The House Divided, Part 4
Now we look at the country and world as a whole and see the general division becoming more crystallized. Each side has its faults and is far from perfect, but one will lean more toward the light and the other toward the dark.
What are some of the qualities we need to look for to identify those who lean toward the light and the other toward the dark? Where and what are the lines in the sand for our time?
We’ve talked about the power of hindsight. We see that it is now quite easy to see who was on the side of error in the Revolutionary War, The Civil War and World War II.
But the interesting thing is that for those who lived through the experience the discernment was not so easy.
For instance, one would think that the average person in the South with a sense of morality, who did not own slaves himself, would have been repelled by the idea. The sad fact is most were not. Most of the people high and low accepted this great evil. Even many slaves were resigned to their fate. In addition, there were thousands of free blacks in the South who owned slaves themselves and seemed to have no qualms about it.
This just illustrates how powerful a group thoughtform is. We often self-righteously look on those in the past who owned slaves, believed in a flat earth, burned witches and so on as if we would never have done such a thing if we had lived back then.
Jesus had some timely words for those who so judge themselves to be holier than thou:
“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.
“Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers. Ye serpents, ye generation of vipers, how can ye escape the damnation of hell?” Matthew 23:29-33
It’s pretty obvious that this self-righteous attitude irritated even the Master himself. Sadly, this attitude still exists today. Many who are quick to criticize the faults of Lincoln, the Founding Fathers, the Pilgrims and others because they bought into some of the thoughtforms of the day would have been much worse themselves had they lived back then. In fact, most of these critics do buy into the erroneous thoughtforms and beliefs that exist today.
The question to ponder then is – how can we recognize those who are on the side supported by the Brotherhood of Light and those by the Dark Brotherhood? In examining this we must realize that neither side of an issue will be perfect in its solution, but one will always be closer to the light than the other. When an issue divides the country the Brotherhood of Light, (if they pick a side) will choose that which will move civilization, the principle of freedom and light forward.
It is oddly difficult for the general population to assess an issue accurately for a number of reasons. Therefore, if we pick one and say the Brotherhood of Light would be on this side, half or more of the readers would be offended. A question to ask is this: Is there anything black and white that will give us clues as to where the light and dark of the matter is?
The answer is yes. Like gathers to like. Those leaning to the dark side of an issue will gather in support and those on the more enlightened side will also gather.
Those on the darker side will reveal the characteristics of darkness such as:
Desire to limit freedom.
Lack of fairness.
Retribution toward those who harmlessly oppose.
Strong use of authority.
Desire to excessively punish enemies.
Desire to not allow both sides of an issue to be heard or understood.
When we look at this list on hindsight, we can see how most of them applied to the supporters of slavery before the Civil War, but such people, of course, did not realize this about themselves.
On the other hand, those on the side of light, while not perfect, lean toward the opposite qualities:
Instead of ignorance they are informed.
They are slow to anger.
Though often accused of intolerance they are the more tolerant of the two.
They rely more heavily on logic and reason thus having less distortion.
They are less selfish.
They support more freedom.
They have a sense of fairness.
They rarely seek retribution.
They give truth greater weight than authority.
They are slow to accuse.
They do not excessively punish.
They encourage both sides of an issue to be freely heard.
Now let us pick some issues and see how the two sides measure up.
Let us begin with the hot issue of Global Warming, one that I have given some attention to. Here are the two sides:
One side maintains that the earth is in an alarming state of global warming and this is close to 100 percent caused by humans polluting with CO2 emissions. They claim to have a “consensus” of scientists supporting them and severe action must be taken now, even if it causes great “inconvenience” to the economies and people of the world.
The other side maintains that the current warming trend has little to do with humans or CO2 but is mostly caused by cycles and there is little we can do about them. They maintain that there is too little evidence that CO2 emissions are the main cause of warming. Taking drastic measures on this would be comparable to taking drastic measures to prevent bad weather. No matter what we do little will change.
Examine the camps on both sides of this issue. Which group displays the qualities of light and which of darkness?
So which side of the issue is the most informed or ill informed? Here is my observation from the people I have talked to and the hundreds of debates I have heard on radio, TV and read in the newspapers.
Those who support the orthodox view seem to know an astonishing small amount about the subject. Their argument basically goes as follows.
The issue has been settled – there is a consensus.
The UN and almost every scientist in the world agrees with Al Gore. All but a few rebels and extreme right wingers agree.
Then they will cite evidence that the earth is getting warmer which is not even part of the argument. Most on both sides of the issue believe this. The issue is not that the earth is getting warmer, but are man-made emissions causing most, if not all of it?
In almost every case this is all the information they have. Because some authority told them scientists agree and scientists are probably smarter than they are they acquiesce their power to judge and discern.
On the other hand, I find that those who question the standard theory are quite well informed and know at least a few details on which to base an argument. They take their stand not because some authority tells them to but because of some investigation on their part.
Next is anger. It’s difficult to judge another person’s anger. I know some judge me to be angry at times when I am not angry at all. The problem I have when global warming comes up with an orthodox believer is that he ends the discussion the instant he sees I am informed about the subject. He gives himself no time to get angry before he makes an exit.
I have read and heard some angry tones from them though when they attack what they call global warming deniers. Some want them rounded up and tried in Nuremberg type trials.
Intolerance: The evidence is overwhelming that the orthodox believers are much more intolerant. Many scientists who have worked in global warming research have been threatened with loss of jobs, careers, and funding if their research did not support the standard belief. Some scientists are receiving death threats for speaking out.
On the other hand, the rebels seem to be quite tolerant and happy to have the data from both sides come out so it can be examined in the light of day.
Who relies heavier on logic and reason thus having less distortion?
My comments above make the answer obvious here.
Selfishness: Many on both sides of the issue just want to live life on earth in the most productive and prosperous way possible. This is normal selfishness. What goes beyond this are the billions of tax payer dollars funneled toward global warming projects and research. The amount oil companies spend to counter global warming alarmists is a drop in the bucket by comparison. Some are willing to sell their souls for a part of the billions that are at stake.
Freedom: The orthodox believer wants to suppress the free flow of alternative information on the subject. Many, including Gore himself, have attempted to get the press to not give space to opposing views. Some newspapers are not allowing any alternative views to be voiced and many are working to allow only one side to be taught in the schools.
If draconian carbon reductions were mandated it would mean less freedom for all the peoples of the earth, especially developing countries. The sad part is this would be a useless reduction of freedom.
I think the readers should get the point here. The orthodox believers stand on the dark side on every point that I mentioned earlier.
I’ll just comment on one more:
Do they give truth greater weight than authority?
The orthodox believer relies close to 100 percent on the authority of some nameless scientists he has heard mentioned. He does not check out the science for himself.
On the other hand, many rebels do check out the science, read books and study the issue to see what makes sense.
The reason the believer does not do his research is because many of them just believe that the intelligence of scientists are head and shoulders above themselves. If all the scientists but a few crackpots agree then who is he to question?
The truth is this. The average person can look at the data and use his reason just as a scientist does. No one should let someone else do all their thinking for them.
The global warming issue is a great one to see who follows beastly authority without question and who does not.
For a balanced presentation on Global Warming check out this video:
Conservation and the Environment
This is closely linked to the global warming debate. Most of those on both sides of the political spectrum support conservation of the resources we use within reason.
Both the left and the right can be faulted though. Probably about a third of those on the right seem to have the attitude that only that which they can afford should determine how much energy they use. If they can afford a private jet or a limo then some will have no concern about the amount of fuel used.
A larger percentage of those on the left voice support of conservation, but unfortunately many of them only want the little guy to cut back while they continue to use a horrendous amount of energy. At least the excessive energy consumers on the right practice what they preach in this area. They believe in using lots of energy and they follow through and do so.
The left believes in conserving, but many do not practice what they preach.
Al Gore is an example of this. He owns four mansions and in just one of them he uses 20 times the energy as the average home, leaving a giant carbon footprint and even a bigger one from often flying in a private jet.
Barbara Streisand is always preaching about conservation yet she owns a tremendous mansion that uses $22,000 worth of water annually so you can imagine her electric bill. She either drives an SUV or a motor home. She often drives the gas guzzling motor home to appointments so she can have her own bathroom wherever she goes.
Bobby Kennedy Jr. often flies on a private jet and his family has sued to have a windmill project torn down because it will ruin their yachting view. The windmills are several miles out at sea where you need binoculars to even see them from shore.
Michael Moore has owned stock in Boeing and Halliburton. When traveling he has been observed holding a press conference in a humble motel and then after it is over he moves to his real location which is often an expensive suite.
Ralph Nader claims to live in a humble apartment but has several expensive homes in the name of his siblings where he often resides.
Most of the Hollywood crowd who gave Al Gore a standing ovation at the Oscars used more energy just getting to the Oscars than you or I use in a year. If they really believe Al Gore’s message, they would have ridden bicycles or at least a Prius to the Oscars.
It really frosts me when someone preaches to me what I should do when they do not practice what they preach. It is true the right has their share of hypocrites, mostly in religion, but the difference with those on the left is that their influence has power to impact my life with restrictive laws and religious zealots do not have much power to do this.
Next let us look at education. The educational system in the United States has been going downhill for some time despite a greatly increased cost per child.
One group wants to improve our educational system by giving power to be able to hold teachers and administrators accountable as well as giving incentives to teachers. They also support the idea of making the schools more competitive with each other and giving more choice to students as to which school they can attend. They also want more power to discipline students and expel the bad ones.
All the other side seems to want is to keep things as they are with the exception of getting more money for smaller classrooms and pay raises and benefits.
It should be obvious which side is the most enlightened here so I’ll ask another question. When it is obvious that more money alone will not improve our educational system why is it then that this is the only move the majority seem to support? What can we do to turn things around?
I could write much more on the House [Kingdom] Divided Principle, but I think we have covered enough to get the idea. To apply it to modern times one must isolate the various issues and examine the camps on each side. Look at where the greatest illusion is found and you will see how the workers of darkness will use ordinary and sincere people as pawns to take the whole away from freedom and prosperity.
The seeker will also discover this trend. The person or group that is captured by one deception will be susceptible to others. If one were to pick one hundred deceptions one will find that one camp will gravitate to about eighty percent of them and the other to maybe twenty percent.
This polarization changes as the times and cycles change but the foundation deception remains which is expressed in this attitude:
“I want what I want even if I have to support limiting the freedom of others and forcing them to pay for the fulfillment of my desires.”
This person will inwardly believe that the perceived end justifies the means but will not admit it to himself.
This was the false principle that justified slavery in past eras and it is the foundation of the new slavery today.
A southern state or Roman slaveholder could have expressed his views as follows:
“If I get what I want from a slave then it is worth it to force him to pay for my extra freedom by sacrificing his own freedom.”
The modern day slaveholder will say:
“If I get what I want from the government then it is worth it to force the ignorant to pay for my extra freedom by enslaving them with heavy taxes.”
What is the difference between the two slaveries? Nothing in principle for they are both justified by the illusion of more freedom for themselves at the expense of others.
It is true the tax slave of today has a few more freedoms than ancient slaves, but with one difference. The evils of physical slavery were headed toward liberation, but the slavery of taxation is only increasing. Unless a reversal is achieved a modern-day slavery will be complete.
The words if Isaiah come to mind:
“For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money. For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause.
“Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed. Therefore my people shall know my name: therefore they shall know in that day that I am he that doth speak: behold, it is I.
“How beautiful upon the mountains are the feet of him that bringeth good tidings, that publisheth peace; that bringeth good tidings of good, that publisheth salvation; that saith unto Zion, Thy God reigneth! Thy watchmen shall lift up the voice; with the voice together shall they sing: for they shall see eye to eye, when the LORD shall bring again Zion.” Isaiah 52:3-8
The modern-day slavery is propelled by the drive of all the advanced nations toward socialism or communism. The reason this captures the hearts of so many well-meaning people is the outward ideals of socialism seem to be in harmony with the teachings of Christ and other great teachers.
Didn’t Jesus teach to give our money to the poor and emphasize equality? Aren’t his teachings in harmony with socialistic values?
There is great illusion here and I have seen many free enterprises argue against socialism, but never seen one strike at the core difference between the teachings of Jesus and socialism.
It is quite simply this.
Jesus taught that we should help the poor through our own free will by giving money and help directly to them. Rome had various welfare programs and not once did he say to help the poor by giving money to Caesar who would in turn help a few poor after taking his cut. Jesus instead was reluctant to pay taxes and was forced to pay back taxes at one time. He was accused of being a tax rebel at His trial: “And they began to accuse Him, saying, “We found this fellow perverting the nation, and forbidding to pay taxes to Caesar,” Luke 23:2
Giving directly to those in need by our free will is the way of Jesus and the way of light and love.
Being forced to give to Caesar to he can assist who he wills is the way of darkness and slavery.
At the foundation of the United States, we had a short period where the Beast was wounded as if it were to death and many of those who had money gave to charity and the less fortunate through their own free will. There was no income tax to forcefully redistribute money and during this period was the greatest expansion of a nation in the history of the world. If this nation had started with the tax system and restrictive laws that we have today it would have never flourished.
We owe the abundance we have today to the foundations of yesterday plus the assistance we have received from the development of technology. However, our greatest technological achievements have been done in an atmosphere of freedom and incentives.
Let us hope the day of the next gathering is soon so maximum freedom can flourish once more. Then will the prophesy of Isaiah be fulfilled:
“Art thou not it which hath dried the sea, the waters of the great deep; that hath made the depths of the sea a way for the ransomed to pass over?” Isaiah 51:10
“Therefore the redeemed of the LORD shall return, and come with singing unto Zion; and everlasting joy shall be upon their head: they shall obtain gladness and joy; and sorrow and mourning shall flee away.” Isaiah 51:11
Intellectually, as well as politically, the direction of all true progress is toward greater freedom. C.N. Bovee
March 1, 2007
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE
Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE
Check out JJ’s videos on TikTok HERE