“From others,” Peter answered.

“Then the sons are exempt,” Jesus said to him. “But so that we may not offend them, go to the lake and throw out your line. Take the first fish you catch; open its mouth and you will find a four-drachma coin. Take it and give it to them for my tax and yours.” Matt 25:24- 27 NIV

Here we learn that Jesus didn’t pay this tax because he didn’t think it applied to him but when accosted – to keep himself and Peter out of trouble – he went ahead and made the payment.

Word must have gotten out that Jesus was dragging his feet in paying taxes for the Pharisees approached him about his view on them in the hope of getting him in trouble with the authorities.

“Tell us then, what is your opinion? Is it right to pay taxes to Caesar or not?”

But Jesus, knowing their evil intent, said, “You hypocrites, why are you trying to trap me? Show me the coin used for paying the tax.”

They brought him a denarius, and he asked them, “Whose portrait is this? And whose inscription?”

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

Then he said to them, “Give to Caesar what is Caesar’s, and to God what is God’s.” Matt 22:17-21 NIV

He avoided saying no, which would have led to an early arrest. Instead he told them it appeared the coin belonged to Caesar since it bore his image. If it belongs to Caesar then let Caesar have it but give to God that which belongs to God.

This confused them enough to leave Jesus alone for a while but word must have gotten out that he wanted the rich to give directly to the poor instead of sharing the wealth through taxes. We find this accusation made at his trial:

And they began to accuse him, saying, “We have found this man subverting our nation. He opposes payment of taxes to Caesar… Luke 23:2 NIV

It should be crystal clear to any honest thinker that Jesus would not be in harmony with today’s tax and share the wealth socialists. If something belonged to an individual it was up to him whether he shared with others or not.

Because of inefficiencies of bureaucracy today it generally costs us two tax dollars to give away one to people in need. The philosophy of Jesus not only operated on free will but was much more efficient. He told the rich to just give their money directly to the poor. Under the plan of Jesus two dollars out of two went to the poor compared to one out of two or three today by Big Brother. Which makes the more sense?

Most Christians today follow the example of Jesus and pay their taxes to keep out of trouble, but as far as helping the disadvantaged goes, in most cases, they would rather have the extra money and help of their own free will rather than being forced to share. A thief with a gun can force you to share but that doesn’t even get your big toe into the Kingdom of Heaven.

“I am for doing good to the poor, but I differ in opinion of the means. I think the best way of doing good to the poor, is not making them easy in poverty, but leading or driving them out of it. In my youth I travelled much, and I observed in different countries, that the more public provisions were made for the poor, the less they provided for themselves, and of course became poorer. And, on the contrary, the less was done for them, the more they did for themselves, and became richer.” –Benjamin Franklin, “Management of the Poor” (1766)

If you missed Part 1 Click HERE  For Part 2 go HERE, Part 3 HERE, Part 4 HERE, Part 5 HERE

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

 

Sharing

April 27, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 5

Sharing

Many spiritual teachers have taught about the importance of sharing. This is one ideal inherent in both standard and alternative religion or spirituality.

An increasing number in orthodox religion are interpreting the advice of Jesus to give to the poor as support of government socialism. Most of them though see it as an admonishment to individual giving.

On the other hand, the vast majority in the alternative movements support the government imposition of socialism, including most students of my favorite teacher, Djwhal Khul. They seem to support any social program that sounds good without thinking it through to see if it adheres to the Law of Economy and the Principle of Freedom.

DK and numerous other teachers have rightly present an ideal that is hoped to manifest in a future world where the people will be much more focused on spiritual values than material ones. They see a world where people, groups, states and nations will be dominated with a spirit of goodwill, sharing and brotherhood so that those with more power and possessions will help those with less. DK said this back in 1940:

“These are: first, the recognition that there is enough food, fuel, oil and minerals in the world to meet the need of the entire population.”

Externalisation of the Hierarchy, Page 197

The earth has plenty for all, especially if humans remain free to use their ingenuity to develop products and services to meet the need.

For instance, we are in the process of developing a half dozen alternatives to oil to fill our energy needs.

Indeed there is enough for all. The only thing that prevents the basic needs of all humans being satisfied is inefficient government and selfishness on the part of many in power.

Time and time again, when food and supplies has been sent to starving people, they were intercepted by leaders and gangs and not distributed.

This was not the fault of the rich nations who helped but of the leaders of the poor and starving.

There is a time and place for direct assistance, but sooner or later each individual, group and nation must learn to develop the necessary skills and education to produce abundance for themselves.

It is interesting that many of the nations with the greatest poverty are blessed with many natural assets, such as oil, minerals, water, good soil etc. The only thing that keeps them from abundance is lack of knowledge and suppressive government.

Filling in the knowledge gap is where the Internet will come in. Many now living in poverty in the third world are gaining access and enterprising people can find educational sites where they can learn most anything they desire.

Concerning socialism and free enterprise, DK tells us that “the extreme position in either case is untenable.” (Rays and Initiations, Page 633)

So, what is the extreme of free enterprise? DK talks about free enterprise and “intense individualism” in pretty much the same breath making the extreme here easy to see. The extreme on the free enterprise side is being motivated only for the benefit of self while ignoring the plight of the downtrodden. The person involved in free enterprise accomplishes the most good when he seeks to benefit others as well as himself and seeks spiritual values, as well as the material.

So, how does the extreme manifest in socialism then?

He plainly states the problem:

“Socialism can degenerate into another form of totalitarianism, or it can be more democratic than the present expressions of Democracy.” (Rays and Initiations, Page 747)

Then he says this:

“Principle of Fusion and of group endeavour is right and part of the divine plan; its implementation by grasping, greedy and ambitious men, or by deluded disciples, is terribly wrong and will lead to disaster. This disaster the Hierarchy is seeking to avert, but the Masters are handicapped (as usual) by the relatively few upon whom They can depend, and by the lack of understanding amongst the masses of well-intentioned people.”

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 2, Page 353

And just how can socialism and fusion degenerate to totalitarianism? The answer is obvious. When the State violates the Principle of Freedom and imposes social programs on the people contrary to the will of the people who will have to pay for those programs. If it works with the will of the people he tells us that “it can be more democratic than the present expressions of Democracy.”

What are the results when social programs are in harmony with the will of the people?

One of the prime things is that those who are putting up the money will feel their money is well spent and not going down a black hole. Social Security in the United States is an example of a social program supported by the will of the people. The only complaint of substance is the State raids the Social Security funds for other social programs not supported by majority will and this places the whole thing in jeopardy.

Most on the spiritual right as well as the political right will support social programs that are supported by the majority who will pay for them. Of course, the vast majority of those who get free stuff with no payment on their part will want to get as many freebies as the State is willing to dole out. They should not have power to dictate to those who are paying for the programs to pay more and more until there is nothing left to give. That lays the foundation for the tyranny spoken of by DK.

Unfortunately, the political left, as well as many DK students, do not agree with DK and are willing to use the force of the Sate to impose their social ideals, even if they run contrary to the will of the people who have to pay to implement those ideals.

This is the extreme of socialism and fusion that must be avoided, for if such steps are followed with no one putting them in check then we will reach a state where those who receive will outnumber those who pay, and this new majority of takers will then have power to dictate to a new cycle of slaves what they demand to receive from them.

This tyranny must not be allowed to materialize or the only correction will be found in the complete collapse of the system with the believers of freedom building anew.

If you missed Part 1 Click HERE  For Part 2 go HERE, Part 3 HERE, Part 4 HERE

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

 

Freedom is Freedom

236

Chapter Three –

The Second Division

Slavery Is Freedom, Or Maybe 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why is this?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Taxes

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

Social Programs

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

 

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

 

Over Regulation

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

Here are a couple of dumb ones of recent date:

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

 

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

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

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

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

Some of the new laws are not funny.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

(2) Spending money.

 

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

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

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

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

He wants to do a good job.

How does he make sure he does a good job?

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

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

Right. He will make laws and spend money.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Change their job description!

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

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

Perhaps a parable will help:

 

A Man Just Doing His Job

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The contractor shrugged his shoulders and said.

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

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

But there are problems with the two objectives:

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

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

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

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

(2) Spending money

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

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

Answer: They are out of a job.

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

Answer: They look for more work.

Question: How do they get more work?

Answer: They raise more money.

Question: How do they raise more money?

Answer: They pass still more legislation and increase taxes.

 

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

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

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

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

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

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

That said, what is our first step?

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

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

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

What would be in the plan?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

 

The Left, the Right and DK, Part 4

This entry is part 4 of 73 in the series 2015

I’ll add a few more comments concerning DK in light of present day politics.

Communism

DK agreed with the political right’s assessment of what communism does to the political spirit. He sated:

Many of the people most violently fighting Communism could not tell you succinctly what those tenets are, but they are fighting – and rightly fighting – the totalitarian methods of cruelty, spying, murder, suppression and the lack of freedom. What they are doing in truth is fighting the abominable methods of imposing the rule of a few evil and ambitious men upon the ignorant masses, under the name of Communism. They are fighting the technique of exploiting the ignorant through misinformation, organised lying and limited education. They are fighting against the sealing up of nations within the confines of their own territory, against the police state, the lack of free enterprise and the reduction of men and women to automatons. This is the true imprisonment of the human spirit. The situation is, however, so pronounced and the evil so obvious (and the human spirit so basically and divinely strong) that it will eventually defeat itself; when the present group of totalitarian rulers (behind what you call the “iron curtain”) die out a different state of affairs will gradually supervene and a true Communism (in the spiritual sense of the term) will take the place of the present wickedness.

Rays and Initiations, Page 745

DK strikes a similar tone to far right writer, strongly criticized by the Left, W. Cleon Skousen who started writing popular anti communist books shortly after DK made this statement. Like DK, Skousen believed a spiritual communism (called The United Order) was a possibility.

The problem with communism isn’t the main theme of “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.” That ideal did not materialize in the Soviet Union, Cuba, North Korea or even China which is now become as capitalistic as the USA.

The problem with totalitarian communism is that the abilities and needs are assessed, not by the individuals, but the all-powerful State. As it turned out the non-communist free countries drew more out of people because of their abilities and did much more to meet their needs than totalitarian communism ever has.

Like any other ideal, what is good and bad about it, what works and doesn’t work, can only be discovered in a melting pot fomented through free will. Imposing ideals, no matter how benevolent they sound, from on high, without testing them in the fires of free human enterprise does not work.

Socialism

Concerning socialism and free enterprise, DK tells us that “the extreme position in either case is untenable.” (Rays and Initiations, Page 633)

So, what is the extreme of free enterprise? DK talks about free enterprise and “intense individualism” in pretty much the same breath making the extreme here easy to see. The extreme on this side is being motivated only for the benefit of self while ignoring the plight of the downtrodden. The person involved in free enterprise accomplishes the most good when he seeks to benefit others as well as himself and seeks spiritual values, as well as the material.

So, how does the extreme manifest in socialism then?

He plainly states the problem:

Socialism can degenerate into another form of totalitarianism. (Rays and Initiations, Page 747)

And just how can it degenerate to totalitarianism? The answer is obvious. When the State violates the Principle of Freedom and imposes social programs on the people contrary to the will of the people who will have to pay for those programs. If it works with the will of the people he tells us that “it can be more democratic than the present expressions of Democracy.”

What are the results when social programs are in harmony with the will of the people?

One of the prime things is that those who are putting up the money will feel their money is well spent and not going down a black hole. Social Security in the United States is an example of a social program supported by the will of the people. The only complaint of substance is the State raids the Social Security funds for other social programs not supported by majority will and this places the whole thing in jeopardy.

Most on the spiritual right as well as the political right will support social programs that are supported by the majority who will pay for them. Of course, the vast majority of those who get free stuff with no payment on their part will want to get as many freebies as the State is willing to dole out. They should not have power to dictate to those who are paying for the programs to pay more and more until there is nothing left to give. That lays the foundation for the tyranny spoken of by DK.

Unfortunately, the political left, as well as many DK students, do not agree with DK and is willing to use the force of the Sate to impose their social ideals, even if they run contrary to the will of the people who have to pay to implement those ideals.

This is the extreme of socialism that must be avoided, for if such steps are followed with no one putting them in check then we will reach a state where those who receive will outnumber those who pay, and this new majority of takers will then have power to dictate to a new cycle of slaves what they demand to receive from them.

This tyranny must not be allowed to materialize or the only correction will be found in the complete collapse of the system with the believers of freedom building anew.

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE




Keys Writings 2014, Part 7

This entry is part 9 of 33 in the series 2014

May 4, 2014

Good and Evil

Joan:

I attend a monthly “shadow group” with 4 other women where we try to work out deeper issues that seem related to unconscious material. Which brings me to the idea of evil. (I get evil and sickness mixed up). Does being sick (mentally or physically) necessarily mean that evil is present?

 

JJ

I all depends on how you define evil. In the old days people had a pretty simple view of good and evil. Evil was basically that which angered God and good was something that pleased Him. Today some people have gone the other extreme and watered down the definition so much that nothing is evil.

 

When you think of it, it is silly to claim that the reality behind a word does not exist for all words represent something that does exist.  If good and evil did not really exist then we should completely eliminate them from our language.  We do not, because they represent something real just as all words do.

 

When we talk about the meaning of words though we should have their meaning clear in our minds and see that meaning in the language of principles as much as possible. Here is the definition I gave of good and evil the other day.

 

Good is that which moves us forward in the direction of greater freedom, health, happiness, peace, love, understanding and spiritual living.  Evil is that which takes us away from these things.

 

I added in “freedom” here as it is an additional ingredient I left out.

 

So to answer your question, yes, sickness implies there is some force present, taking one away from health and happiness.  It is of course, not evil in the form of some dragon-like devil afflicting a person, but it is technically caused by an evil force.

 

The trouble with the word “evil’ though is it is a strongly polarized word and unless great harm is being done it may be advisable to use something else in its place. Saying that sickness is caused by a lack of balance or wrong life choices is not so harsh as labeling it an evil thing.

 

Joan

I kind of see what you mean but sometimes I see “evil” as simply ignorance or lack of awareness due to any number of reasons and many times when one is able to finally see and literally wake-up to the truth, the “evil” disappears.

 

JJ

Ignorance does lead people in the direction of evil Many people followed Hitler in ignorance of where he was taking them. Ignorance can lead to a loss of freedom, health and happiness, which takes one in the direction of evil. Again, if someone makes a mistake through ignorance we generally do not label them as evil as it is such a charged word.  A seeker’s language should be as harmless as possible, but always silently understand the meaning behind events.

 

Joan

Anyway, one question I have is, if Jesus could make such “evil” disappear when he was literally walking the planet….could he not do the same today if he is alive on some other level, say in the heart of man–or in the dimension just beyond us? In other words, what would keep such an avatar from performing miracles in the present moment and curing us of disease, (should it be God’s will) and we ASK for help, for Him to do so?

 

JJ

Anytime one exercises enough true faith the door to the miraculous becomes open. However, each avatar has a different mission and plan behind it.  Jesus performed a lot of miracles as a part of the great plan.  Abraham Lincoln, another avatar, performed none (in the normal sense). Unless one is a high initiate, such as the Christ, he either needs to work with great faith of the patient or have assistance from an unseen entity who has decided to assist.

 

Joan:

Which brings me to the next issue I was hoping you could also shed light on for me. My friend, (and the leader of the “shadow group” I am involved in) believes that the only way a person can heal from darkness (evil, disease, negativity) is by facing and healing the shadow or unconscious.

 

JJ

This is often true, but not always.  Many illnesses are caused by denial or suppression of emotion and before the healing can take place those thoughts and feelings must be revealed, faced and sent to their right place.

 

Joan

I guess this friend of mine believes that prayer does not have enough power to transform a person. So now I am wondering the same.

 

JJ

Prayer is very helpful and a positive thing to do, but by itself does not transform a person. Some of the most annoying people I have ever met have been huge on praying very regularly. The most important thing for spiritual development is how you actually treat your brothers and sisters. In the parable of the Good Samaritan the injured man was ignored by a priest and a Levite, both of whom were known for their long prayers. The Samaritan, one not known for prayer, actually helped the guy. Jesus said:

 

Luke 10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

Luke 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Luke 10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

 

It sounds as if your group teacher may be on to some good things but I do not know enough about her to give much more judgment on her.

 

If there is anything you need greater clarification on, please ask.

 

May 5, 2014

Gospel of Banabas

Tom:

Was Jesus really crucified because this old Bible says he was not and Judas dressed as Jesus and was killed in his place?????????????  Give your point of view on this.

JJ

This book claiming to be from the time of Christ has not been tested to authenticate its age. Most experts think the Gospel of Banabas was written after 700 AD and if this is so then the writer knew fewer real facts about the crucifixion than we have available today.

For many centuries alternative views ha e been put forward on the details of the cucifxion. The idea that two people were involved probably came about because some of the inner circle taught that two people were involkved in the mission of the Messiah – Jesus and the Christ…Christ did exit the body at the crucifoixion causing Jesus to compain thgat his Lord had forsaken him. So technically Christ wasn’t crucified, but the man Jesus was.

Does it make sense that the government would publicly put a famous person to death for all to see and execute the wrong person? Not likely.

 

May 6, 2014

John Paul I

There seems to be a little confusion on my teachings concerning John Paul I and Jesus.  Yes, I said that Jesus came in the person of John Paul I but how he came is explained in more detail later by me. Here’s a quote from the archives:

Pope John the First who was only in office thirty-three days before he was killed. What we believe happened there is from DK who said right around the time Pope John I came into office The Master Jesus would attempt to take over the Catholic Church from the Vatican. What happened, is, I believe, Jesus overshadowed John Paul First. John Paul the First was not Jesus but Jesus worked through him. John Paul the First came to the Vatican and he was going to fire everybody and completely rearrange the Vatican. He saw the corruption there and he was making big changes. There is a book written about him that gives tremendous evidence that he was killed. poisoned. He was only in office thirty-three days!

Jesus was just working through John Paul the First. He was overshadowing him and working with him very closely. Jesus wasn’t reincarnated, just working with him very closely.

Archive #2306    LINK

I didn’t set 2020 as a date written in stone for another attempt but said it “may” happen as early as that. It is also quite possible that the Hierarchy is working with the current Pope as he is much more humble and receptive to change than anyone since John Paul I.  It is also possible he may be preparing the way for the real attempt that may come soon. I am concerned about his disparaging remarks about capitalism and would like to know more details about his real beliefs about freedom and communism. Sometimes a disciple will talk about the rejection of materialism in such a way that he sounds like he is against free enterprise when he is not.  He may merely be advocating attention on the spirit side of things rather than matter.

Ruth asks:

If Jesus overshadowed John Paul, then wouldn’t Jesus have been able to intuitively pick up the DBs thoughts about their plan to murder John Paul…

JJ

Someone asked the same question at the 2003 gathering and here is what I said:

Well, it depends on how closely he was listening at the time, I guess. You know maybe he did receive a warning. The person in the body is the one who makes a decision related to the body. There were times in my life where I received a warning about something and I thought, “this will be really awkward to obey this warning” and I found out the warning was correct. Maybe he did receive a warning and just ignored it. Maybe he couldn’t believe his brethren would betray him.

 

May 7, 2014

Earned Authority

Ruth says:

If that was the case, then JJ would have taught us the truth on this matter by now, surely.  To be an earned authority means one is reliable enough to teach the Truth.

JJ

First, I want to stress again that I am not infallible and students must run teachings by their own souls whether they come from me, an angel, a god or the National Enquirer.

Even an earned authority can never replace soul confirmation.  What we should do with an earned authority is give a lot of weight to what he or she says, but not accept without question if something seems amiss.  For instance, DK is an earned authority with me.  Ever so often I come across something he says that sounds a little unbelievable.  When this happens, because he is an earned authority, I do not automatically discount what he says, but give it a lot of weight and attempt to figure out how the words may be true. For instance he says that Jesus took the fifth initiation as Apollonius of Tyana.  The problem is that Apollonius was born at the same time that Jesus was supposed to have been.  That means hat Apollonius was seemingly alive at the same time Jesus was and it would appear that Jesus could not have been born as him.

If most teachers presented such a contradiction I would write it off as a highly probable mistake, but because DK is an earned authority I have spent a lot of thought reflecting on how this could be true and have come up with a number of possibilities.

When I first read DK’s teachings about the overshadowing of Jesus I had a difficult time accepting it because it went against my belief system at the time.  But I gave his words weight and later received confirmation of the principle.

I have not taught all I know and neither do I know all things.  There are a few things in history I have either received a revelation on or an intuitive glimpse, but on most things I have no greater advantage than anyone else. My gift in this life is the understanding of principles, the language of the soul.  I have not placed much attention of finding he details of history in the Akashic records.

Keith is going the right direction in contemplating all possibilities, even if they go against the grain.  There are many details of the life of Jesus that are hidden from all but the masters or those who have received a revelation for some purpose.  There are many things I do not know for sure about the life of Jesus and many other things in history.  Finding out what really happened in history will be one of the fun things to learn after death – for those who are ready.

There are several mysteries connected to the death and resurrection of Jesus that I do not know for sure and I, like the rest of the group, look forward to learning them.

Larry gave some good comments on this statement of Keith’s: “Judas suddenly going bad doesn’t make sense.”

He pointed out that people who are supporters  can indeed turn on you.  I have found this to be the case. Before writing The Immortal I had several teaching groups and gathered a number of people who were dedicated and it seemed they would do anything for me. But before the dust settled a number of them became enemies and probably would have sold me for 30 pieces of silver if someone would have offered.

Here is what I have found from my own experience.  When a seeker finds his teacher and shares the spiritual energies through the soul, he becomes altered, and if he goes against those higher energies his mind becomes dark and he loses his spiritual direction.

The words of Jesus were certainly true:

Matt 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Matt 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

When coming across a greater light the seeker has a chance to be “full of light” or great darkness.  This is one reason in this age the Brotherhood is cautious in giving out endowments of spiritual energy to seekers.

 

May 7, 2014

The Apollonius Mystery

Keith says:

I might have a solution for the Apollonius mystery. I have just finished reading Michael Newton’s book ‘Journey of Soul’s’ which I highly recommend. Michael takes clients into a theta hypnotic state in order to apprehend a persons history between lives. Michael has come across the occasional phenomena of highly developed souls splitting their essence into two different physical personalities at one time. If anybody is evolved enough to live two lives at once Jesus/Christ definitely fits the bill.

So Jesus and Apollonius were alive at the same time because Jesus/Christ split their soul essense between the two. Who knows maybe even more than two?

JJ

Good thinking Keith.  That is one of the possibilities I also came up with.  Great minds think on parallel lines they say.

Here’s another possibility. Jesus survived the crucifixion, as many legends relate. Something happened to the real Apollonius so Jesus assumed his identity because surfacing as Jesus made him a big target.

 

May 8, 2014

Global Warming

Here’s another letter to the Statesman that ought to get some comment.

Those in power who seek to scare the uneducated over an impending doom due to climate change say they want to save the planet, but their actions testify to the contrary.

How can this be?

Because they fight any energy source or breakthrough that has a chance of making a real reduction in CO2.

Nuclear energy has saved us from pumping over 28 billion tons of CO2 (many times that of wind and solar together) in the atmosphere in a 60 year period yet most alarmists fight it tooth and nail.

Natural gas has saved over 25 billion tons over coal yet alarmists show up protesting fracking.

Hydro may be the cleanest of all yet this bunch wants to tear down the dams.

Electric cars are now available, but most alarmists drive gas guzzlers and the wealthy ones fly without concern in private jets. Al Gore’s carbon footprint for just one of his mansions is about 20 times average.

What can we conclude from this? This bunch really isn’t concerned about saving the planet at all, but have another agenda which is to use global warning as an excuse to impose their political agenda on us.

 

May 9, 2014

The Good Guys

Keith:

I haven’t watched the Vikings yet, but my oldest daughter keeps telling me to watch the show. She tells me its better than Game of Thrones which I love. I asked Janine what Loki is like, and she said a dirty smelly blind guy who people like to lick. Thanks J.J. I think I’d rather be Loki. Lol

JJ

Your daughter is correct. The Game of Thrones is boring compared to the Vikings. The name of the guy Judy mentioned is Floki.  The nameless seer reminds me a little of you and he’s probably no more smelly than the rest of the bunch. He kind of plays the Obi-Wan Kenobi role of that time. They do have the odd custom of licking his hand after a reading.  Not sure if the Vikings of history did that or not. It is interesting that the story is based on real history.

Keith:

I haven’t received an impression about Obama being a former pharaoh, but he gives me the definite vibe that he was.

JJ

I don’t get a Pharaoh image of him but I do get the impression of a Roman Emperor.  Nero comes to mind.  He was more interested in being a celebrity than he was in good government and seemed to get out of being blamed for the decline that set in.

Keith:

It amazes me how the good guys get bumped off so easily. Examples being Caesar, Joseph Smith, Lincoln, Kennedy’s, Rev. King, John Paul I. It’s almost seems they are extremely careless. On the other hand getting rid of the bad guys is like trying to scrap the last bit of dog shit off ones shoe.

JJ

Good point and I like your imagery. DK actually talks about this problem the good guys have and points out that one of the reasons for it is they attempt to move their reforms too quickly and upset their enemies who see that their world could come crashing down.  He tells us that a lot of persecution and danger can be avoided by disciples by assessing the long term situation more accurately and moving ahead with wisdom and in a way that doesn’t overwhelm enemies with threats.  Jesus spoke along these lines telling his disciples to be as “wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”

There are times though that there is no way to move safely ahead. Lincoln was in a situations where he moved forward in about the best way possible and still he was killed.  There is always risk, but many disciples draw much more pain to themselves than necessary.

You would think these good guys would be more sensitive to inner warnings.  Lincoln received a dream of his funeral shortly before the assassination.

According to Plutarch, a seer had warned that harm would come to Caesar no later than the Ides of March. On his way to the Theatre of Pompey, where he would be assassinated, Caesar passed the seer and joked, “The ides of March have come,” meaning to say that the prophecy had not been fulfilled, to which the seer replied “Aye, Caesar; but not gone.” (From Wikipedia)

I read once that JFK had a negative feeling about going to Dallas.

Joseph Smith knew that he was going to be killed if he returned to Nauvoo.

Yes, the good guys often do not pay enough attention to the inner voice. I have found that it is wise to follow it even if you suffer a lot of inconvenience.

And you’re right.  Some of the bad guys just do not seem to go away.  Castro is a great example. That guy just keeps hanging on.

And you’re right about Seth.  Even though it was direct voice channeled the books still have some good information in them.  I would say they are the best teachings that have come out of an unconscious medium. Of course, they must be read in the light of the soul.

Keith:

O.K. I know – I got Spielberg and Lucas mixed up. I’m laughing at myself. Anyway my altimiers kicks in every now and then. Sometimes I can’t even remember the names and birthdays of my kids.

JJ I thought you were talking about Schindler’s List Where Speilberg did identify the true good guys and bad guys.  It is easy to recognize the bad guys in hindsight, but much more difficult in the present because they are usually highly accepted by the media. Until the vstart of WWII the media was soft on Hitler and Mussolini, even praising them at times, and were especially enamored with Stalin.  They hated Lincoln with a passion.

 

May 9, 2014

The Pope

This doesn’t sound good.  Any forced redistribution doesn’t help the rich or poor and leads to tyranny.

(AP) Pope Francis called Friday for governments to redistribute wealth and benefits to the poor in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the “economy of exclusion” that is taking hold today.

Francis made the appeal during a speech to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the heads of major U.N. agencies who met in Rome this week.

Latin America’s first pope has frequently lashed out at the injustices of capitalism and the global economic system. On Friday, Francis called for the United Nations to promote a “worldwide ethical mobilization” of solidarity with the poor.

He said a more equal form of economic progress can be had through “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”

Francis urged the U.N. to promote development goals that attack the root causes of poverty and hunger, protect the environment and ensure dignified labor for all.

LINK

 

May 11, 2014

Atheists After Death

Ruth asks if atheists really realize there is an afterlife after they die and if so, would they take that realization to the next life?

It is amusing that many atheists would rather be right and suffer annihilation than to be wrong and have a chance at eternal life.  After death, many of them are surrounded with a dark cloud because they expect nothing but eternal darkness.  After a time though they all come to the realization that they still exist and start to explore the spirit world.

The fact that they learn there is an afterlife doesn’t mean they will take it with the knowledge with them in their next life.  We knew many things in a higher state in the spirit world that we do not know here.  When we are born, we are born with a clean slate.  All we bring with us is our basic intelligence.

That which we assimilate during earth life, especially the understanding of principles, is strongly imbedded and much more likely to carry over into the next life than something we learn in the spirit world.

The material form is a very powerful veil that blocks spiritual knowledge and power until the time comes that the seeker sees through the material illusion and masters it.  When he places spirit as master over matter then the door of the soul swings open and more pure knowledge from his higher self becomes available.

Also all atheists do not go to the same place just as all believers in God do not.  An atheist who is kind and loving will go to a place where others are kind and loving whereas a mean spirited one will go to a place where there is a lower vibration.

 

May 11, 2014

Socialism vs Free Enterprise

Fifty years ago before the government stepped in to help us poor folk even the poor could afford good medical care and pay for it themselves. As proof I will relate a personal experience I have given out several times.

In 1958 I was injured in an explosion. Altogether I had six operations over several years and was in the hospital for a total of over three months. My first hospital room, when my stay was for a month, cost us $8 a day. That’s around $80 in today’s money.

My mother was recently divorced and received no child support and had no assets. She and I picked fruit in the summer and she worked for minimum wage at a potato processing plant in the winter.

We paid off the all the medical expenses with no help from the government. It would be impossible for a fruit picker to pay off such a bill today, but back then even the poor folk could afford to go to the doctor and the hospital.

Back then sometimes the doctor would put a person in the hospital overnight for observation because it was affordable by most.

Unfortunately today, a night in the hospital can cost around $4000 a day compared to the $80 (adjusted for inflation) that we paid. You don’t hear of anyone paying out of his own pocket to go there for a relaxing night of observation these days.

People complain about big oil but they have done a much better job of controlling prices than big hospital. Back in 1958 the price of gas was 39.9 cents [USD] per gallon and my hospital room was $8 a day. If the price of gas had escalated as much as a hospital room then we would be paying about $200.00 a gallon today instead of around $3.50.

In other words, we have $200.00 a gallon health care costs, and who do we look to for solutions? The same people who created the problem in the first place — our friends in the government.

Just think. If we had health care costs low like they were in 1958 then even illegal aliens and fruit pickers could afford to stay in the hospital. If costs were this low we wouldn’t even be thinking about socialized medicine as there would be no need for it.

I spent two years (1964-66) in England and was able to compare their socialized system with ours before the government started helping us.  Even though medical services in England were free we didn’t save much because our costs in America were already very low. On top of that, the doctors in England were really overworked as people went to them much more. I knew people who went to the doctor once a week whether they were sick or not. No one I knew in the U.S. went to the doctor unless they had some kind of need.

Because the doctors were so overworked they rushed the patients through.  I remember one time a doctor started writing me out a prescription when I was just in the middle of telling him what was wrong.  U.S. doctors were never rushed like that in my experience.

Then I went to a private doctor in England once that had to be paid outside the system and he was relaxed and took his time, just like an American doctor.

Even before Obamacare the U.S. medical system was about 60%socialized.  If you want to see how effective and efficient a real free enterprise system would be all we need to do is look back to the good old days before the government offered their help. Those were the days when a fruit picker could have a serious accident and pay off all the expenses of a three month stay in the hospital and six surgeries with no government help.

Government help has also driven up education costs.  Most of my friends and I paid our way through college (early Sixties) by working in the summer and working part time as we went through college. None of us had to take out a loan.

Reagan spoke truly when he said that the most terrifying words a taxpayer can hear is, “I am from the government and I am here to help you.

 

May 12, 2014

Re: Socialism vs Free Enterprise

JJ

What, which country are you from, Soryn?

Soryn:

A few observations though. Beginning with the title: the idea that a few socialist principles integrated into the society stand against free enterprise is incorrect.

JJ

It depends on whether the socialism is imposed by force or created through free will.  Generally, when it is imposed by force it is called socialism and when done through free will it is called a cooperative or some other name reflecting what it is.  A cooperative implies free will because cooperation is normally a free will endeavor. When that which someone sees as the ideal or a good plan is imposed by force then cooperation does not enter in much and the term socialism is usually used.

We could  technically call a cooperative free will socialism for it accomplishes a similar objective much more efficiently without the use of force.

I do not know if you have read my treatise on the Molecular Business, but it accomplishes the objectives of socialism, but with no force imposed by the government.  Everything in it is accomplished by free will and the battle of free will vs the ideal imposed by force is the main dividing line between the Brotherhood of Light and the Dark Brotherhood.

To read the treatise go to the archives at:

LINK

And read sections 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 201 and 205

Soryn:

People should still be able to get rich but it would prevent the rich from transforming certain shared facilities (such as education) into a money making business which defies their purpose.

JJ

Who cares if people make money teaching or running a school if it works well and does a good job of educating the kids? Many private schools do a great job.  In fact the last two presidents, Obama and Clinton, who were supposedly big supporters of public schools sent their kids to private schools.  Jimmy Carter was the last president to send his kid to a public school.

Soryn:

To be honest, I have nothing against private medical care as long as it is affordable to everyone, but that’s where the natural profit tendency of capitalism comes in and starts to favor people with power and money.

JJ

It doesn’t matter whether you go to a socialist country or a partially capitalist one (there are no fully capitalist counties available) the rich will always have an advantage.  The only way to take that advantage away is to make everyone rich and we are a long way from that.

The system we had in the U.S. before forced socialized medicine was introduced worked much better than anything in any European country today and it took no taxes at all to support the system.  Like I said even a fruit picker could afford the best of care.

Soryn:

I agree that doctors that work for the state are overused since the service is free, but solutions can be found to this (such as a better queue system for non-urgent cases).

JJ

I do not think any country on earth with socialized medicine has solved this problem.  But the problem did not even exist in the United States before 1964. Instead of going back to what worked, most want more of what doesn’t work.

Soryn:

Also, I totally support the idea of local food and small local entrepreneurship; most of those corporations are capitalist mutants that are driven by the simple idea of buying cheap and selling big. They go into China and India, buy and manufacture everything cheaply, and then go and sell it in the US and Western Europe. This is capitalist savagery in my eyes.

JJ

The large corporations work on the same principle as the local food entrepreneur. If you go to a farmer’s market you’ll see a wide variety of prices and much of the produce is a lot higher than the same thing at Walmart.  A lot of the big corporations that are accused of being greedy operate on a lot lower profit margin than the little guy. Often a small entrepreneur has to mark his goods up 50% or more just to survive whereas a  big company can operate on a margin of 20% or less.

Does this mean the small guy is the real greedy one?  No.  Both are doing what is necessary to make the wheels of commerce work.

Many harshly criticize corporations for going into the third world countries and using their cheap labor, but do not realize that they are doing the people a favor.  The employees realize this and gladly line up for the jobs.

You have to look at it from the corporation’s point of view. If Apple, or any other company, decides to expand their manufacturing they have two choices.  Hire locally and pay a high wage or expand overseas and pay a lower wage.  The disadvantage of expanding overseas is there are many other expenses besides the labor plus there is always the danger that some dictator could take over the facilities, as has happened many times in history.  As they examine all the costs and risks low wages is often the deciding factor.  Without the possibility of low wages they would not expand abroad but at home.

And what would be the result if no companies expanded abroad?

There would be much more starvation disease and death than now exist.  People in a poor third world country are not going to have money drop in their laps by magic.  Some business enterprise must enter their nation to help them move forward.  The solution is to start with low wages rather than none at all and the people strongly desire something rather than nothing and starvation if business does not expand there.

Once business interests get anchored in a country then wages start going up. China now has almost as many rich people as the United States and are buying as many cars as we are. A generation ago the well-to-do were lucky to be able to afford a bicycle.

After World War II Japan offered business very low wages and it seemed that all the cheap products bore the label, “made in Japan.” A short time later Japan became a wealthy nation and our products now say, “made in China.”  The wages are now going up in China, just as the did Japan. A country seeking to gain prosperity cannot just start at the top of the ladder but must climb up a step at a time just the way the United States and other countries have.

The problem with the thinking of many idealists is they think the problems of the world could be easily solved if government just forced people to do good.  Hitler and Lenin tried that and both of them failed miserably.  There are not enough goods and services available on this planet to make all comfortable if we just share everything.  The solution is to increase the amount of goods and services through free will by freeing up the human spirit to innovate.  Human innovation will eventually bring abundance for all.  How long that will be will be determined by the amount of freedom the people have.

 

May 14, 2014

Only 4% think they are below average intelligence.

LINK

 

May 15, 2014

Global Warming Again

Soryan

JJ, how would you comment those climate change proofs laid out on those sites?

They seem to have a lot of scientific evidence.

From what I understand, you say that global warming is only a construct for the government to take more money from people.

 

JJ

There is not what I have said. There has been some global warming the past century but any construct made of it comes from people not the warming itself.  Governments desiring more control and taxes are using it as a scare tactic and an excuse to gain more control.

 

Soryan:

Even if the global warming is not affected by CO2 emissions, the air in the big cities is certainly affected and something needs to be done in my opinion. Taxation can be a solution in some instances.

 

JJ

Global warming is affected by CO2.  That is not the debate.  The debate consists of two things.

(1) How much effect does CO2 have? Estimates are the warming is less than 1% to 100% caused by CO2.

(2) What we should do about it.

 

CO2 does not pollute our cities but is a plant fertilizer and the increase we have experienced has caused an increase of plant growth of around 15% which has wound up saving many lives from starvation.

 

Coal does give off a lot of pollutants and we should be working to replace it.

 

I have just placed a chapter from my book on global warming at freeread.  Take a read here:

Global Warming

 

May 16, 2014

Handwriting of Ayn Rand

LWK asked me to look at Ayn Rand’s handwriting.  I found a some samples on the internet so I’ll briefly say a few things.

First, if I had to imagine how her handwriting would look from what I know of her history and her writings I would have imagined quite close to what it turned out to be.

It shows she is intuitive, good powers of concentration, a self learner and one who is very curious about how things work.  She doesn’t like complexity and always tries to break the complex down to its simple parts.

She looks at things, even relationships from a mental rather than an emotional perspective, though she can be quite passionate when she lets herself go with the flow.

She has strong interests in the abstract philosophical side of life as well as the practical material side – something that definitely comes out in her writings.

She is a quick, accurate thinker – one that rarely gets deceived by outward show. Overall, her intelligence is very high.

She is very sure of herself that she is right and the only way to change her mind on something is through the use of some very good logic.

She is honest, but careful about what she reveals.

One thing that is a little surprising is a pessimistic attitude. She doesn’t fear the future and is happy to move toward it, but she’s not very trusting of human nature and not surprised when people make bad choices. She hoped for the best, but anticipated the worst.

It would be interesting to see the handwriting of Raj Patel who is the polar opposite of Ayn Rand, but can’t find any.

Larry:

JJ, what do you think of my idea here? Is this a worthwhile idea or just a waste of time? Should we try to coordinate our talking points and should we try to “sound bite” them so people, like Soryn, can understand lwk better and see that we speak with one voice (and visa versa)?

JJ

It’s always good to be on the same page as far as the definition of words go, but even when you make a great effort to have two in disagreement use the same definition, problems occur.  Remember a while back several had different definitions as to what “legal” was and I tried to get all parties to use the same one and they refused so real communication came to a standstill.

The bottom line is that if two really want to understand each other they will make an effort and do so.  If a person’s only goal is to be right then he will not understand the other person no matter what.

What is needed is a huge grass roots effort to teach the masses about the principle of freedom and how it can be wisely used in a free market, or a free market capitalism as well as how social programs can be tested with free principles.

The trouble with social programs today is that when they do not work someone then dictates that we do more of it.  A free society does not do more of something that is not efficient but makes changes until the ideal is reached.

Larry W

Could we start very small and make that business carry its own weight — bootstrap…?

JJ

A small business operating on a shoestring would not be able to demonstrate the principles.  The first one should be some type of manufacturing, production or possibly a service, and start with at least 24 employees.  A pure sales organization like real estate, wouldn’t work though a molecular business could incorporate salespeople. The first person who starts a successful one will have to have some reasonable financial resources to put it together and make it work.

 

May 16, 2014

Raj Patel

Soryn referred us to Raj Patel’s book and several other materials.  It would take several books to appropriately comment on them all, but I will say a few words about Patel.

I first heard about him several years ago on Benjamin Crème’s site.  There he was pretty much portrayed as the Second Coming of Christ. That kind of raised a red flag for me for rarely does Crème say anything that turns out to be accurate or correct.  Every prophecy I know of that he has made has failed miserably.

Crème is also a communist and most people he endorses are Marxists also – so I anticipated that Patel would lean that direction – which he does seem to do.

He has a strange combination of teachings.  He emphasizes a fairly nebulous direct democracy on one hand, and then voices support for big government and central control on the other. He can’t have it both ways.

On his video he tells us he is an Obama supporter but has been disappointed that he hasn’t used more executive power in getting things done.  He says he is encouraged that Obama is getting more “belligerent” and using a more aggressive approach.

He supports Obamacare and thinks that climate change is a major problem. He also has praise for regulations and seems to want more of them.

On the positive side he wants (as do I) to feed the hungry people of the world, for people to raise more of their own food and to go in a more organic and sustainable direction.

He wants all the poor people to have some land so they can grown their own food, but doesn’t say how to accomplish this.  He’s participated in several protests, (such as the Battle of Seattle in 1999) so perhaps he wants to forcefully take land from the rich and give it to the poor as Castro claimed to have done.

Some of the problems he articulates are real problems, but the solutions must take place through a maximum of free will and educating the public rather than dictating to them.

Soryn:

You say this and that about what Patel said. Can you link the video and the text please?

JJ

I’ve read a number of things about him and watched a couple videos on his web page at:

LINK

Raj discusses how individuals are working to take back the food supply system Tweet

View on rajpatel.org

Preview by Yahoo

 

One of the two that I watched there that was most revealing was “UCF – Global Perspective.” That was where he was glad that Obama was starting to use a “belligerent” approach to get things done.

Actually, I was thinking of continuing on the socialist – free enterprise subject for a while but instead of using the shotgun approach we should break it down to simple parts and talk about them.

First, the core difference between the left and right is in the use and constriction of freedom

On one extreme we cannot have anarchy and some destructive actions (like burglary, rape, murder etc) need to be restricted and on the other it is easy for those in authority to take away too many freedoms.

Some of the ideals of socialism are in a good direction such as relief from hunger, poverty, discrimination etc.

The question is – how many freedoms are we willing to sell down the river to accomplish these things and can they be accomplished in a state of maximum freedom (which has never existed in modern civilization).

I’d like to see some comments on this subject.

 

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Posts 2012, Part 3

This entry is part 16 of 40 in the series 2012A

Feb 5, 2012

Is This a Man From Future?

 

Feb 7, 2012

Minority/Majority rule

LWK Almost all Utopian schemes imagine some alternative rational or scientific method of running society, but in the end they always end up with some group of people telling other people what to do.

 

JJ The big problem with utopian schemes is that free will is drastically limited from the planning stage. A free society is actually the best utopian scheme one could come up with. As long as freedom dominates living conditions will get better and better until we will have a virtual utopia.

 

Feb 10, 2012

JJ on Capitalism/Socialism

A number of people have speculated as to the Constitution of a future Zion, but we are a long way from having a need for a specific one so whatever we create now will probably undergo some changes when the time comes. Right now we can be a little like John Locke or Montesquieu and write about the principles that will govern future society in the hope that the best ideas will prevail. I am sure some of the items you list will be incorporated in some way. I think that what you said about juries having power to negate law would be particularly important to have in any future constitution because any law written is not perfect. I doubt if I will ever write an actual constitution for a future society but will most likely lay out some guiding principles that I hope to see

 

For food for thought here is a Constitution written by another LDS thinker, Joel Skousen.

 

Feb 10, 2012

Re: Force/Free Will

LWK writes: In Nazi Germany it was scientifically concluded that mental defectives should be eliminated. It was not an arbitrary decision, but rather a very scientific decision. Initially they put them in the back of closed trucks where the exhaust gas was forced into the closed area and drove around until they suffocated. Later on they came up with even more scientific methods.

 

JJ That’s one I have never heard before. Sadly this is a believable story when considering the Nazi mindset.

 

Feb 10, 2012

Re: Woodrow Wilson Quote and Fiat Money

Susan: I trust my connection to God and to think for myself. JJ is an earned authority for me in many areas. Perhaps it is ok with JJ for me to disagree and so I take the opportunity to speak my mind when something strikes me as important to a discussion. If you don’t like it, PLEASE delete it.

 

JJ I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me and voicing it here as long as they are civil. Some of my best writings have been in response to some challenge from members and some of the most trusted members here have voiced string disagreements with me at one time or another. Freedom of expression without fear of being condemned by the leader is one things that sets this group apart. Many teachers do not allow for disagreement. We do not want to take that route. As Larry indicated this creates some problems for the teacher, but that is okay with me. Better to have a living group than a stagnating one.

 

As far as disagreements with my writings on fiat money goes one of the main problems is my detractors lump all fiat money into one category whereas I place them in two categories:

 

(1) Fiat Money created by a third party through loans to the government and people at interest. This can create an unsustainable debt.

 

(2) Fiat money created by the representatives of the people tat has no interest and is not a loan.

 

I teach that this second category can become the best of all money systems as long as inflation is controlled.

 

For more information go here:

 

Or better yet read the whole series.

 

Feb 11, 2012

Re: The Galileo of Global Warming

 

This is one of the best articles I have read on global warming. I have said for some time that the mindset of he warmers will someday be equated with the consensus of the Vatican scientists who opposed Galileo.

 

Feb 11, 2012

And It Came to Pass

The other Ruth (Ruthangel) send me a cute post written in Biblical style by a minister’s wife.

 

AND IT CAME TO PASS

And it came to pass in the Age of Insanity that the people of the land called America, having lost their morals, their initiative, and their Will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that Person known as “The One.”

 

He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He Hypnotized the people telling them, “I am sent to save you.” My lack Of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my Association with evil doers are of no consequence. I shall save you With hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the Land that he who proceeded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, And that all he has built must be destroyed.

 

And the people rejoiced, For even though they knew not what “The One” would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And “The One” said “We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change everything about it!” And the people said, “Hallelujah! Change is good!” Then He said, “We are going to tax the rich fat-cats.” And the People said “Sock it to them!” “And redistribute their wealth.” And the people said, “Show us the money!” And then he said, “Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody..”

 

And Joe the plumber asked, “Are you kidding me? You’re going to Steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??” And “The One”Ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe ‘s personal records were hacked and publicized. One lone reporter asked, “Isn’t that Marxist policy?” And she was Banished from the kingdom.

 

Then a citizen asked, “With no foreign relations experience and Having zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with Radical terrorists?” And “The One” said, “Simple. I shall sit with Them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; And they Will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!” And the people Said, “Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!”

 

Then “The One” said “I shall give 95% of you lower taxes.” And one, Lone voice said, “But 40% of us don’t pay ANY taxes. ” So “The One” Said, “Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!” And the people said, “Hallelujah! Show us the money!” Then “The One” said, “I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell Your homes!” And the people yawned and the slumping housing market Collapsed. And He said. “I shall mandate employer-funded health care For every worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the Clinics.” (And no Muslim shall pay for their share of healthcare.) And the people said, “Give me some of that!” Then he said, “I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas.” And the people said, “Where’s my rebate check?”

 

Then “The One” said, “I shall bankrupt the coal industry and Electricity rates will skyrocket!” And the people said, “Coal is Dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don’t care for that part about higher electric rates. “So “The One” said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn’t enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with the ACORN and you troubles are over!” Then He said, “Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let’s Grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, Free medical care, bilingual signs and guaranteed housing… ” And The people said, “Hallelujah!” and they made him king!

 

And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs And Ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff. The bank banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.

 

Then “The One” said, “I am the “the One”- The “Messiah” and I’m here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!” But our foreign trading partners said unto Him. “Wait a Minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more… And “The One” said, “Wait a minute. That is unfair!!” And the world said, “Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!”

 

And the people cried out, “Alas, alas!! What have we done?” But yea, verily, it was too late. The people set upon The One and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change “The One” had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built.

 

And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, “give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!” But it was too late, and their homeland was no more.

 

Feb 14, 2012

Reflections on Inelia Benz

A couple days ago Kelly asked about Inelia Benz and this stirred up quite a lot of discussion so I thought I would make a few comments.

 

First I had to check out some of her teachings. I watched the video recommended by Alex and read the transcript of the video recommended by Kelly.

 

Her basic message is this. She incarnated to assist in raising the vibration of the people on this planet so we can effectively transition into a new age of peace.

 

I have no problem with this message as this is also one of the reasons I am here and I’m sure some members of the group feel it is a reason they are here also.

 

As long as she keeps this as her main goal and follows it to the highest she knows then I wish her Godspeed.

 

Whenever a teacher manifests before the public eye true seekers will always take a look with a mind open to the possibility that he or she may be an agent of light or a deceiver of the darkest dye – or someone in between.

 

Unless I receive some evidence to the contrary I take Inelia at her word that she is here to serve and assist humanity.

 

I am encouraged by the fact that she is a big believer in free will and expanding it. She presents a teaching that I have given that if we do not make decisions then someone else will be making them for us.

 

She presents several teachings to do not sound right to me.

 

She says there are an infinite number of parallel universes where each of us live in slightly different realities. For example, in Universe A there is a famous JJ and in Universe B there is one that is an unknown homeless guy. Then there’s another universe where I’m still with my first wife and never met Artie – my current wife – poor guy.

 

The point to consider here is that creation, especially the creation of a universe, takes a lot of effort and creators only put a lot of effort into creation when there is a significant purpose. I don’t see much purpose being served by the Creators in making infinite numbers universes with the same people doing just slightly different things. As it is, this one universe is vast enough to give the Life of God a chance to experience every possibility through the many trillions of lives in it. He doesn’t need a billion or so variations of me running around.

 

She tells us she is a unique being who has never incarnated into this universe before. She has no past lives but incarnated directly from the mind of God.

 

We always have to take into account that anything is possible but in my view the most likely truth is she has incarnated here many times but has reflected so strongly on God that she sees herself as an extension of Him in a way that others are not.

 

This teaching is the biggest red flag because even if she truly seeks to help others this may cause followers to see her as an outside source of God rather than looking within. This could cause her to become the Beast to her followers unless she does all in her power to teach them to rely on the inner God rather than the outer.

 

She says there are millions of others who are helping to raise the vibration of the planet but is not clear if there are others like her with no past lives who came directly from God. If she sees herself as a totally unique being she could be creating many glamours that will need to be dealt with as well as illusion.

 

Overall, she seems a pleasant person who is attempting to serve so I will not be overly concerned about her unless some good reason were to manifest.

 

She does have a course she sells for $99. Because of this some have accused her of being in the work for the money but every work does need t bring in some money.

 

Here are the ingredients in the course:

 

1. Unit One – An Introduction – Listen to the Introduction NOW. Spiritual Ascension Course Sample

2. Unit Two – Setting of Goals

3. Unit Three – Main Goals Exercise

4. Unit Four – Specific Goals Exercise

5. Unit Five – Detoxifying the Physical Body

6. Unit Six – Reconnecting with the Physical Body

7. Unit Seven – Physical Body Reconnection Exercise

8. Unit Eight – Healing the Ego

9. Unit Nine – Identifying and Embracing the Ego

10. Unit Ten – The Mental Body

11. Unit Eleven – Identifying the Mind

12. Unit Twelve – Silencing the Mind Through Breath Meditation

13. Unit Thirteen – The Emotional Body

14. Unit Fourteen – Healing the Emotional Body

15. Unit Fifteen – The Spiritual Body

16. Unit Sixteen – Identifying and Reconnecting with the Spiritual Body

17. Unit Seventeen – Aligning Our Bodies

18. Unit Eighteen – Expansion Of Awareness

19. Unit Nineteen – Expansion Of Awareness into Oneness

20. Bonus Unit Dealing with Sickness during Ascension Work

 

If anyone has taken or takes this course in the future I’m sure the group would be interested in a report.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here