The New World War
I have encouraged readers to focus on the principles which will assist in bringing in the new age of peace. Unfortunately many of the aspects of the new age will be much different than what has been taught.
The Trinity of key words representative of the New Age will be Service-Responsibility and Freedom. These three principles can only operate on maximum efficiency through the plane of the mind.
As we leave Pisces – the most emotional of all the signs, we enter into Aquarius an air sign – a symbol of the mind.. Many there are who, instead of working to advance humanity into mind, seek to take them deeper into emotional polarization which takes people back into the past just as much as a fire and brimstone preacher does.
As far as America goes there are four great wars to assist her emergence into the new age – and other countries, and the world as a whole, has its correspondences here.
(1) The Revolutionary War. This freed up a nation from the emotional dependence on a strong authority to reliance of mentally created laws that restrict government to allow a great release of freedom.
(2) The Civil War. In many ways this was a war between those who saw beyond slavery with the mind and those who were emotionally attached to tradition and beliefs of the past which included the acceptance of slavery.
(3) World Wars I and II This affected the world and the triumph of the Allies did much to defeat emotional based thinking and restrictions, and bring the cold clear light of the mind on the principle of good and evil.
(4) The Current World War.
What current world war?
Yes, my friends there is a great war being fought which is perhaps the greatest struggle of all, but instead of being fought out on the physical plane it is being fought out in the astral and mental planes. The current struggle between Bush and Gore for the presidency is very illustrative of emotional technique verses mental.
In almost every case, one of the Trinity of Principles of Service-Responsibility and Freedom are at stake. Often all three are on the table.
The Question: Where are other battles being fought out between emotion and mind?
The trouble is that the battles going on are of a very subtle nature and can only be discerned by the mind and understood (another matter) through soul contact.
Some have just talked about gun rights, a normally conservative issue, but do not assume that conservatives have a lock on the mind for they lose the war in other areas.
For instance, many conservatives only look at abortion from an emotional level without bringing in thought and reasoning in the matter.
As far as political thought goes I would again say that the Libertarians are the most mental in their outlook for their whole philosophy reflects the Principle of Freedom. Their only fault is that they are too dogmatic to compromise and hence get less than 1% of the vote nationwide. To reach the people one must start where the people are and then move them to a higher reality. If one moves too far a distance from the mainstream he will lose the support of the people even if he is 100% correct.
A prime area where this battle between the emotions and the mind is being fought is between those who are black and white in their interpretations of philosophy and religious thought, and those who see shades of gray and points of truth between the two extremes.
Now let us examine the nuclear issue. Nuclear weapons pose the threat of exterminating all life on the earth which would eliminate the most basic freedom of human life which is the “right to life.”
In this case laws restricting nuclear weapons for the whole of the planet would enhance the Principle of Freedom.
Concerning the issue of slavery it should be obvious that the ownership of slaves would reduce the freedom of the whole.
It is an interesting fact though that this has not always been obvious.
During the Civil War here in the United States those who fought to keep slaves did so in the name of freedom as did those who fought against slavery. Many slave owners in the South believed that the Blacks did not have souls and thus keeping them in slavery was not much different than keeping a caged animal. They argued that slavery produced prosperity for the South and therefore enhanced the freedom for the whole country.
Most of those in the North felt the Blacks had souls and more logically argued that all humanity were diminished through slavery.
Today the fallacy of the argument of the slave owners is seen as obvious, but at that time, where many were subject to the group astral thought form, the vision was difficult for many who were close to the issue.
Even so it is today. There are as many distortions of the vision of the Principle of Freedom in the minds of the masses today as there ever was. Many of them are more subtle than was the slavery issue.
Comments: “I would be interested to hear what JJ has to say about the Middle Path or Freedom Principle on the abortion issue since it seems like we are tackling all the hot ones now.”
Actually, we did talk about this earlier. My conclusion was that abortion is generally an error, but not as bad a murder of one who has an investment in life; nevertheless, the freedom to commit this error should not be infringed when the pregnancy is young.
Comment: “I do not want to purchase or own a gun, have an abortion (if I could), or ingest illegal drugs. I do not want to join the communist party, a fascist nazi party, or become an anarchist. The freedom to do all kinds of unattractive things is protected under the freedom principle.”
There are indeed many things allowed under the Principle of Freedom that would be distasteful to me but the loss of freedom of one who is opposite to me in point of view would eventually lead to a similar loss of freedom for myself and that would be much more distasteful still.
Therefore, my friends, let us encourage freedom among our brothers and sisters and give a little trust to the ultimate goodness of humankind.
We have been discussing the Principle of Freedom and I believe none have opposed this principle as I have taught it, but then things are different when we apply the principle to real life situations, some of which may go against our wishes or ideal of reality.
The real test of the application of this principle in the life of the seeker is when one is faced with the decision of tolerating the behavior of others that you would never yourself endorse – providing that behavior does not produce great risk to the whole of the group.
No matter what your belief system there will come trials in harmonizing the Principle of Freedom with personal feelings.
Each potential disciple will have some final temptation to support the unreasonable restriction of others in the name of promoting his personal desire to see that which is good triumph. The deception is that true good can only increase in an atmosphere of maximum possible freedom.
The old Communist USSR was a prime example of this. They had an ideal of equality in their minds yet attempted to bring equality into manifestation by force. The result was a division of classes even more pronounced than Russia had under the Tsar.
When freedom rings things often appear to get worse before they get better and the temptation is to go back to restricting freedom. If, on the other hand, people will let freedom play out in all cases except where obvious harm will occur, then a sure progress is made toward the ideal.
Concerning the use of guns, for instance, the result of unreasonable restriction will prolong indefinitely the use of guns by criminals against those who abide the law. But if the Principle of Freedom is allowed to manifest then the time will shortly come that guns will be unnecessary for our protection because there will be no threat. The main use of guns in the hopeful future will be target practice and for collection purposes.
The human race is also gravitating away from meat eating toward a vegetarian diet, but this will not happen overnight and those who are against the eating of meat will jeopardize their own progression if they do not tolerate those who do, for all is proceeding according to the Plan of the Great Ones.
If two people who have a difference of opinion seek with sincerity to reach common ground there is a good chance they will, especially if done through the soul.
The greatest evil which has existed on this planet has not been advanced by people with evil intentions or lust for blood, but by people with good intentions.
Djwhal Khul tells us that disease is a distorted reflection of divine possibility. Even so, it is with disease among humanity itself. People see an idea they consider good and seek to implement this idea of good through the restriction of the freedom of others. I recently cited the example of the old Soviet Union.
He who does not like guns seeks to take away the freedom of others to use them.
He who does not like abortion will seek to restrict the freedom of others to obtain one.
He who does not approve of drinking alcohol or taking certain drugs will seek to restrict the freedom of others to use them.
A lot of causes that unnecessarily restrict freedom sound very benevolent but the hidden result is always a good intention turned into a more negative result than if things were just left to educating the people of the ideal good and letting them make up their own minds.
Every war that has ever been fought was initiated with the idea that good should be forced upon the invaded nation. Never is war started with the idea of making things worse, but to promote the good.
Let me word the principle of freedom in another way.
“The life of freedom should be allowed to flow in all directions and should only be restricted for the purpose of protecting or manifesting a greater freedom, or for freedom affecting the greatest possible number of people.”
Earlier we gave examples of justly limiting the freedom to steal rape, etc.
Notice that I use the word “life” within this definition. Why? Because without freedom there is no life. Where freedom is restricted there is a reduction in the force and quality of life. Where freedom is enhanced life is magnified and grows in power and purpose.
Freedom is an essence at the core of our very being and evolution, and terrible karma awaits he who supports a reduction thereof which results in an overall diminishing of this greatest of the gifts of God. If one is deceived into supporting a belief system which will limit overall freedom he will come back in a situation where that which is important in his life is kept from him because he has diminished freedom to pursue.
Many of those who have been born under a tyranny were free in their last life but did not understand their freedom and supported the restriction of others in a way that enhanced their own vision of the good.
Some supported “witch control” and inwardly were happy to see them eliminated by burning them at the stake.
Some supported “heretic control” and did not question the authorities who tortured those who dared question the religious leaders.
Some supported “scientist control” and inwardly rejoiced at seeing men like Galileo put in prison.
Some supported “Indian control” because those dangerous Indians wanted to keep their land and way of life for themselves.
Why did people support these various restrictions of freedom???
Answer: Because they were all viewed as dangerous and that which is dangerous needs to be controlled.
Has anything changed?
Not much. People still want to over control because they see illusionary danger in guns, gays, free speech, free trade, freedom to buy or market herbs and vitamins, freedom of medical marijuana, freedom to state your belief that a disease can be cured, a free internet and many others.
Yes it is true that freedom in all these areas can be abused. A person can take too much of the wrong herb and have a heart attack, but so what? The good that comes from freedom far outweighs the bad.
Are we so terrified of danger that we want to make speed limits on our freeways 20 miles per hour so no one can kill themselves???
Neither should we seek to control even vitamins because of a small number who abuse – especially if studies show that the enhancement of freedom results in more good than bad.
I would suggest that when we take a stand on one side or the other on the principle of freedom that we take a look at people who have been a force for good or evil and see who we align ourselves with.
They keynote for this is the old adage:
“I may not agree with what you say, but will fight to the death your right to say (or do) it.”
We will probably never talk about a more important principle than that of freedom. Nor will we find one that is more illusive to the understanding of seekers.
Ask any person on the street or in any country if they are believers in freedom and they will answer yes. You could probably ask a thousand people at random this question and I would not be surprised if all thousand endorsed this principle.
On the other hand, if you listen to their words and watch their actions you will find that the large majority betray their beliefs.
Is this because they are evil, or control freaks or really do not believe in freedom after all?
Not really. Almost all people do desire maximum freedom.
What is the problem then?
The problem is many are tricked by illusion and do not see or understand the true principle and thus are unable to follow the path of freedom that leads to understanding of pure truth. Truth and freedom interplay and create understanding from the soul.
Many proclaim freedom and walk into slavery. Others, a very few others, proclaim and live the principle of freedom and walk into the very heart of God, drawing many behind them.
I will teach, and teach again, this principle as long as I have breath, or until all see the principle with crystal clarity. So prepare yourself my friends for me to remind us of this principle from time to time.
I have one important thing to add that no one mentioned. Remember that we talked about two types of laws.
The first are laws of morality. These laws are written in the hearts of the just. For instance, most believe it is wrong to lie and do not need a stated law to know this.
The second are laws of order. These laws are not written to inform what is right and wrong, but for the purpose of bringing order. Sometimes an immortal act (such as theft) must be governed by a law of order, but only if it is necessary for the stability of the group.
A law governing seat belt use is moral related and has little to do with order of the whole. Because it is a good idea to buckle up does not mean that we need a law around this concept of the good. All that is needed is correct education about what is right or wrong about it’s use.
A law governing stopping at a red light has little to do with right and wrong but has much to do with order. Without such laws governing our roads driving from point A to point B would be close to impossible. Laws producing an orderly society will not pass away in the new age, but will be refined until they work so efficiently that the whole world will become stable and live in peace.
The problem the countries of the world have today is that they have too many laws and many of them are not written clearly and thus we need a mountain of attorneys and judges to tell us what they say.
Jessie Ventura had a good idea in dealing with this problem. He said that one year out of four Congress should meet for the sole purpose of studying the laws and deciding which ones could be eliminated. Imagine Congress doing nothing for a whole year but eliminating useless or ambiguous laws.
I wouldn’t bet grandma’s operation money on that happening though.
Nov 29, 2000
Copyright by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE