Month: September 2014

June 5, 2014

Another Radio Show

I was on the air again with Dr Lorraine Hurley Wednesday morning. Here are the links if you want to listen.

Hour 1

Hour 2

June 6, 2014

 

Fasting

Looks like they are finally doing a long overdo study on fasting. Check it out.

LINK

 

June 7, 2014

Introduction to the Molecular Relationship

Stephen has been putting together a couple web pages as kind of an introduction to the Molecular Relationship. He’s been running everything by me for approval and doing his best to put together materials that will help the new seeker.

Take a look at his pages and let us know if you think thee are things that should be covered that isn’t or improvements that would help.

LINK1

LINK2

 

June 8, 2014

More on Global Warming

It is difficult to arrange my thoughts within the 200 word limit but here they are for the next Statesman Letter.

The thinking of global warming alarmism is comparable to a crazy guy heading full steam ahead over a cliff while putting all his attention on trying to correct bad radio reception.

There are a number of threats many times more serious than an increase in the plant fertilizer – CO2.

Here are some.

(1) The threat of an asteroid. The question is not if but when this will happen. In the past an asteroid wiped out about 90% of life on earth and another hit could destroy the human race.

(2) A solar flare. The question is not if, but when. In 1859 we were hit by one that knocked out telegraph systems all over America and Europe. We are totally unprepared for another event like this which would create chaos and destruction.

(3) A magnetic pulse created by an atomic explosion in our atmosphere by a rogue nation would produce similar results.

(4) Nuclear missiles headed our way. This can be overcome by a missile defense envisioned by Reagan.

Future generations will look back on our judgment and by comparison the flat earth people of the Middle Ages will look pretty good.

***

Keith:

J.J. every item on your real threat list is likely to happen. The only question is in what order?

JJ

Statistically the asteroid would be number four in order. We are not likely to have a major threat from one for thousands of years though one could show up next week. We just had a close flyby of one large enough to destroy New York City.

A nuclear attack is not a sure thing but a solar flare is and we are overdue for another one. We could avoid disaster by burying our cables underground – a thing which some other nations have done.

***

Sorin:

“The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.” http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

JJ

Wrong. Most researchers believe the Medieval Warm Period was warmer. In addition we had a period of about 1000 years with a midpoint in 1100 BC which was much warmer.

Take a look at this chart:

LINK

Sorin

“Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

JJ

I’ve responded to this numerous times but it must have went over your head. The 97% answered a couple very nebulous questions – so much so that I would answer with the 97% and cannot understand why even 3% of the scientists answered to the contrary. The 97% merely agree that humans have some influence on the climate but there are no specifics on how much that influence is. Within the 97% the guesses (and they are guesses) range from 1% to 120%. You ought to read the convoluted reasoning as to how humans could be responsible for 120% of global warming.

Sorin

NOAA:

“Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/climate-change-and-variability

JJ

First of all you are referencing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which places emphasis on ocean studies. You also need to check data from UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCRUT and then compare then to get a good feel of the overall picture.

So, if global warming is due mainly to humans activities then what has caused the non global warming, or the pause, in the last 18 years? Have humans ceased doing anything?

And how about the global cooling from 1940-1978? Did humans cause that also?

Overall we had global cooling from 1940-1978, global warming from 1979-1998 and then a pause from 1998 to the present. Did humans cause all these or just the warming from 1979-1998? Some basic common sense is needed here and many scientists lack this trait.

And if humans did not exist would climate change just cease to be? Using the logic of many of the alarmists that is the conclusion one would have to reach, which is ridiculous. Before humans arrived there were occasions where there was greater climate change in a week than the past 100 years.

You just can’t take in all that the beast of authority doles out to you or you will be deceived every time. You must look at the facts and put the together for yourself relying on your inner authority for the final conclusion. That is the path to be delivered from the mark of the beast in the forehead.

 

June 9, 2014

Faster Than Light?

Tom:

Physicists at the CERN laboratory in Geneva announced in September that

they had detected a neutrino traveling faster than the speed of light, a

finding that violated Einstein’s venerable theory of special relativity.

They retested the speed of the neutrinos and concluded they were not traveling faster than light after all. Overall Einstein was pretty accurate though even he admitted he made mistakes. He rejected the Big Bang at first and later accepted it calling his steady state theory his biggest mistake though his cosmological constant that seemed to be a mistake is being examined again to explain dark energy.

***

 

Failed Global Warming Predictions

I’m tabulating some failed predictions from global warming scientists and supporters.

FAILED PREDICTIONS

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. This did not happen. It would be difficult to find a dozen such refugees caused by global warming.

They have attempted to erase that prediction from the web but are now claiming that it will be further into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.

LINK

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 (Made Jan 8, 2007)

LINK

Prediction made in 2007: Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013

LINK

But in 2013, Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent from 2012 levels. Data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft showed that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic miles during the same time last year.

Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow. It was 14 years ago now when UK climate scientists argued that global warming would make snowfall a “a very rare and exciting event”.

LINK

May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

They were off about 400%

LINK

“Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972

“I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”

ABC, The Miracle Planet, April 22, 1990

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

Here’s a clincher:

95% of the climate models made by the scientists the left trusts so much are wrong.

LINK

Would you trust a wild eyed religious guru if his predictions were wrong 95% of the time? if not, why trust wild eyed Al Gore and his supporting band of U.N. scientists?

Conclusion: this teaches us to not trust the authorities of the world just because they say a thing is true. Look into it for yourself and then decide.

***

 

The New Key

Ruth:

Giving Glory to God is what Jesus always did.

JJ

You have mentioned the Key word which is “Glory.” Now the real question is what is the principle behind it and how does it work?

This is as far as I want to go in giving hints before the gathering. In the meantime the group can attempt to solve the key, and we’ll see who comes closest to the truth. We’ll talk about it shortly after the gathering.

***

 

June 10, 2014

Climate Change

Sorin

Did you just say that NASA is wrong and you are right?

JJ

It’s not just me who has an issue with NASA switching from concentrating on space to global warming. 50 former NASA astronauts and scientists had enough and wrote a letter protesting NASA’s dive into propaganda.

LINK

None of the current NASA employees had the guts to sign it because they were worried about losing their jobs.

Global warming activism at NASA comes mostly from James Hansen, a leftist and ideologue. Back in the Seventies he tried to start a campaign against global cooling but then switched to global warming when it became politically expedient. So, I guess NASA was wrong even from your view when Hansen warned of global cooling.

Sorin:

You misread. The text says “proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years”. Your graph only shows a sudden rise in temperatures only for our current period of time. The medieval warm period had a much more slower heat increase rate. What caused this sudden increase? Maybe humans?

JJ

Even interpreting   this literally it is still wrong. In this current time frame – that is the last 18 years – warming has pretty much flatlined. 2013 was cooler than 1998 so you can’t say that in the present time warming is proceeding an unprecedented rate.

From 1880 to 2012 the planet warmed a mere .85 degrees C which is not alarming at all and has made the earth greener and more productive. LINK We do not have complete records of the Medieval Warm Period but it is quite possible they had a similar rise in that length of time. It is guessing to say otherwise. Geologists tell us that the earth has had some quick temperature changes in the past.

Human caused CO2 has undoubtedly caused some warming, but the effect has probably been less than 20% of the whole.

JJ

The 97% merely agree that humans have some influence

Sorin

Did you just say again that NASA lied? The text reads “97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities”. I’ll go with NASA on this one too.

JJ

I wouldn’t use the word lie, but I would use the word “distort.” They present the idea that 97% of the scientists surveyed support the idea that warming is “due to human activities.” (And the survey was not done by NASA) They present it as an all or nothing thing which is absolutely false. The question is not whether humans are a warming factor. Instead, the question is HOW MUCH? If humans did not exist there would still be warming and cooling and this survey makes it sound like all warming is 100% due to humans.

Just about all scientists agree that CO2 is a warming factor but disagree on how much. The guesses range from less than 1% to 120%.

The reason, of course, they were not specific in their survey is that almost all scientists believe that human released CO2 does have a warming effect so if the answer can only be yes or no they will admit that humans do have an effect. I also claim they have an effect so I am with the 97%

Sorin

I have shown you that concerning the war in Iraq you where fabricating historical data to be in accordance with your view.

JJ

Your fantasies are getting out of hand here.

***

 

June 11, 2014

Cosmos Comments

Nathan:

You totally missed Tyson’s point JJ because, like you accuse of Tyson, you have the agenda of the global warming “skeptic.” Tyson did not deny that Venus being closer to the sun doesn’t contribute to its increased heat. Tyson was implying that a large portion of the increased heat is due to the CO2 content, which is absolutely true.

JJ

Here are Tyson’s actual words.

“The surface is hotter than a broiling oven, hot enough to melt lead.

“Why? You might think it’s because Venus is 30% closer to the Sun than the Earth is, but that’s not the reason.”

It sure sounds like he is discounting the fact that Venus being closer to the sun is part of the reason Venus is hotter. And he didn’t say that CO2 was a “portion” of the reason for the extra heat. He left the unscientific viewers with the impression that it was the total reason. And I think he made this distortion in an attempt to scare us into thinking the earth may become like Venus if we do not fall in line with Climate Change Agenda.

Like I said he would have been correct if he had said. “that’s not the total reason.”

The truth here is so obvious, I’m surprised you are trying to argue with it.

Nathan:

Venus is farther from the sun than Mercury, so how could Venus be slightly hotter? Perhaps it has something to do with, oh I don’t know, lots of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere?

JJ

You need to argue with what I say, not with what I do not say. Of course there is a greenhouse effect on Venus. There is also the effect of the high pressure of the atmosphere being 90 times that of earth which also creates some heat. My point was that Mercury is closer to the sun and has a surface of about 800 degrees, which is very hot and the heat is only due to the sun illustrating that being closer to the sun does cause a planet to take in extra heat. This point should be beyond any argument yet Tyson made it sound like Venus being closer to the sun than the Earth made no difference in temperature.

JJ Quote

But if we go upward about 30 miles we would arrive at an atmospheric density similar to that of the Earth, and get this. The temperature is no longer boiling hot but actually a lot like of our planet.

How can this be when the atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. Looks like we have the opposite of a greenhouse effect with CO2 there experiencing more earthlike conditions.

Nathan

Are you being serious right now JJ? Have you ever been up a mountain and have gotten that sensation of pressure in your ears? That’s because the atmosphere gets less dense as you go higher up. Everyone knows this. The same is true on Venus, so therefore even if the atmosphere is still 96.5% CO2, there is still much less of it and therefore much less greenhouse effect.

JJ

You missed my point completely. Of course all atmospheres get thinner as you go higher. That was what I was saying yet you are using it as a point of argument. That is very strange.

When you ascend on Venus until you get to the same atmospheric pressure as the Earth’s surface atmosphere the amount of CO2 is still 2400 times more in quantity than on the earth, yet the temperature is fairly cool like earth. So we have an example of an area (Venus’ upper atmosphere) where CO2 in an atmospheric pressure as on earth is fairly cool even though the concentration of CO2 is 2400 times as much as exists here. You’d think that with the extra solar radiation and the high concentration of CO2 that it would be a lot warmer, but it’s not. This indicates that scientists may be giving too much weight to the greenhouse effect of CO2.

***

 

Brat’s Amazing Victory

Here is an interesting piece of data concerning the election upset:

“Cantor’s office spent more money renting out steak houses for campaign events than Brat’s office spent during the entire election cycle, according to FEC campaign finance data.”

I’d say that if Cantor unsuccessfully spends $5 million to defeat an unknown candidate who only spends $100,000 that he needs to go.

LINK

 

June 13, 2014

The Fifth Key

We’ve just had a couple stabs at the principle behind the Key since I acknowledged the Key word is “Glory.”

Here are three members going the right direction:

Duke:

I see two aspects to the word “Glory”. One is, giving credit where credit’s due. The other is, a sending up of energy.

Ruth:

The Principle would have to be something along the lines of “Acknowledgement”..

Giving Glory to God is what Jesus always did.

JJ

These are all effects of the principle but not the principle itself.

The name of the Key is

“The Principle of Glory.”

There is a principle that brings glory. What is it?

***

 

Wind No More

Looks like the environmentalists will soon be protesting wind power as it is causing a huge disturbance in the animal kingdom.

LINK

Then solar power is also frying some birds that fly to close so if they get their way we’ll eventually be left with our own body eat as the only desirable source of energy.

***

Nathan:

No I’m afraid not JJ. There are no environmentalists that are protesting wind or solar power.

JJ

I was speaking of the future, but it is already happening and will just get worse.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most famous environmentalists in the country and the other Kennedys are not far behind, but have protested and enacted lawsuits to prevent the contraction of wind turbines way out in the waters of Nantucket Sound because they will destroy the pristine view even though you need binoculars to see them from land.

Link 1

Here are three other links of environmentalists protesting wind power.

Link2

Link3

Link4

Here are three links concerning protests of solar power. The last one takes place way over in China.

Link1

Link2

Link3

***

Nathan: “You are not referencing mainstream environmentalists.”

JJ

Wow, you are really a moving target You said nothing about mainstream environmentalists, but said: “There are no environmentalists that are protesting wind or solar power.”

On the other hand, you cannot get any more mainstream than Robert F. Kennedy Jr, one of the most famous environmentalists in history suing to stop production of wind power..

If you Google it you can find dozens of stories of environmentalists unhappy or protesting with aspects of wind and solar. I gave seven and that should have done the trick. One link was bad. Here it is again LINK

 

Nathan: “The only exception was with the one in China which protested a factory of solar panels, not solar power itself.”

JJ

That is like saying that people are not unhappy with oil itself, but the byproducts of oil. The manufacturing of solar panels is part of the whole package. No one protests energy itself, but many are upset at the processes that bring it to us including wind and solar.

 

June 14, 2014

Re: Wind No More

I answered Nathan’s letter last night but it seems to have disappeared into the ethers. I’ll briefly answer it again.

Nathan claims that I am painting all environmentalists with a broad brush saying that all, including RFK, are against wind and solar.

Nothing could be further from the truth and not sure where he is finding this in anything I have said.

He gives an incomplete quote from Kennedy. Let me repeat what I actually said.

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most famous environmentalists in the country and the other Kennedys are not far behind, but have protested and enacted lawsuits to prevent the contraction of wind turbines way out in the waters of Nantucket Sound because they will destroy the pristine view even though you need binoculars to see them from land.”

Now did I say there he is against all wind? No. He is against wind in his own backyard while claiming to support it. He compares putting the wind farm out at sea so far that you need binoculars to se it as the same thing as putting a wind farm in Yellowstone. That is a ridiculous hypocritical comparison. Wind farms at sea create a lot less distraction than many I have seen in California as I have driven though those distractions from nature.

It is an ironclad truth that some (not all) environmentalists are protesting some wind and solar production. This is not because they claim to be against wind and solar in principle but they are increasingly finding details with which they disagree that make it difficult to produce energy from these sources.

(1) They are growing concerned about, pollution during the manufacturing process

(2) They are concerned about wind and solar disturbing the environment, insects, birds, animals etc at planned locations.

(3) Windmills killing birds that fly into them and solar plants frying birds that fly into the hot zone.

(4) As we increase production, wind and solar becomes an eyesore on the natural environment. This causes an increase of concern not only to the environmentalists, but the general public.

My point which Nathan did not seem to understand is that environmentalists concern over the impact of wind and solar will only increase as the years go by. Even if breakthroughs are made in the technology and it appears that we can have unlimited energy from them I suspect that this will not make them happy and they will increasingly find reasons why more wind and solar cannot be installed just as they did with nuclear and hydro – the two cleanest, as far as release of CO2 goes.

I don’t know why that one link did not work. Here is the actual address. It works when I cut and paste.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1914&dat=19941028&id=zps0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=IGsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4643,6205779

 

June 15, 2014

Laggards

Ruth,

So did the Jew laggards lose the game in the previous universe, and now the game is harder for them in this universe, to learn from, of course.

JJ

In each round you lose some and you win some depending on where we put our attention. In the last solar system (according to DK) those who are now incarnated as Jews concentrated too much on the material aspect and not the spiritual and had come to earth at this time to learn additional spiritual lessons.

In many ways life is easier for them because they have, as a race, a lot of material savvy under their belts. That is why they have always been good at accumulating money and possessions – until their neighbors become jealous. Because they are old souls many of them have excelled at whatever they attempted because they have more experience than most other humans.

***

 

Re: The Fifth Key

The group has posted some good insights related to the Fifth Key but no one has enunciated the principle.. When you discover it you will see that it is really quite simple and makes a lot of sense and explains a lot.

I don’t want to reveal it here before the gathering but I will give these additional hints in questions.

If one expects to receive glory what must he not do, and what must he do? What must he receive from his associates and why?

***

Ruth:

Are we a talking about Glory as Praise or Glory as Light?

JJ

We are not talking about brightness or shining light and neither does praise always produce glory. Obama has received tons of praise from the media but will go down in history with very little glory.

We are talking about recognition of true achievement.

The group keeps naming good qualities that the person receiving glory should have. Yes, good qualities are important to good achievements but has little or nothing to do with how the principle works. A person can be trustworthy, honest, kind, loving etc and complete screw up the Principle of Glory because he does not understand it and has the wrong focus.

***

Larry Woods is dancing around the edges of the principle but no one

has stated it. It is like it is neatly tucked away in a box and

everyone is looking outside the box. Larry’s post looked at the edges

of the box.

JJ

***

Good comments from all but we are looking for the principle not definitions. We are not looking for the leaves of the tree but that which gives the tree life. Think. What is the principle that determines whether man, angel or God receives glory for his work? It is very simple but no teacher I know of has taught it in fulness.

I do not want to give out a lot more here as I do not want to acknowledge what the principle is until the gathering. So far only the edges of the box has been approached.

***

John Crane brought us closer to looking into the box in one of his posts. I can’t give many more hints without telling the group the key outright. Think again. What needs to happen before a person receives glory and what would be the sentence that encapsulates the principle?

 

June 18, 2014

Re: The Fifth Key

The group says some good things but no one has moved any closer to the principle since John Crane posted.

Here is a huge hint for you that illustrates the principle.

When he noticed how the guests were trying to secure the places of honour, he spoke to them in a parable : ‘When you are asked by someone to a wedding-feast, do not sit down in the place of honour. It may be that some person more distinguished than yourself has been invited ; and the host will come and say to you, “Give this man your seat.” Then you will look foolish as you begin to take the lowest place. No, when you receive an invitation, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he will say, “Come up higher, my friend.” Then all your fellow-guests will see the respect in which you are held. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled; and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.’ Luke 14:7-11 New English

***

Someone is opening the box and coming very close. I’m not going to say much more in the way of hints till after the gathering. I will give one more tonight. I will say this. The principle is hiding in plain site in the parable.

***

Johann

This must be it, start at the bottom and work your way up. The same applies for each new incarnation. Then the achievements are plainly seen for what they are, in time, and the respect that comes with them. Again this forms a chain moving ever higher.

JJ

Great discernment, Johann. That is not the principle of Glory but worthy of further contemplation.

That is the irony here. Individuals are looking for the truth in various directions and hence are finding truth; so even if you are not the first to discover the Principle of Glory you are likely to find something interesting.

Why?

Because you are looking.

***

Dan:

Seek not for glory, follow the highest you can perceive, and glory will find you.

JJ

That’s not the Principle of Glory, but a great statement of truth. It could be in the famous quotations section someday.

 

June 19, 2014

The Key

Major Hint.

The Key is hidden in plain site in these scriptures.

John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

John 8:50 And I seek not mine own glory:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

***

Ruth:

But we can’t guess the key before you have given it out at the Gathering……….?

Two or three words fit in here, but I am sure someone else might find the exact key word…….so I will add these in, because it is something along these lines…..

JJ

Sure you can guess it. That’s what the group is trying to do. If someone gets it I may not fully acknowledge it until after the gathering, but no one has got it yet though one has come close. You already have the key word which is glory. The challenge now is to explain the principle in a way that shows you understand it. In the past day the group has been saying some good things, but drifting away from the box.

 

June 20, 2014

More Hints

My Friends,

Thanks for your effort in attempting to grasp the understanding of the Principle of Glory. The group continues to make good observations but has come no closer despite the powerful hints. Some wonder how in the world can the principle be lying there in plain sight in several scriptures and hints and not be able to see them.

It’s a little like the story of Columbus and the egg.

After discovering the New World, a dinner was held in his honor. Afterwards they were talking and one of the guests stated something like this:

“Columbus, what you did was really no big deal. Since you have sailed to the new world, many others have done the same thing. What makes you think you have done anything great since others are now doing the same thing you did.”

To this challenge, Columbus took an egg off his plate and handed it to the heckler and said: “Take this egg my friend and see if you can make it stand on its end.”

The man looked at the egg and said: “It’s impossible.”

But Columbus urged him on: “You’re wrong. It is possible. Go ahead and try.”

The man tried several times and each time the egg rolled over on its side. After he failed several others tried it with the same results. Finally the frustrated audience handed the egg back to Columbus and said: “We do not think that such a feat is possible, but if you really believe that it can be done please show us how.”

Columbus then took the egg back and smashed it on its bottom end on the table. The bottom of the egg was crushed into flatness and the group stared at the egg doing the impossible – standing on its end. Then Columbus taught them an important lesson. “Now I’ve shown you how to do it, the easiest thing in the world is to follow.”

He was right. A minute before no one could make an egg stand on its end. A minute afterwards everyone could.

Similarly, there are many great principles hidden in the words of the masters and the prophets and we do not see them. I have had various scriptures memorized for maybe 30 years and then just driving down the road with my mind blank the scripture comes into my mind bearing a new meaning that I had never seen before. When this happens I almost feel like slapping myself for after such an event the meaning seems so obvious.

Even so it is with the Principle of Glory. The principle is very simple, more simple than some of the explanations that have been given here. It will seem obvious after I give it out. I’ll give it out to the group here shortly after the gathering.

One last hint.

Do not look for definitions or concern yourself with what glory is. We all have the general idea. Look for the principle that creates glory.

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

 

May 25, 2014

Question Five

When seekers learn about the left hand path and the Dark Brothers they instinctively assume that they are not a part of that direction. And why do they assume this?

Because their intentions are good. Not only this but they want all kinds of good things – like world peace, eliminate poverty, equal rights, sharing wealth, do away with weapons of mass destruction, increase the level of education, increase human rights to name a few. Surely this seeker with such good values couldn’t be one the bad guys side, could he?

Don’t be so sure.

If a hundred randomly selected people were to meet a representative of a the Dark Brothers and talk with him over coffee, a good ninety of them would go away thinking the guy was a nice guy with good intentions and ideas. They wouldn’t have a clue as to what his true intentions were or where they would take us.

A small handful would sense that thee was something off in the guy and pay a lot of attention to the exact wording that comes out of his mouth. These would read between the lines and see that something was amiss.

If you meet a supporter of the dark side he is not going to stand out as some sinister figure who wants more crime, prostitution, slavery child abuse etc. Instead he will often come across as squeaky clean.

Take a look at that list of good intentions we made. He would be for all of them.

Let us pick just one – world peace.

The Dark Brothers and all their representatives want world peace and will openly call or it. The problem is that they want it on different terms than the Brotherhood of Light. They want to establish world peace by suppressing, by use of force, all dissent and points of view contrary to their thinking. Their idea of world peace is something like North Korea where there are no challenges to authority because all the people are controlled by fear.

Of course, they will not tell you this but they will tell you how much they are in favor of peace and such talk will sound benevolent to those who ignore their own souls.

The Brotherhood of Light will tell you what they want to accomplish and then proceed to do it. The Dark Brotherhood will pretend they want to do the same thing but then cleverly steer their acolytes toward a different end that was hidden from them.

The main dividing line between the two brotherhoods is the Principle of Freedom. This tells us that we should seek maximum freedom through the use of minimal force.

For more on this principle go here:

LINK

Now what creates a inroad for darkness is that it is necessary that those on the right hand path use some force. For instance, the threat of force must be used to prevent murder, rape theft etc. Unfortunately, this gives the Dark Brotherhood an inroad to use more force than necessary while claiming that they are no different than the good guys.

The Dark Brotherhood teaching on the use of force at first will seem reasonable, but then they will, inch by inch, turn it up a notch at a time until a bewildered following will discover that they are no longer free.

On hindsight the wrong use of force, which is in the direction of slavery, seems obvious. For instance, just about all people today see that the Southern States were wrong in using force to keep slaves. But it was different if you were back there. They saw the work the slaves did by force produced good results so this made it a good thing in their eyes.

For instance, maybe a community needed a new school built and several slave owners donated their slaves for labor. After the school was finished the people looked upon the structure and declared it “good” and thought to themselves how good it was that they had slaves to build this for them.

Most people today can look back on this and see the illusion the people were under.

But does the illusion still persist?

It does and only the circumstances have changed.

Today many slave away working hard hours to pay more taxes than they desire or think is just. The government takes the money from this slave labor and builds many government buildings and employs many bureaucrats to work therein and they stand back and say: “This is good. It is a good thing that we tax these people more than they want to pay so we can do all these good works.”

Question Five: If the slave labor doing good works in the first example is wrong then is the slave labor to pay the unwanted taxes for good works today wrong also?

Will a future generation look back on us as we look back on the illusion of the slave owners in the South?

Explain your thinking.

 

***

 

Dan

Being the “soul of the universe” just means the current focus of interplay between spirit and matter is on humanity – as it was on the quarks in their time and the atoms in theirs.

JJ

We are just getting started in our function of the soul of the universe. Our soul energy in our bodies use intelligence to give them their form from the cells to the whole body itself. The organization of the universe by humans hasn’t really began yet as you can tell by looking at the random forms out there organized mainly by gravity, inertia and other forces.

The imagination of man cannot fathom what will take place among the stars and galaxies when human beings throughout the universe assume their rightful place billions of years hence.

 

***

 

March 26, 2014

The Trap of Illusion

Duke:

I don’t consider myself a slave. I consider myself a free man with responsibilities and obligations, one of which involves paying taxes. I look around at the country I live in, and really don’t begrudge paying my fair share for its upkeep and support.

JJ

And neither do I begrudge paying a fair tax to support my country. That was not what I was referring to. I was talking about taxation that goes beyond fair and every person has a line where that may be, including yourself.

Apparently the taxes you now pay is an amount you consider just, so of course this doesn’t make you feel like a slave. But suppose you had to pay a 90% tax and your children were going hungry. Then how would you feel?

Actually, if we include all the hidden taxes the average person in the United States pays more than a 60% tax. Because much of it is hidden we tend to not feel so cheated. In ancient Rome it was common to have a slave run a business and the master took a third of the profits and allowed the slave to keep two thirds. This proved to be a good incentive to keep the slave working hard. Variations of this practice was carried on by some in the Old South. Some slaves actually made pretty good money and dressed quite flamboyantly. Others were not so lucky.

The point is that many pay more in taxes than slaves in times past and, unlike you, they feel they are paying more than their fair share and a good portion of their money is being wasted. This causes numerous people to work for many hours where they could be enjoying themselves instead. If you are contributing in a way that you consider fair then of course you would not feel like a slave, but if you have to give much more money to an all powerful government than you desire or think is fair then you are a slave to a powerful master.

What we have to look at here is not what certain individuals consider fair but what the taxpayers as a whole feel. I’m not in a high federal tax bracket so I would not grumble for myself there but I am just as outraged if my neighbor has to pay an unfair tax as if it were myself. As far as other taxes go I think the payroll tax is too high for what we get, our sales tax too high and property tax is too high. If the money were well spent and efficiently managed I would feel much better about it.

The Swiss have a lot fairer system than we do because the citizens prevent the federal government from getting out of control. The maximum federal tax there is 11.5% and if a married couple make less than $30,000 they pay nothing. The capital gains rate for individuals is zero and they pay about a third of the property tax of the United States. On top of this they have no national debt.

Now if our country were run like Switzerland there would be few who would feel like slaves to the system and people like me would be happy to pay their fair share – because it would actually be fair.

Switzerland, the most Democratic nation on earth, with a history of Democracy for 800 years does definitely not fit into the accused stereotype of an irresponsible people voting themselves free stuff to their ruin. On the other hand, we as a republic are following this path.

Duke:

I associate slavery with misery.

JJ

A slave isn’t necessarily miserable. Many slaves in the Old South, after they were emancipated, said they were happier as a slave than a free person. After the fall of the Soviet Union many didn’t know what to do with their new freedom and were said to be happier in their slave state until they adjusted. That, of course, doesn’t make it right, for maximum freedom of choice is the destiny and right of all humanity.

In addition, many can be happier in a bad situation because they have a good attitude than others in a good situation with a negative attitude.

Duke:

I would like to know whether you think I’m aligned with the Dark Brotherhood because of my current beliefs in this area.

JJ

I think you are one of the most honorable individuals I have met and you do your best to follow the highest you know. The world would be a much better place if there were more like you.

That said, all those who have not passed the Third Initiation are susceptible to the trap of illusion and even people with the best of intentions may find themselves throwing support behind an idea supported by the Dark Brotherhood now and then. Way over 99% of the population support some type of beastly authority for instance.

The key for seekers is to follow the highest they know. When they do this their illusions will eventually be revealed. When revealed the highest they know will move up a step and to stay on the right path they must then take that step.

Only when illusion is dispelled can the disciple make a conscious choice to follow the right or left hand path. Until that time he must follow the highest he knows.

 

***

 

May 28, 2014

Global Warming Logic

Here are some of the highlights of my posts to The Statesman on Tuesday.

The logic of the Left makes absolutely no sense. They want to place our top priority on dealing with the effects of an increase of CO2 while placing other probable disasters that would be much more catastrophic on the back burner.

This is comparable to a crazy guy heading full steam ahead over a cliff while putting all his attention on trying to correct bad radio reception.

For one thing, we have had about eight times the current CO2 in our atmosphere in the past and life continued to thrive. There are a number of threats many times more serious than an increase in the fairly harmless CO2.

Here are some.

(1) The threat of an asteroid. The question is not if but when this will happen. In the past an asteroid wiped out about 90% of life on earth and another hit could destroy the human race. We have more technology to deal with a threat like this than we do climate change, but we are at the mercy of chance if the threat comes.

(2) A solar flare. Again the question is not if but when. In 1859 we were hit by one that knocked out telegraph systems all over America and Europe. If one happened again and knocked out all our electrical systems chaos would be the result and some estimate that this would result in the deaths of the majority of Americans through starvation and mob rule.

For less than $79 billion we could take measures to protect our grid from this event, which is overdue.

(3) A magnetic pulse created by an atomic explosion in our atmosphere. This could be accomplished by even a rogue nation such as North Korea and the results would be similar to a solar flare.

(4) Nuclear missiles headed our way. This can be overcome by missile defense and if Reagan’s plan were carried out without Democrat protests we could be safe right now. Instead Obama has cut funding for missile defense and reduced support for our European allies.

This may be the greatest threat we face but we want to place many times the attention on human caused CO2 emissions instead.

Future generations will look back on our judgment and by comparison the flat earth people of the Middle ages will look pretty good.

What is amusing about comparing my approach and that of the Left to global warming is this.

I am about 10% as concerned over the danger from humanity as they claim to be but about ten times more willing to support projects that will actually reduce CO2 emissions. Go figure.

 

***

 

May 29, 2014

Question Six

We’ve established that we should only borrow money as a nation for national emergencies. Wouldn’t it be great if our leaders understood this simple idea?

The main source of revenue is our taxes and we are often hit up for tax increases nationally, state and locally.

What kind of situation or demand would justify a tax increase?

Here are some that are often put forward.

(1) Additional benefits for the poor, minorities, disabled, unemployed etc.

(2) More money for education

(3) Defense

(4) Healthcare

So, what do you think justifies a tax increase and who should bear the burden?

 

***

 

Fun Site

Check this site out. Enter your last name and it will search through 250,000,000 names in the United States and tell you what percentage of them voted Republican or Democrat.

LINK

 

***

 

May 30, 2014

WMD’s

Soryn:

It is interesting that JJ said that Saddam was a big threat to global freedom, but many people see America’s intervention in Iraq as abusive, politically and oil driven. It turns out, Saddam had no nuclear weapons after all. So unless you can foresee the future, you will be inclined to say that the US commit an abuse by invading Iraq and interfering with the freewill, the sovereignty and the maturity of Iraqi people.

Any opinions on this JJ? You did argue for the caterpillar principle and so on.

JJ

First, let me compliment you for standing your ground and taking the heat here while continuing to be polite. We have no problem with different opinions if they are presented respectfully. Unfortunately, on many forums, like the Statesman, this does not happen.

Just imagine what would have been the result if either the United States or England had decided to take Hitler out in 1938 just before the start of the war. They would have been subject to enormous criticism and attack. Many would have claimed that Hitler was not a real threat and we were just war mongers interfering with a sovereign state.

This would have been one of the most benevolent actions in the history of the world yet no one would have known. If something does not happen then it does not exist, even as a possibility in the minds of most people. Few would have believed that Hitler was going to unleash such mayhem on the world.

So it is with Saddam Hussein. Because he was stopped in his tracks it appears to many that he wasn’t much of a threat after all.

In truth there was a lot more evidence that Saddam was a threat than there was for Hitler in 1938. He attacked a free country. He invaded Kuwait and forcefully occupied it. Why did he do this? It was a first step for him in acquiring domination of the oil in the Middle East. He was going to continue his aggression until he had the power to control other nations that depended on middle eastern oil. At that point he could have merely bought nuclear weapons from several nations.

Fortunately, he was stopped by George H. W. Bush. That did not stop his desire for conquest, however. After Saddam was captured we learned quite a bit from him, thanks to the expert interrogation of George L. Piro, an FBI agent who was assigned to develop the former dictator’s cooperation. After creating a positive relationship and some trust Piro got quite a bit of information out of him. Saddam did say that he was successfully disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War and he created a great bluff to make the world think he had them. He said that his goal after the first war was to get sanctions removed and once this happened he would rebuild his arsenal and develop nuclear weapons.

He came close to getting the sanctions removed several times and if George W. Bush hadn’t taken him out then it would have only been a matter of time before this happened. France and Germany were already dealing with him on the black market and much of Europe was looking forward to buying his oil again.

Once the sanctions were removed and Saddam had lots of revenue he could have purchased nuclear technology from North Korea, as they had a close relationship.

We have plenty to worry about in the world at present, but I am convinced we would have a lot more to deal with if Saddam was not taken out. I felt this in the core of my being from the time of the first Gulf War and was very disappointed the Bush One did not finish the job and take him out then.

 

***

 

DK on socialism, capitalism and education

JJ places a fairly high credibility on AAB/DK. But quotes like the ones you gave point out to me a fairly common mentality of the time, one susceptible to the fallacies of the day, and not one inspired from a higher level. Just my view. I don’t place nearly as much value on the AAB/DB writings myself.

JJ

Even though he is a master he is not infallible. The Beaver Principle applies here. Even though the beaver is in a lower kingdom than ourselves he can still build a better beaver dam than a human can.

DK is far removed from human affairs, especially the business world. The principles he teaches in support of freedom apply well but sometimes he is way over idealistic about how supply and demand should be handled – and this is because is is not involved in the fire of human day to day living as we are.

I’ll comment more on this shortly.

 

***

 

May 31, 2014

DK Quotes

Soryn quotes DK;

The control of labour by capital or the control of capital by labour must also go.”

Soryn

The control of labor by capital: for instance, money driven corporations with no social awareness whatsoever.

JJ

I have never encountered a corporation with no social awareness. Can you name one for me? I’ve called on many thousands of business and corporations in my sales career and I never came across one without some social awareness. Most of them are very concerned about their community.

Actually, I think DK spoke correctly here but worded it in such a way that many wrong and damaging interpretations could apply. Some could use this teaching as an excuse to use force to implement this ideal and that would be contrary to his teachings about freedom.

If the Molecular Business were universally adopted then this statement would come true, but it would be accomplished through free will and not the use of force – which DK was against.

Soryn:

The control of capital by labour: freedom for science, art, education and spirit from dictators or from the private interest of big businesses and corporate powers that seek to commercialize everything.

JJ

That is a stretch to get all that out of DK’s statement. For instance, for science, education and art to prosper in today’s world capital is needed. Without it, not much research or education would get accomplished.

We cannot just snap our fingers and use force to accomplish DK’s idea but it will take some time to evolve through free will. In saying this I am not saying you believe in such force.

Let us examine the statement. He says two things must go:

(1) The control of labour by capital

Here is the negative part of the situation created by those in power over labor as related in my treatise on the Molecular Business:

Since the beginning of business history the basic mode of operation has been the same: the man with the bucks has power to initiate a commercial endeavor. If he has a degree of common sense he succeeds and makes it profitable. In the process he hires a number of employees to work for him. Because he is the initiator he has full life-and-death power over their jobs, of which there is always a scarcity. Because of the scarcity of employment the initiator (or “boss” as we will call him) assumes a position of tremendous power over the lives of these subordinates. Any hint that they may be terminated fills them with foreboding fear and distress. Thus the boss assumes life-and-death power (concerning career) over his subjects just as a king, or dictator, has life and death power over his people.

The boss, therefore, establishes for himself a little kingdom, and for eight to ten hours a day he rules with supreme authority. Only after the workday ends do the subjects regain their freedom to run their lives, hobbies or additional work as they see fit.

As a kingdom grows, so grows the bureaucracy of the king. Alone he cannot control (or govern) the lives of all his subjects, so he selects others who agree with his philosophy and gives them power to be governors, or overlords, over the lives of the people. The people have no voice in the selection of these overlords but are chosen completely by the decree of the king. Each overlord has the same power as the king over the subjects, but controls a smaller group. The overlord is subject to the king just as the people are subject to him and he maintains his power as long as he pleases the king and stays within the guidelines of His Eminence’s philosophy. Thus, the overlords are not free, for they are also subjects, but they do have the advantage of power of dominion.

Correspondingly, we can easily see that as a business grows, it becomes a microcosmic kingdom. The boss cannot control the whole enterprise so he selects a bureaucracy of overlords. These overlords (executives, vice presidents, supervisors, foremen) direct the working lives of the employees and have the same power over their lives as the Number One Boss, except over a smaller number. The employees have no voice in the selection of these overlords but are chosen completely by the decree of the boss. The overlord is subject to the boss just as the employees are subject to him, and he maintains his power as long as he pleases the boss and stays within the guidelines of His Eminence’s philosophy. Thus, the overlords are not free, for they are also subjects, but they do have the advantage of power of dominion.

(2) The control of capital by labour must also go.”

And how does labor control capital? It does this through the unions and other means of making demands. I believe that what DK was looking for was the end of the unhealthy condition where the worker feels like a slave under his boss and company. Then because of dissatisfaction he seeks to control his destiny through unions and demands. Both sides of this coin hurt productivity, hinder happiness and peace of mind.

The coming cooperative society patterned after the molecular business will make these problems unnecessary for in this system the employees will own the company and have a say on wages received and how the company is run. The election principle will do away with the feeling that you are being suffocated by an unjust boss and ownership will do away with the need for unions.

Soryn quotes DK again:

“The new world order will not impose a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations. The sovereign rights of each nation will be recognised and its peculiar genius, individual trends and racial qualities will be permitted full expression. In one particular only should there be an attempt to produce unity, and that will be in the field of education.

JJ

Notice he says “an attempt to produce unity I education. He does not mention the use of Big Brother type of force. Here is what he did say about unity from the same book – Externalization of the Hierarch

“Cooperative unity differs from an enforced unity in that the subjective spirit and the objective form are functioning towards one recognised end.”

Cooperative unity through free will is the goal. This is not something to be had with most governments today.

Soryn quotes D K again:

There must eventually be a closer tie-up between the educational system, the legal system and the government, but it will all be directed to an effort to work out the best ideals of the thinkers of the day.”

Sorin

Public education: free from the arbitrariness of private interest or from government abuse. Affordable for everyone, with no discrimination in the advantage of the rich and powerful.

JJ

He doesn’t say that private interest will be out of the equation. A private system can be as much or more cooperative than a public one. He’s also speaking of a future when there will be greater freedom and democracy. In a free world there will be nothing to stop the creation of a private educational system if desired. The point is that when a system is demonstrated that works well then others copy it and a cooperative union is the natural result.

Soryn quoting DK

“The new world order will recognise that the produce of the world, the natural resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all. There will be no nations under the category “haves” and others under the opposite category. A fair and properly organised distribution of the wheat, the oil and the mineral wealth of the world will be developed, based upon the needs of each nation, upon its own internal resources and the requirements of its people. All this will be worked out in relation to the whole.”

Sorin

Like those corporations and rich countries that exploit the resources and the labor of the 3rd world countries (via force and raw violations of the human rights).

JJ

He is talking about a system that will evolve in the future, perhaps hundreds of years in the making. Part of that evolution involves corporations helping third world countries by employing their masses so eventually they become wealthier and independent. There is no easy way to go from poverty to abundance in the world at this time, but it is slowly happening.

The above quote is one of the worst statements he has made and can be used to promote communism by force as Benjamin Crème does. DK is either just plain wrong or used bad wording to express his views.

Let us suppose that we adopt the idea that the “resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all.”

If we take this literally then we need to invade the oil rich middle eastern countries and force them to share their oil and riches.

I think that what he was getting at is that as the nations become more free and prosperous that they will develop a natural inclination to share. People will share with people and nations with nations through free will.

In your quote he said, “The new world order WILL NOT IMPOSE a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations.”

Soryn quoting DK

“National material assets and the needed commodities will all be provided for under an entirely new system. – Private enterprise will still exist, but will be regulated; the great public utilities, the major material resources and the sources of planetary wealth – iron, steel, oil and wheat, for instance – will be owned in the first place by a governing, controlling international group; they will, however, be prepared for international consumption by national groups chosen by the people and under international direction.”

JJ

Again, this is poor wording or he is just plain wrong. For one thing it disagrees with the quote I just gave. Let me give it again:

“The new world order WILL NOT IMPOSE a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations.”

In the quote you gave it sounds like the guy with a few acres raising some potatoes and wheat couldn’t do what he wants with the produce but would have to turn it over to an international organization for redistribution. If so, he would have no incentive to work as happens in communist countries like the old Soviet union.

That is crazy talk whether it comes from a master, angel or devil. It sounds like he is advocating a similar doctrine to Hitler and he despised Hitler and all he stood for. He is usually very encouraging of freedom. It makes me wonder if Alice A. Bailey got the transmission right on this.

If he envisioned a sharing through free will of the people and nations, fine I support that, but his wording could be interpreted in other directions where freedom is compromised.

Your comments have been in so many directions that I cannot possibly comment on all of them. Let us try and cover one subject at a time instead of the shotgun approach.

 

***

 

Soryn:

Another example: the majority in the US decided that the idea of Obamacare is best so they voted Obama. Do you have anything against this decision taken by the majority? I sure don’t. … Bottom line is: the majority must be respected.

JJ

Where do you get the idea that an elected president follows the will of the people??? Every president does a number of things that anger the majority. There has never been a proven majority in favor of Obamacare and if many lies had not been fostered on us a great majority would have opposed it from the beginning. There are still a lot of people uninformed about it.

As it is, the latest news from the Obama supporting Washington Post tells us that the majority, 55% presently disapprove of Obamacare. I personally think the number is higher than that. LINK

If we had a system where the people have the final say, as they have in Switzerland, Obamacare would have never passed. It is a nightmare in progress.

 

***

 

JJ

Where do you get the idea that an elected president follows the will of the people???

Sorin

I didn’t say that.

JJ

It sure sounds that way. Here are your actual words:

“Another example: the majority in the US decided that the idea of Obamacare is best so they voted Obama. Do you have anything against this decision taken by the majority? I sure don’t. You like it or not the majority decided FOR universal health care (and maybe for a good reason,”

It really sounds like you are saying that because the majority voted for Obama we voted for universal health care.

In voting for most of us it comes down to these choices for president.

(1) A candidate that rarely represents the voter’s will.

(2) A candidate who will sometimes represent his will.

Soryn:

It seemed reasonable to think that people voting for Obama also voted for Obamacare, as it was one of his main “selling points”.

JJ

There was somewhat true in 2008 but not so much in 2012. The main reason Obama won a second term was because he very successfully portrayed Romney as a mean, evil SOB that didn’t care a whit about the little guy. For many it was the choice between the corrupt guy they knew and the one who would be even worse.

 

***

 

JJ

I have never encountered a corporation with no social awareness. Can you name one for me?

Sorin

Well, that’s because you only look at what’s happening in the US.

JJ

You make a link that shows abuses made mostly by governments and people but no corporation is singled out as the bad guy. Let me repeat again:

Can you name one corporation for me that has no record of social awareness?

 

***

 

June 1, 2014

More on Floating Cities

LINK

 

***

 

Curiosity on JJ’s ethnicity

Sorin:

JJ, just a small curiosity.

I get this vibe from you that you are biased towards business, commerce, material abundance, individual freedom, capitalism and libertarian-ism. You also seem to side strongly with the right and oppose the left all the times. Dewey seems to be a Jewish name, so I would make a wild guess and say that you are probably 99% Jew. Am I right?

JJ

You’re picking up the wrong vibe on the Jewish blood. None that I know of. Most of my ancestors are from England. My consciousness is far removed from the typical religious or materialistic Jew. I have devoted my life to the spiritual path, often at the sacrifice of material things.

It is only the Left Hand Path that I am opposed to and that is the side that decides against the Principle of Freedom. With freedom comes free enterprise and abundance – and that is only a good thing from a higher point of view. Also workable social programs will emerge in a free atmosphere compared to those that do not work when forced upon us.

 

***

 

Keith

Creme’s comment that the ‘world is full of disciples’ is wrong. The world has only a handful of active disciples on the physical plane. The world has legions of aspirants and a small number of probationary disciples, but very few accepted disciples.

Sorin

That quote is actually from Alice Bailey and DK. 😀

Though is seems to be a description of what Creme is doing now.

JJ

DK said in one of his books that there were only a little 300 disciples on the whole planet so Keith is correct in his perception that the world is not “full” of them, at least as we understand the term.

 

***

 

Huge Mistake

Sorim:

Let me ask you something. If you were to vote for the ideas and the system proposed here by DK, based on your understanding of how economy and human coexisting work, would you vote Yes or No?

JJ

DK did not clarify exactly what the system was to be except to indicate the people and nations of the future will be more cooperative, more sharing and more benevolent and I vote yes in proceeding that direction.

There seems to be a point that you really misunderstand and that is this. All systems and enterprises and customs relating to the life of humanity do not function perfectly and many flaws are revealed on the road to relative perfection. This includes the gift of freedom as compared to a state of being controlled by the authority of the Beast – or outside source.

On hindsight we can see many flaws in the Old Soviet union where there was very little free market (mostly the black market) and the people were severely controlled.

After its fall and the people had a lot more freedom and some complained. Even though most liked the freedom others concentrated on the flaws revealed. People had to take more personal responsibility and if they did not then they seemed to suffer even more than before. Chaos seemed to reign for a while but after the people adjusted few now would want to return to the old system. The extra freedom revealed flaws that needed to be addressed but that didn’t mean freedom was evil.

Whenever you compare two systems you will almost always find that the one with the most freedom to act will be the one that is most successful and beneficial to the people.

This applies to endeavors to create abundance, choose your mate, your fiends, choose what you want to join, how much you want to participate in any legal interest, choose who to represent you, choose where you want to live and what kind of residence, chose the food you eat and what supplements you take, chose your doctor, healthcare plan etc.

Some would agree with all that except he free market. They think this must be controlled by force. In this attitude they are making a huge mistake.

Would you want someone stepping in after you fell in love and telling you that you must never see your true love again?

Of course not. Yet some would tell a person in love with his business, which provides much happiness to his customers that he has to change it into something he soon will not even recognize.

Maybe this same authority tells him that relationships has too many risks. Sometimes people even kill each other. Marriage is bad, therefore, for your own good, I am saving you, even if it is against your will.

Sounds ridiculous but this is what many try to do with free enterprise. Because everything does not turn out to be sunshine and roses some want to take away all (or a lot of) freedom in free enterprise.

The key piece of knowledge is this. In an atmosphere of freedom there will ALWAYS be more progress toward the desired goal than in an atmosphere of control by a self appointed elite.

Huge mistake.

Either a person believes in the Principle of Freedom or he does not. If he does then he can be of use to the Brotherhood of Light. If he does not then he will be of very limited value for they do all in their power to bring the desired results through the power of maximum free will.

 

***

 

June 2, 2014

Free Enterprise

JJ Quote

Either a person believes in the Principle of Freedom or he does not. If he does then he can be of use to the Brotherhood of Light. If he does not then he will be of very limited value for they do all in their power to bring the desired results through the power of maximum free will.

Sorin

So in the lack of a definite response from you concerning capitalism, I will assume that you recognize the obvious flaws of capitalism, contrary to what you previously believed.

JJ

Where do you get the idea I am changing my mind on capitalism or free enterprise? I believed in free enterprise yesterday and do today.

And what response do you want? No system is perfect but for our present consciousness it is the best we have. It certainly has proven more beneficial than communism and gives European countries the prosperity they have.

I think maybe Larry Woods had a good point in using a consistent name. Free enterprise encapsulates the Principle of Freedom as it applies to making our economic machinery work. Some crony capitalism is not so free, where the government decides the winners and losers. Free enterprise is more representative of those who can manage their business without undue interference or contributions from governments.

Just because we are not perfect human beings does not mean free enterprise is evil as you insinuate. It would make just as much sense to say that windmills are evil because they kill some birds.

Sorin:

Now, let’s get to your principle of freedom.

This is another case where you fail to see the forest because of the trees, because you fail to see how this principle is dependent upon other principles.

As I said, the maximum individual freedom exalted by capitalism and libertarianism will quickly shift toward maximum material individual freedom, which is exactly what is happening today

JJ

And freedom to pursue material things like a new car is a bad thing in your mind? Wow.

Sorin:

where you get a small minority of insanely rich people, that have tons of individual material freedom

JJ

And how does someone who works hard, creates jobs and produces products people like hurt you or me? I’d guess that any hurt to you is in your imagination because Bill Gates getting wildly rich has not hurt me or anyone I know in the least.

On the other hand, governments increasing our taxes or making a dumb regulation can instantly affect our lives for the worse.

Sorin:

but the freedom of the majority is severely affected

JJ

What have you been smoking? How does Bill Gates getting wildly rich take away from the freedom of the majority? The technology he developed has enhanced the freedom of the majority.

Sorin:

and the exalted individual freedom of that minority

JJ

Bill Gate’s wealth has given him some extra freedom. And my knowledge that I have gained has given me a lot of extra freedom also. Those who gain extra freedom through effort do not diminish the freedom of others. Just because I have some extra spiritual freedom takes away nothing from you and neither does Bill Gates with his material freedom.

Sorin

is corrupted by separation and materialism.

JJ

Some rich are corrupted but so are many of the poor. What else is new? Humans are not perfect.

Bill Gates is giving away billions of dollars to help the less fortunate. It sounds like he is trying to be a good guy.

Sorin

Applying the principle of freedom does not always entail pacifism. This is where you are confused.

JJ

I’m not confused on this at all.

Sorin

On the one hand, you agreed with FORCE, in the case of removing certain dictators – Saddam

JJ

Yes, Saddam invaded another country and tried to exterminate the Kurds, without provocation and needed to be removed to unsure maximum freedom for the whole.

Sorin:

but on the other hand you demand PACIFISM when it comes to SEVERE and DEMONSTRATED corporate abuses on 3rd world countries.

JJ

I do not know of any corporation that has invaded a country and enslaved them. Show me such a thing and I’ll definitely support a change of leadership by any means possible.

Paying low wages in the third world where such wages still improve the quality of the people’s lives is not a bad thing for it gives the people more freedom That is why they take the jobs.

Sorin:

As a matter of fact, the US invading Saddam was a clear violation of both your principle of freedom and caterpillar principle.

JJ

Wrong wrong wrong. It enhances freedom to remove a dictator who invades other countries to enslave them and seeks to exterminate a people, just as removing Hitler enhanced freedom. If you don’t think removing a Hitler type of aggressor enhances freedom then you have a problem.

Sorin:

Second, because the US imposed their political ideal – democracy – to Iraq, thus violating their freewill and the caterpillar principle.

JJ

You can’t really impose freedom or democracy. You can only offer a people a chance at it which we did. Whether or not they are successful is now up to them.

You do not seem to understand the Caterpillar Principle. The principle is you do not interfere with a circumstance where the life is moving forward on it’s own struggle. Suppose some stupid kid took the cocoon and buried it in some dirt where it had no chance to survive? If I saw such a thing I would remove he dirt to help it where it could not help itself, but then leave it to grow through its natural struggle.

Similarly we had to help the Jews during World War II because they were in a circumstance where they could not liberate themselves. We also had to help the Kurds to save them from extermination from Saddam.

Sorin:

While, my idea of enforcing human rights respects BOTH principles:

JJ

How about the right to operate your business as one sees fit? That is a pretty huge human right you seem to oppose.

Sorin:

First, the imbalance created by the big businesses (that rule America and the civilized world) are a sure threat to world peace, justice and FREEDOM.

JJ

Are you living in the Twilight Zone or what? Where are these businesses that are so threatening? No business is forcing me to pay them anything. None of them are taxing me, regulating me or making me buy anything I do not want. All they do is offer me products and services I can take or leave. None of them force anyone to work for them. Why you think this threatens world peace is an amazing thought.

It is the leaders of governments who threaten world peace. An argument can be made that the bankers sometimes assist but they are intertwined with governments and heavily regulated.

Sorin

So enforcing human rights acts purely on the basis of the principle of freewill.

JJ

It depends on the situation. Most human rights abuses are caused by the governments of the planet and it is those entities that you need to target.

Just because you accuse a business of human rights violations does not make it so. I haven’t seen you give one clear cut example yet. You throw out all kinds of nebulous stuff but never come up with one good example to support your accusations. Platitudes and talking points are not convincing.

Sorin:

Bottom line: I recognize that we have an issue. That issue is world imbalance created by big businesses that threaten the stability of both developed and developing nations and ultimately the peace and freedom of the world. What should we do? Let’s start with those human rights that everybody accepts but nobody respects, shall we?

JJ

I do not see any major human rights denied because of free enterprise but see many that are greatly enhanced. On the other hand, there are many human rights violations caused by governments. We could start by doing something to give females in the Middle Eastern countries basic human rights and to be free from female mutilation. Then in some places Christians are being persecuted or exterminated because they will not convert. I do not know of any business that comes close to a human rights violation like these.

 

***

 

Sorin:

The dark brothers are having a good laugh at you for supporting GW Bush invading Iraq.

JJ

You have strange logic indeed. You think the Dark Brothers are happy when a tyrant they support is overthrown but are gleeful when a private enterprise employs people in a Third world giving them an opportunity for a better life. Your reasoning is upside down just like Benjamin Crème who you seem to idolize.

Sorin

I just demonstrated you in plain simple logic and factual evidence that Bush committed an abuse of power. He even regrets it himself as stated below!

JJ

Cutting and pasting does not make your case which is extremely weak with an appeal to the low information crowd.

Sorin:

He disrespected the UN security council, and quickly started the war preventing the ongoing diplomatic approach that was preferred by the UN security council (Saddam already did what the UN asked of him in 1990-1991). US then proceeded to impose their political ideal to Iraq by MILITARY FORCE (while they made use of Saddam before when they supported him invading Iran and ignored his usage of chemical weapons).

JJ

You obviously haven’t studied the history but are merely repeating talking points. Instead of dealing with the actual principles of freedom you are creating a diversion into a topic that we have already spent a book’s work of discussion about. If you really want to find the truth of the matter go to the archives and read the many thousands of words covering this subject. We have covered this so much most are weary of I and do not want to go all over the arguments again. I’ll just sum it up with these words:

According to UN Resolution 687 authority was granted to resume the war in Iraq at any time.

The fact is that the first war with Iraq began because it attacked Kuwait with the intention of further expansion. The world community justly responded to stop this Nazi-type aggression and made war against Saddam and drove him out of Kuwait. After this the war was not declared over but a cease fire was arranged through U.N. resolution 687. The deal that Saddam signed on to in order to enact a cease fire and save his skin was that he would destroy all his weapons of mass destruction and not build any more. He also agreed to honor the civil rights of his people.

The deal was that if Saddam did not live up to his agreement (WMD and civil rights) then the cease-fire could end and the war would resume. No time limit was placed on this.

Bush and Blair enforced resolution 687 as well as the new one (resolution 1441) that was unanimously passed November 2003. Bush is accused of initiating a new war. It is not a new war, but an old one that was legally resumed. Bush and Blair merely enforced UN resolutions that others dragged their feet on because of their own oil contracts with the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. After 1441 Bush did not need a new resolution saying basically the same thing all over again.

Sorin:

By supporting Bush’s intervention in Iraq you advocate for a violation of the principle of freedom

JJ

I haven’t seen such upside down thinking since reading Benjamin Crème.

You think that removing a tyrant who seeks to exterminate a people (Kurds) is contrary to freedom yet a company giving people jobs is against freedom. You are a piece of work.

 

***

 

June 3, 2014

The Blur Factor

Even though there have been some excellent comments it is useless to drag on this conversation on the Gulf Wars any further. We covered this ad nauseum years ago to the point where members complained and now we are doing it again. Sorim has his mind made up and we are not going to change him.

This argument illustrates just how difficult it is for many seekers to see and understand the Principle of Freedom. Both sides are intelligent but see things in a totally different light. Part of it lies in degrees of discernment but that is not all. Another big part concerns the values held by the individuals in this and other debates. I’m not just talking about this group but people throughout the world.

Group one places a high value on group and/or individual freedom believing that being able to pursue goals with a minimal hindrance and control will bring the greatest possible happiness and prosperity.

Group two believes that too much freedom is reckless and leads to abuse and must be regulated and controlled for the greater good. If it so happens that the greater good does not materialize then they do not retreat but want more controls.

The interesting thing is that both groups will say they support the idea of freedom. It is easy to see why group one believes this but how does group two justify believing this?

It amounts to basically this. Too much freedom brings abuse, which they see as interfering with the greater good and reducing freedom in the end. Therefore, freedom must be regulated and controlled so we can have even more freedom. That may sound strange, but it is basically their mindset.

Here is where the blur factor comes in. Group one does support some control for obvious reasons. They support laws that suppress the actions of the thief, the murderer, rapist and the general harmful lawbreakers.

Group two will take these controls with which all agree and say, “A certain amount of control is a good thing and actually enhances freedom. We propose a few more that will be for our own good.”

The problem with group two is when they get their additional controls they are never satisfied but always want more and if they are unchecked tyranny will be the end result.

The difference between the two approaches is group one will specify the controls they want and that will be it. Very seldom do more controls need to be added.

Group two cannot specify how much they want to control us for our own good for they do not even know themselves. They merely watch for unseemly results they see from human nature and when it occurs their solution will be more control. The problem is that even when they manage to secure their controls humans will still misbehave and then still more controls will be needed. When group two gets involved in this vicious cycle and is not checked the freedom of the masses becomes suffocated until the time comes that they can’t even celebrate a touchdown because Big Brother will not approve.

The Principle of Freedom is what separates the two brotherhoods. The Brotherhood of Light supports progress in the arena of maximum human freedom and the Dark Brotherhood see humans as too stupid to have such freedom and that they need to be controlled and told what to do for their own good. The leaders are highly motivated because they see themselves as deserving power over the many but will have the freedom that they will deny to others.

The freedom they think they are obtaining is an illusion because they are slaves to their own selfish desires which will eventually become their undoing.

 

***

 

June 4, 2014

Re: The Blur Factor

My reply to Keith had so many typos I deleted it and am herewith posting a corrected copy.

Keith;

As long as we continue to view all ideas as coming from either the left or the right, we are never going to evaluate the merits of the ideas themselves.

JJ

We must also consider that there is a difference between the right and left hand path and the political left and right.

The main difference between the two paths is the Principle of Freedom, and we do not want to synthesis the two paths here at all. Do we want a combination of 50% maximum slavery with 50% maximum freedom or do we want 100% maximum freedom?

I, for one, want 100% maximum freedom and will struggle for this as long as I have breath.

Actually a permanent synthesis is close to impossible, as the two sides will always struggle until one prevails so you will end up with the people in a state of freedom or slavery.

The political Right is appropriately named because it supports the Principle of Freedom from the spiritual Right more than does the Left but has far from a perfect record. When dogma is at stake they will often be on the side of the Beast and the political Left will be on the side of freedom. As far as sex, drugs and rock and roll, the political Left has the Right beat in the freedom area. In areas where religion does not have a strong influence the political right usually has an edge in the freedom department.

So, yes a synthesis of the two political views would be good, but a synthesis of the right and left hand path would mean a victory for the Dark Brotherhood.

“I am a point of light within a greater Light.

I am a strand of loving energy within the stream of love divine.

I am a point of sacrificial Fire, focussed within the fiery Will of God.

And thus I stand.

I am a way by which men may achieve.

I am a source of strength, enabling them to stand.

I am a beam of light, shining upon their way.

And thus I stand.

And standing thus revolve

And tread this way the ways of men,

And know the ways of God.

And thus I stand.”

DK

Those who seek the right hand path must stand and stand firmly.

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