Month: April 2017

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Was Jesus a Socialist?

April 28, 2017 Joseph Dewey

April 28, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 6

Was Jesus a Socialist?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And what is that?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

To this the man responded:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

“From others,” Peter answered.

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

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

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

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

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

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

“Caesar’s,” they replied.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Sharing

April 27, 2017 Joseph Dewey

April 27, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 5

Sharing

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

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

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

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

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

Externalisation of the Hierarchy, Page 197

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

So, how does the extreme manifest in socialism then?

He plainly states the problem:

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

Then he says this:

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

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 2, Page 353

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Index for Older Archives (Like this One) in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Gathering 101

April 26, 2017 Joseph Dewey

May 5, 1999

Gathering 101

Question: How did the Gathering Principle lift the consciousness of humanity so we switched over from being ruled by the power of kings to the power of the people through democratic principles? How was the Gathering Principle responsible for the Constitution of the United States?

Let us go through a brief history of the gathering principle.

Subatomic particles gathered and created atoms. Atoms gathered and created molecules. Molecules gathered and created cells. Cells gathered and created all living forms. The highest of the living forms (humans) gathered and created tribes. Tribes gathered and created kingdoms. The highest gathered out of the kingdoms and created constitutional government with higher freedoms through the principle of competition.

Now we are approaching the greatest gathering of all. What do you suppose will happen this time?

Insight: The earth changes that so many are concerned about are awaiting the gathering of lights, for the earth does not seek to destroy those who nourish her.

May 11, 1999

Gathering 102

One of the greatest of the ancient prophecies is the Gathering. The sages of ages past have sought it and many have failed. Even Jesus lamented that he was not able to carry it out. He said:

O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the prophets, and stonest them which are sent unto thee, how often would I have gathered thy children together, even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not! Behold, your house is left unto you desolate. For I say unto you, Ye shall not see me henceforth, till ye shall say, Blessed is he that cometh in the name of the Lord.” Matt 23:37-39

Jesus came with peaceable miracles and attempted to gather multitudes out of Israel, but they would not hear. In His heart He very much wanted to create a great leap in spiritual evolution through the gathering principle, but the time was not yet ripe.

We are now fortunate to be living in an age where a spiritual gathering of lights is indeed possible. If it is successful, heaven and earth shall be brought together, ﬁrst at a point, then at points, and ﬁnally many points and communities. When this happens, the miraculous will be common place and communion with the higher spheres will be based in reality instead of illusion.

In the beginning of the human race, people gathered into families and ﬁnally into tribes. The tribe offered many beneﬁts over individual struggle. This included protection from enemy tribes and greater success in gathering food.

The second state of human gathering took place when the tribes gathered into kingdoms and were ruled by a central authority. Even though subjects were abused by the King, many of the tribes voluntarily sought to be a part of a kingdom because of the beneﬁts. The standard of living increased, trade increased, learning increased, and protection from the enemy increased.

In the third stage of the human gathering, there were many evolved souls that rebelled against the strong authority of a kingdom (or king) and sought greater freedom and a form of self-rule. To make way for this gathering, a new land had to be discovered, for anyone seeking to build a new nation in the midst of the present kingdoms would be destroyed before a gathering could begin.

For this third gathering, a new land was discovered, which the Western Hemisphere, more particularly America was, of course. After this discovery, the new country became a magnet for people who sought a better way of life and more freedom. As these lights gathered in America, they found that the old system of the Kingdoms was too restricting and no longer satisfying. It was not long before the thinkers among them put their heads together and created a better system of self-government with greater participation of the common people.

Now we are approaching the time of the fourth gathering. The place and the means will soon be revealed. The results of the fourth gathering will bring many great changes in our evolution. Here are some of them:

Greater contact with the spiritual planes.
A shift from competitive enterprise and commerce to a more cooperative one.
Greater ﬁnancial abundance for all.
A shift from representative government to democracy with a greater involvement of the people.
Those who are leaders will be the greater lights rather than the greater personality.
Much greater health and vitality of the populace.
Quantum improvements in education
The creation of a new and a higher life form through the Molecular Relationship.

As I said, we will cover the gathering in greater detail later, but ﬁrst we shall move on to the Molecular Relationship. You have probably heard the adage “as above so below” and “as below so above”. In the evolution of the molecules, atoms gathered into certain positions and relationships, and created a substance greater than them, yet did not lose their identity.

For instance, hydrogen and oxygen in a separate condition are ingredients of rocket fuel. But when two atoms of hydrogen combine with one atom of oxygen, something amazing happens. A new more evolved substance is produced, which is water. The interesting thing about water is that it is totally different than oxygen or hydrogen in the separate condition. Water is a higher grade of substance, more capable of beneﬁting higher lives, than hydrogen or oxygen alone.

The interesting thing is that even though oxygen and hydrogen are now a part of a higher substance and share the properties thereof, they still keep their identity and maintain the capacity to separate and go back to their original isolated position.

Do you think it is possible for multiple humans to join together and create a higher correspondence of an atomic molecule? Has it been done before? What new properties could appear among us?

Index for Older Archives (Like this One) in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Sending Love

April 25, 2017 Joseph Dewey

May 10, 1999

Sending Love

Questions are arising anew about the sending of love. Is it possible that in some circumstances, a negative backlash could happen? When we last covered this, there seemed to be fairly unanimous acceptance that this could be so, but we now have some new readers, and perhaps a further explanation is necessary.

First, it is important to realize that all energies, including Love, are neither positive nor negative. How it is used, determines the end result. Sending love and positive energy to anyone who interprets the direction of this energy in the normal sense will generally produce a positive result.

For instance, if you have a friend who is depressed or troubled and you send him positive energy and love, the energy will generally cause some lifting of the negativity. This will be the case, if the person has some desire to experience normal good feelings and love. Fortunately, most people who are depressed do not want to stay depressed and would welcome some relief.

On the other hand, there are some who want to be a victim, want to complain and want to be depressed. Just as these people will turn your positive words into something negative, even so will they turn your positive love into something negative.

The key is this: When you send positive energy and love to another in this condition and you are having a positive effect, you will be able to sense it. If you do not sense that you are lifting the negativity, then it is best to send no energy.

I have been in circumstances where I have sent love to certain ones and the energy greatly increased their negativity. The wise disciple will sense this circumstance in advance and perceive whether or not the energy is going to work, and will transmit accordingly.

Anni spoke correctly when she mentioned that love sent to the Dark Brothers could have a negative effect. This is true, but the person does not have to be a Dark Brother. He or she merely has to be trapped in an illusion.

And what kind of illusion is that, which could cause one to use love for evil? Let us use Hitler again as an extreme example. We must realize that Hitler and most others who do what we consider evil deeds, do so not because they are just evil or mean in spirit. Instead, many do so out of love. BUT it is their illusionary view of love that is the motive.

In Hitler’s mind, he loved his country and the world. He saw the Jews as a great enemy of peace, progress and God’s will. Even though it may have been distasteful, even for him, he considered it an ultimate act of love to destroy the Jews. In his mind, it was like us destroying a virus to heal the body.

Now sending love to a person in this illusion will NOT change the illusion. Therefore, when a person in illusion receives love, it merely energizes his power and will to carry out love BY HIS DEFINITION.

The fortunate thing is that by far, the majority of the people use love in a much more positive direction than negative, though all have some illusions. Therefore, almost all people beneﬁt through the reception of love. But if we see a world leader who has an illusionary view of love, we need to be extremely cautious about sending this force to him or her; else he will use it to further his illusions.

The war in Kosovo is a good example of love directed by illusion. Before we attacked a sovereign nation, the death rate through murder there, was about the same as we have had in Washington DC. After we started the war (motivated by love) the death rate is now beyond calculation and there is around a million refugees. Is this what love is supposed to produce?

Suppose France had the idea that because of love they thought it was a good idea to invade Washington DC in order to decrease our murder rate. The intention may be good, but the illusion is great. Consequently the results will be very negative.

Does this mean that we must be cautious in sending love out to the world as a whole? No. Humanity as a whole is a single living entity, and as such, has a general sense of the right direction that love is to take. Therefore, love sent out to the world as a whole will only aid the world in a positive direction.

May 7, 1999

Female Energy

A new member seemed to think this was a religious group since I quote the Bible now and then. The Bible is only one of many sources that we have and will continue to use.

Readers will notice that when I teach, I do not present any writings with the voice of any outward authority, even if it be the case. This is because in doing so; we create a “beast”, as explained in the early postings. All students must be free to accept or reject my teachings. They could be true or not true. It is up to the individual to register what I or any other teacher says with their own souls.

Those who go around saying something like some other worldly all knowing ZOR or godlike being says this or that, are playing into the hands of the authority of the Beast and placing God outside of themselves.

Many females are turned off the Bible because of scriptures like these:

“Let your women keep silence in the churches: for it is not permitted unto them to speak; but [they are commanded] to be under obedience, as also saith the law. And if they will learn any thing, let them ask their husbands at home: for it is a shame for women to speak in the church.” I Cor 14:34-35

“But (which becometh women professing godliness) with good works. Let the woman learn in silence with all subjection. But I suffer not a woman to teach, nor to usurp authority over the man, but to be in silence.” I Tim 2:10-12

It almost seems funny to read scriptures such as this in light of today’s standards. There were several reasons why people in ages past had this attitude toward women and we shall discuss some of them in future posts. One of them was the customs of the time that even initiates bought in to.

It may be of interest to know that my wife and I were married by a female minister,, and I have no prejudice against females teaching or becoming ministers.

Males and females have different energies, however, and the mystery that humanity has sensed toward the female is based on a reality that even the gentler sex does not understand. We will be expanding on this trend of thought soon.

May 7, 1999

No Limits

I just wanted to make it clear that the 144,000 is not a limiting number, as there are no limits in the Kingdom of God. This number is a number of a spiritual unit that roughly corresponds to a cell and there will be many cells. The ﬁrst such cell on the earth, however, awaits creation.

I have already written quite a bit on the Song, but will probably write more in the future.

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Oneness and Unity

April 24, 2017 Joseph Dewey

April 24, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 4

Oneness and Unity

Oneness and unity is another grand ideal looked upon by alternative spirituality. Many look forward to a future that has a united world government and religion.

They differ significantly from standard religion which is very suspicious of any type of political or religious union except within their own organization. Mormons do not see themselves as ever uniting with Catholics, Catholics do not see themselves as uniting with Baptists and so on.

On the other hand, many in the new age and esoteric communities believe that the people of the world will become more enlightened until they will eventually agree on basic ideals and eventually agree more than disagree to the extent that they can all support certain spiritual and political endeavors as one people.

Most believe that if unity and oneness could be achieved through free will then the world would be a much better place and we would finally have peace on earth goodwill to men.

Unity and agreement are logically much better goals than is separation and the conflict that comes with it. And despite differences among the various people of this planet we have made some progress. For instance, in the beginning of America there was a great lack of unity between the states and territories. There was a consistent danger of aggression between various states, groups and territories. Fighting for independence against a common enemy and forming a union of states did much to set the tone of union.

Now it would seem out of place to worry about North Carolina going to war with South Carolina.

Countries in Europe for many centuries were at war with each other. We now live in a time where it seems extremely unlikely that England will ever go to war with France.

We have made progress, but we are not perfect and there is still grave danger of war in various parts of the earth because of a lack of unity and demonization of various countries.

Many spiritual teachers have taught about the need for union and greater cooperation between nations, and that is an excellent ideal to place before us. But where good turns to evil is when students interpret such teachings in black and white terms and consider attempts toward union as desirable without analyzing the situation. We must all realize that that not all unions are desirable, but instead can be a great threat to the world.

Perhaps there is no greater example of this than Hitler’s Nazism. He first united he German people under a one party dictatorship. Then through subterfuge he added Austria and Czechoslovakia. After that he decided to go for uniting the whole world and started World War II. We all know how that ended.

The problem with many alternative folks is they have not learned from the lessons of history and are one pointed in their ideal to the extent that many support any union that claims to be for our good.

For instance, most esoteric students supported the European Union and saw the withdrawal of the UK as a leap backwards in evolution.

This statement from DK gives us a warning about being too eager for them to unite:

Blocs (of nations) in themselves can be good and proper if they follow lines of natural cleavages, of language differences and of cultural distinctions. They can be essentially right if they are formed for economic, educational, religious and social aims and can therefore provide no true cause for alarm. Such blocs would be cultural and not militaristic, economic and not greedy, and they could provide a normal and progressive movement away from the separative nationalism of the past and towards the distant creation of the One World, and the One Humanity. This will some day be seen, but the time is not yet. Mankind is not ready for some super-government, nor can it yet provide the unselfish and trained statesmen that such a government would require. As yet, there are more seeds of danger in this concept than there are of helpfulness. Nevertheless, it is a dream which will some day materialise, after the creation and the functioning of blocs have proved how men should work and live together.

Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pg 639

In other words, union through free will cooperative endeavors is desirable, but with our current mindset we must be careful about centralizing too much power or a dictatorship could result. This accumulation of central power in the European Union has alarmed the English and others and rightfully so. It is better for Europe to take its time and unite under harmless conditions than to create a strong central authority that cannot be corrected or reversed.

Because Djwhal Khul had hope that the United Nations would succeed many students support most everything that organization does, without analyzing it or taking heed of DK’s criticisms of it, such as:

“The United Nations is still the hope of the world and can remain so; it is a great field of experimentation, but is suffering today from an initial error. That error was the admitting of a totalitarian Power into its nations. For seven long and terrible years the Forces of Light had been fighting totalitarianism. In the early days of the post-war period the Nations compromised with principles and admitted Russia to the United Nations. Had they proceeded to unite all the other nations of the world on the sure ground of economic reform, of needed national reorganisation and of regional groups (a better term than “blocs”), Russia would have been forced to conform, for her very existence would have been at stake. An initial error can lead to much trouble, and it is this type of trouble which the United Nations today faces.”

Externalisation of the Hierarchy, Page 640 – April 1948

Many support the idea of unifying healthcare under the state under a single payer system without sufficiently comparing it to alternatives.

Communism seeks to unify the planet under its ideology and many students support any move in this direction despite this warning along with hope for the ideal from DK:

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

Rays and Initiations, Page 745

The fact is that most any type of union can be beneficial if conditions are right and intelligent people of goodwill are in charge, BUT it is also true that most any union can turn into a great evil if conditions are not good and selfish people run the bureaucracies.

In summary we need to ask the question as to what are the right conditions for a beneficial union. Here are a few:

(1) First and most importantly the principle of freedom must be honored and applied. Too strong of a central authority usually leads to a dictatorship and loss of freedom that requires the sacrifice of many lives to dismantle. Union can be achieved without the force of a strong central authority. Switzerland is a good example of this with its 26 united cantons, or states, in a proven direct democracy, free from a strong central authority.

(2) Work with cooperative endeavors through free will. Examples of this today are nations working together on the Space station, the CERN collider, the refugee problem, trade and others.

(3) Stress cooperation and utilizing differences rather than attempting to create sameness through some misguided and forced standard.

(4) Accentuate the positive. Avoid demonizing other nations and peoples and look for ways to utilize that which is positive in them.

(5) Make overtures of goodwill, but analyze the results for future action.

A united world will eventually come, but it could be delayed if we take thoughtless gambles that take us toward too much central authority, leaving little room for individual initiative.

Here’s to hoping for union and oneness where freedom of the human spirit is preserved, no matter how long it takes.

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

Index for Older Archives (Like this One) in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Those Who Sing

April 23, 2017April 24, 2017 Joseph Dewey

May 6, 1999

Those Who Sing

A reader brought up a question concerning free will and the Song.

Those who say the Song regularly know and feel that it is good and uplifting. We who sing the Song, within our souls can sense that the wording is good, and does not in any way take away the free will of others.

I like a reader’s statement on the Song as follows:

“I love the song of the 144,000. I love the union that occurs on this list when done together. The love has grown since that occurred. The energy has increased as though a whole octave jump since that time. When this occurs (and I don’t know the scientiﬁc explanation here) the increase in energy is bringing up everything that cannot resonate with love of the higher frequency, so some fall asleep, some have multiple confrontations out of nowhere, and some dance and sing and laugh faster, almost like being hyped or drunk on energy. And some reach a profounder state of being, greater clarity, and meetings with their family on other levels. It is magniﬁcent and we will integrate this magniﬁcent energy.”

You cannot take the free will of another, even if you wanted to, by sending the aspects of God toward mankind or friends as a gift. Because we have free will we can always accept or reject the gift.

The fact that we cooperate with God in sending light and love and power cannot interfere with free will, because God does not interfere with free will and if His/Her/Its attributes are truly reﬂected, then free will is only enhanced.

Because we are reﬂections of God (or made in the image of God) we are also agents of the Light and Love and Power of God. As such, we do not just declare or wait around for the Will of God to manifest. If there is some great being outside of ourselves that is all powerful, then anything we declare would have no effect on that Will. But as reﬂections of God, we cooperate in the Will of God and become agents in helping to manifest the great Plan on the earth.

If I had the mindset that the Song interferes with free will, I could ﬁnd a similar fault with even the Lord’s Prayer. Jesus said: “Thy kingdom come.” I could say that Jesus was wrong here, because some do not want the kingdom to come and it should not be forced upon them.

Jesus said: “Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven.” Well what about those who want things to continue as they are? Perhaps we should leave this part of the prayer out.

“Give us this day our daily bread.” Jesus should have said Give “me” my daily bread. After all, some of us are allergic to bread and do not want bread forced upon us.

“Lead us not into temptation…” Well maybe I like a little temptation.

Maybe I don’t like Jesus forcing me away from temptation.

When you think of it, neither the Lord’s Prayer or the Song of the 144,000 will hinder free will.

These prayers are gifts, and a gift does not restrict free will. God has created the sun to warm us by day and the moon to lighten us by night, but have you heard anyone complain that these two celestial gifts were forced upon us?

I think not. If we do not like the sun or the moon, we can hide in a cave.

If a person wanted to, he could take any prayer, afﬁrmation, or song of good intent, and ﬁnd fault with the wording.

If an afﬁrmation is incorrect, it can lead into illusion, but to lose free will one has to give away his power to one who assumes the place of the inner God, as we talked out when discussing the “Beast”.

You will remember from the book that we are told that only the 144,000 can sing the song. Those who are not ready may try it for a while, but will drop it or lose interest. Then there are others who will quit singing it by changing the meaning through altering the words.

Changing the word “Father” to God, Father/Mother God, Allah, or whatever is most sacred in the seeker’s mind, does not change the meaning. A Jew who does not accept Christ could change that wording to the “Son of God” and the meaning would still be the same. But if one substitutes “love” for “will”, or will for “power”, or something of this order, then the meaning becomes changed and the song is no longer being sung in harmony. It is then like the wrong notes are being played in a song. It also corresponds to one in a choir who is singing different notes. It just does not work.

All have free will to repeat any afﬁrmation they desire, even to alter this song in private if desired. But no one, either morally or by the laws of the land, has permission to publish a version of the song with altered meaning.

All lives capable of movement within the worlds of form have free will within their ring-pass-not or the limits of their consciousness. We have the right of free will within this periphery, as long as we do not infringe on the rights of others or hinder their progression on the Path.

The Song of the 144,000

We thank you Father

That you have revealed to us your protective universal light;

That within this light is complete protection

From all destructive forces;

That the Holy Spirit of Your Presence

Permeates us in this light,

And wherever we will the light to descend.

We thank you Father

That you fill us with your protective fires of love;

That within this love is complete protection

From all destructive thoughts and feelings;

That the consciousness of Christ is lifted up in us in this love,

And wherever we will the love to be enflamed.

We thank you Father

That You are in us and we are in You;

That through us Your Will is sent forth on wings of power;

That Your Purpose is accomplished on earth as it is in heaven;

That through us Your Light and Love and Power

Is manifest to all the Sons and Daughters of Mankind.

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Equality

April 22, 2017 Joseph Dewey

April 23, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 3 – Equality

Another very popular ideal in alternative spiritualty is equality. Equality in some measure has been stressed by many spiritual teachers and even found in the Declaration of Independence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Unfortunately, the idea of equality is interpreted differently by various people.

Most reasonable people accept the idea as it applies to opportunity. That is, even though we are all in different circumstances we should all have equal opportunity to use the talents we have to succeed in life.

Many do not expect equality of income but when they read that the eight richest people in the world have as much combined wealth as the poorer half of the entire population of the world they become concerned. This does seem like an undesirable inequality.

People overall want to see each person have a fair shot at life and many things they see happening around them make them feel this may not be happening.

This causes some to take this good ideal and go to the extreme – way beyond merely applying it to opportunity and instead equating equality with sameness.

An example of this extreme emerges from some feminists who claim that for the sexes to be equal we must recognize that, outside of obvious physical differences, they are the same. Some claim that boys act differently than girls because of societal and family influences. In other words, boys would play with dolls and girls with guns in equal amounts if they were raised with the same influences.

I think that most reasonable people will agree that males and females are different enough in nature that it would be detrimental to attempt to force sameness on our children. The logical path is to allow a child to develop though his or her free will and give them as much equal opportunity to succeed according to their desires and talents.

For society to attain maximum equality we must realize what it is and have the desired end presented to us as a people so we can all head the same direction.

Before we can set a goal on equality we must realize that there are differences in everything and this must be a part of the equation. We ought to be happy about this rather than disgusted for the world would be a boring place if we were all the same .

Each person is a unique individual, different from everyone else. Each family is different and yes, each race has different qualities, as well as each city, state and nation.

Fair minded people do not judge the differences in others as being inferior or superior but in general as aspects to be appreciated. Tourists enjoy traveling to different countries because of the differences. They enjoy being exposed to culture and customs different than their own and appreciate them rather than scorn them in most vases.

The fair minded do not want sameness, which can be very detrimental, as is the case of the people of North Korea, but a reasonable equality can be a very good thing.

Here is what we should shoot for.

(1) A fairly equal opportunity to succeed in life. We cannot expect complete equality here as some will always have the advantage of better parents, friends, contacts, available opportunity etc. The main thing desired is that all possible obstacles are removed from all the people so everyone can climb the ladder according to his desire and ability.

(2) Abundance for all. Who cares if Mr. Smith makes more than you if you have enough wealth to enjoy a good life. Studies show that once a person reaches an income where he can live in reasonable comfort that more money does not bring more happiness. Yes the guy with a roof over his head is usually happier than the homeless person, but money can only increase well-being up to a point. After basic needs are taken care of, money does not buy happiness.

Taking the wealth of the few by force and redistributing it never ends well. Instead of seeking such leveling by force let us seek to increase wealth for all working with the free agency of humankind.

When the needs of the many are met then there will be a more natural tendency toward equality and sharing.

(3) The elimination of grievances. A lot of people put so much attention and energy on their grievances because they feel shortchanged in life that they have little focus left over to concentrate on personal success. This chip on the shoulder that many have is picked up from family, friends, the media, politicians and schools. As a society we must focus more on seeing the glass half full than half empty. Unless we do this then no amount of equality will bring satisfaction to the masses. There will always be one more thing needed before illusionary happiness can be obtained.

The mistake then made by many spiritually minded is to go to the extreme, way beyond these three points and seek for sameness rather than true practical equality.

Sameness will never be attained but a fair system where all have a reasonable opportunity of success is a goal that the world will eventually achieve.

If you missed Part 1 Click HERE For Part 2 go HERE

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Inclusiveness

April 21, 2017 Joseph Dewey

April 21, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality, Part 2

Inclusiveness

Peace is indeed the number one ideal embraced by alternative believers. It is an ideal supported by both the mentally and emotionally polarized, by the sixth ray people going out of influence and the seventh ray coming in. The main difference between the two is in the approach, not the desired end result of peace and goodwill.

In addition to peace there are a number of other ideals that are too firmly embraced with the sixth ray attitude of a black and white approach leading to extremism. What is overlooked is every virtue must be applied with good judgment else it will turn into a vice.

For instance, we all realize that generosity is a good quality, but if a parent gives away all the family’s grocery money to a good cause he will be doing harm to his children who may go hungry. Good sense is always the bottom line for anyone seeking to become a master of wisdom.

So let us look at some other ideals endorsed by those in alternative spirituality.

Inclusiveness would be high on the list. They teach that a lack of inclusiveness pervades Christianity for many believe that only members of their church or belief system will be saved and some are accused of favoring the rich or a certain class of people. Most alternative folks feel they are free from this fault and see themselves as having a loving open door welcoming all into the fold. Many have also stepped into the political arena and have advocated welcoming all across the borders, legal or not. Many want no screening process at all to filter out criminals.

Indeed it is a virtue to be inclusive if applied with common sense, but like all virtues, if taken to the extreme, it becomes negative rather than positive.

Let us use the Law of Correspondences and relate open borders to a family home. For U.S. citizens the United States is our larger home, but in the microcosm the property we live in is our home also.

Now you may have a relative or friend call now and then asking if they can crash a few days. It may be an inconvenience but you accept them and figure you are being inclusive.

Now suppose an old acquaintance who you never considered a close friend shows up on your doorstep with a wife, six kids and three large dogs. Taking him in may indeed test your normally inclusive nature.

If one really wanted to be inclusive he could take in a few homeless people. The trouble is that even if one was willing he would be nervous about doing it since the homeless guy could be on drugs and dangerous.

But let us suppose that Billy Bob is one righteous dude and decides to open his home and resources to those in need. He invites three homeless people to stay with him. He is fortunate in that he chose three that were not dangerous, but he finds they do take much more advantage of his good nature than he planned. His favorite food and drink disappear very quickly.

Then a couple days later word spreads about his good nature and three more homeless show up on his doorstep with very sad stories. Billy Bob reluctantly lets them in, thinking it is good to be inclusive.

Several days later, after having his house trashed, three more show up. He is determined to be inclusive and again lets them in. Then it becomes a daily occurrence for more to show up until his house is overflowing with all kinds of strange individuals who were more concerned with getting than giving. Finally, after sustaining more grief and expense than he could handle he throws his arms up and orders all of then to leave. Several become angry and threaten him and say they are staying no matter what. Billy Bob is beside himself and decides the only thing he can do is move out and let the bunch fend for themselves.

He gets a room at the Motel 6 and waits. Within a month the home has suffered so much destruction and abuse that it was not even fit for the homeless to live in. The bunch then leaves the house and moves into a shelter that at least has running water and some food.

Was Billy Bob inclusive?

He seemed to be.

Should our nation take the Billy Bob approach to our borders?

Obviously if we do not operate with some limitations too many people in need entering the country could wind up creating much damage as happened to Billy Bob.

Did Billy Bob practice the principle of inclusion and does our country if it uses no judgment as to who may enter?

No.

So are some true believers being extreme and advocating the Billy Bob approach to inclusiveness and open borders?

Indeed they are.

Part of the reason for this is that various teachers have rightfully taught of a time in the future where we will have open borders, throughout the world. Unfortunately, believers see such teachings in terms of black and white that need to be applied right now with no judgment involved.

In our story Billy Bob had a problem because of the great inequality between him and those he tried to include. That created a situation where he needed to use common sense in applying his inclusiveness, else more harm than good would result. If he lived in a city where all had a place to live then his inclusiveness would not create such a problem.

We see this working out with the borders of the United States. Because of the great inequality of the people south of our border we have the problem of millions crossing the border illegally.

On the other hand, because there are fairly comparable standards of living between Canada and the USA we do not have the same problem with them. We can be as inclusive as we want with Canadians with no negative results.

The solution with Mexico is to assist them in obtaining an efficient government and productive society so their standard of living will increase.

When Mexicans can earn as much in Mexico as they do in the United States then the problem will be solved and open borders will be no problem. In that case we would probably have as many U.S. citizens going south as Mexicans coming north.

The key to wisdom here is that as much as we want to be inclusive, generous and helpful all must be done with the application of thought. Without this the person may wind up doing more harm than good. If we do more harm than good, even with good intentions, we will create negative karma.

Jesus was an inclusive guy, but even he acknowledged limits in his parable of the wise virgins.

The five wise virgins saved up oil for their lamps so they could have sufficient to meet the bridegroom. The five foolish did not. When the call came the five wise lighted their lamps and proceeded, and the five foolish asked to borrow some of their oil. They replied that if they shared then none of them would have enough for the journey to meet the bridegroom. They thus refused and went on their way.

The five wise virgins had the choice which was this. Was it better that five achieve success or none succeed? They wisely held to the idea that it was better that five succeed than none.

Even so, if our country shares too much and is too inclusive we face the danger that Billy Bob did with his house. Everyone could loose.

The strong can help the weak, but if the strong become weak then there will be no one to help.

At present, instead of violating the principle of the incoming seventh ray with lawlessness, we need to go by the laws that are on the books and if they are seen to be unjust we need to change them. Inclusiveness and lawlessness are a dangerous mixture.

If you missed Part 1 Click HERE

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

April 20, 2017March 4, 2019 Joseph Dewey

April 20, 2017

Extremism in Alternative Spirituality

Part 1

It is interesting that those into New age philosophy, Theosophy and metaphysics see themselves as the tolerant inclusive ones whereas the Christian Right is often condemned as exclusive, intolerant, narrow minded and too judgmental. Often the word “extreme” is thrown out in their direction, for they are seen as interpreting things too literally and not seeing the middle way of balance.

So are the alternative spiritual folks as fair and balanced as they present themselves or do they merely duplicate the same faults as orthodox religion, but on the other side of duality?

From my analysis both sides exhibit similar faults. The main difference is in the vocabulary used and the point of attention. Also both sides have many of the same virtues. Neither is all good or all bad.

Here are just a few illusions shared by them both:

Christian Right (CR): Accept our version of Jesus and be saved.

Alternative Spirituality (AS): Accept our message and be saved by (1) Aliens (2) Increased vibration into the fifth dimension (3) Into some paradise after death.

CR: The end is near and the Apocalypse and end of the world is upon us. Only the righteous will be saved.

AS: Humans are bent on destruction, which is coming soon. Only the enlightened will be saved.

Others fear that global warming will bring the end of humanity within a few decades.

CR: Many are too materialistic.

AS: Many of these are also too materialistic seeking mainly wealth and abundance for self.

CR: They are too exclusive, not accepting those who think differently than themselves.

AS: These see themselves as being inclusive, but many reject anything from the Christian right with little attempt to be inclusive or understanding toward them.

CR: They are too black and white in their thinking.

AS: We also see many here who have the same problem, but just in a different belief system.

The bottom line is that there are similar problems with the people in every belief system. Even many of those who are in a highly advanced and fairly accurate belief system benefit little from it because their thoughts have crystalized and are subject to errors in thinking just as much as a more simple ideology.

A huge problem in all belief systems is the black and white approach by many of the rank and file which leads to taking an extreme position.

It is interesting that alternative spiritualty generally see this as a problem for orthodox religious fundamentalists and not themselves. Unfortunately, the problem also exists with them but because it is centered around a different set of beliefs many have a blind spot about it.

Many esoteric students may be perplexed to hear such a statement and would ask: “In what way am I too black and white or extreme?”

In answering this keep in mind that we are all different and we can never paint with a brush that covers everyone, but in some cases the bush affects more than should be the case.

Here is the problem with folks in alternative spirituality. Many are centered strongly on the sixth ray of idealism and have been presented wonderful ideals through their books and their teachers. Some of these ideals are inspiring and will someday manifest intelligently on this planet. The problem humanity has is in manifesting these ideals is that the path is very difficult and complex. Believers are often impatient and want all wonderful ideals to manifest immediately. This often causes them to take a black and white simplistic approach leading to extremism.

The most universal ideal held by alternative spirituality is that of peace.

Just as it is with most ideals peace is indeed very desirable and most everyone wants it. The trouble with many alternative folks is that they go to the extreme in wanting it at any price. Some think all that should be involved here is that everyone just needs to lay down their arms and shake hands.

Unfortunately, the way to peace is a long road and sometimes on that road war may be necessary. The reason for this is that there are things more important than peace. First and foremost is the freedom of the human spirit and sometimes to maintain this a conflict is necessary and the enemy in that conflict must be defeated.

One good thing that came from the experience of World War II is that most of the world now, on hindsight, see that a demarcation was made between good and evil. Hitler and the Nazis were fighting for a cause that diminished freedom and the Allies were fighting to maintain freedom.

Many other wars were controversial and did not have a lot of public support, but most agree that Hitler had to be confronted and defeated.

During the war many alternative folks were pacifists and against the war. They would have rather let Hitler take control and yield to him than resist.

One of the few esoteric teachers who spoke common sense on this issue was Djwhal Khul through Alice A. Bailey. He said this:

“I would say to those who preach a passive attitude in the face of evil and human suffering and who endorse a pacifism which involves no risks: With what do you propose to fight the forces of aggression, of treachery, evil and destruction which are today stalking over our planet? What weapons do you bring to this combat? How will you begin to stem the onslaught and arrest the whirlwind? Will you use prayers for peace, and then patiently wait for the forces of good to fight your battle and for God to do the work? I tell you that your prayers and your wishes are unavailing when divorced from right and potent action. Your prayers and petitions may reach the throne of God, symbolically speaking, but then the reply comes forth: The Forces of Light will strengthen your arms and turn the tide in your favour if you stand up and fight for that which you desire. Who will arrest the progress of aggressive selfishness if the men and women of goodwill rest back upon their idealism and do naught that is practical to justify their hope or aid in the materialisation of the desired ideal.

“There are those in the world today who (despite past national selfishness and wrong) are fearlessly and with true insight fighting humanity’s battle, and with them the Hierarchy stands, as it has ever stood on the side of liberty, right understanding and correct attitudes in human affairs. I would say to those who cry, “Peace, peace when there is no peace”: Are you going to profit by their death and sacrifice when the ultimate triumph of the Forces of Light comes to pass? Are you going to take the position that you can then live in a safe world because others gave their lives that you might do so? Are you going to issue forth from the safe security of your pacifist alibi and gratefully acknowledge what they have done and grasp your share of the gains which they have purchased at such a cost? I would warn you not to be glamoured by the false premise that you must stand by your hard-earned convictions, even at the expense of other peoples’ lives and the downfall of nations, forgetting that fear and false pride will make this argument of importance to you. Are the peace-minded people of the world going to reap the benefits of a peace for which they have paid no price? It is the people who value peace above all else who are today seeking by every possible method to stop Germany.”

The Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 233

DK also criticized the nations that remained neutral throughout the war indicating they had accumulated some negative karma by doing so.

George Orwell also saw this from a similar angle as noted by Michael Kelly in the Washington Post:

“In 1942 George Orwell wrote this, in Partisan Review, of Great Britain’s pacifists: ‘Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist.’ This is elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side you automatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way of remaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, ‘he that is not with me is against me.’ England’s pacifists howled, but Orwell’s logic was implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British did not fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wished the British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side of a Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.”

Jesus is often cited as an example to follow by the pacifists but even of him it is written:

“in righteousness he doth judge and make war.” Rev 19:11

Even the scripture of the peaceable Hindus, The Bhagavad Gita, supports war in the right circumstance:

Arjuna was faced with a similar prospect to many in the American Civil War and said this to Krishna:

How can I do battle with my kinsmen, with those I love and who have loved me, for whom I have cared, as they once cared for me? Though they have gathered to serve Duryodhana’s folly, to deprive us of our birthright, to kill me and my brothers on this battlefield, how can I fight them? My body trembles at the thought. My bow falls from my hands. My flesh burns. My arms and legs have no strength. My mind is confused; my reason confounded. I am lost.

… To act is to bring upon us a day of pitch darkness. We have come here for the sake of an earthly kingdom; … But by acting, we reserve for ourselves only a place in Hell. It is best for me if Duryodhana and his armies come before me. Disarmed by doubt, I will not resist them as they kill me. This will be my best reward. These were Arjuna’s words to Krishna as the two armies awaited Arjuna’s signal to begin the battle.

With Arjuna’s words sounding in his ears, Krishna’s spirit quickened. He spoke to Arjuna, whose eyes burned with tears, overwhelmed by despair. Krishna said: —What shameful words are these, Arjuna? This is the hour of trial. Why do you falter? Your despondent grief enfeebles you; it dishonors you. Slunk in the trenches of despair, you will win neither heaven nor earth. Do not exchange arrows and bow for impotence and cowardice; this is not your way. Do not yield to these faults or to this weakness. Rise up and fight!”

Arjuna said: —How can I fight them, immortal Krishna? These enemies are my teachers from earliest youth. How can I cut them down when they deserve only my veneration? It is better to wander in rags, begging for alms, than to sprinkle the bread of my sustenance with their blood.

… With these words, Arjuna cried out: —I will not fight! and said nothing more.

Krishna smiled, hinting of laughter, and spoke gently to Arjuna as they stood between the two armies. Krishna said: —Do not weep tears for them. Though your words are sincere and full of insight, your sorrow profits no one. Tears are wasted on the dead; the wise do not grieve for the living or the dead, for life and death shall pass away. —In time we have always been, both you and I and all these kings of men; and we will always be. Putting on the body of the child, the youth, the old man, a wise man does not wonder that in death, the Self passes into another body. … Even if you believe that a man is born again and again, and that he dies again and again, you should not grieve, for in death birth is inevitable and in birth death is inevitable. Being born, he must die. In death, he is reborn. If you understand this, then you will not grieve for the loss of what can never be lost.

Do your duty, Arjuna. Act without hesitation. For the warrior, the greatest good is lawful war against an evil enemy. A lawful war opens the doors of heaven for you. Enter therein, Arjuna. Rejoice in good fortune that this battle is joined. But if you shrink before this battle or turn your back upon your duty, casting aside honor, this is a grievous transgression. Men will recount your shame, dishonor, and disgrace now and in the future. They shall say cowards possess the courage of Arjuna. For one honored, the loss of honor is worse than death. Great warriors will accuse you of cowardice; those who once honored you will treat you with contempt. Your enemies will rejoice in mocking you. They will laugh and say, “See how Arjuna fled before us, a deer among lions.” Death in battle is better than the mocking derision of enemies. —If you are victorious, you gain glory in this world. If you are defeated and cut down on this field, you gain glory in the next world. Arise and fight, Arjuna. Glory is upon you. Be detached from happiness and unhappiness, gain or loss, victory or defeat. Be resolved to fight, or you will fall into error.

The pacifists have the right ideal, but in pursuing an ideal judgments must be made and sometimes the path to achievement will have some obstacles to overcome.

The seeker must ever realize that there is a time and place for all things.