Chapter Twenty-Eight
Leadership in the Molecule
Most will agree that there must be something wrong with the world’s present method of selecting leaders. Look at the government bureaucracies for instance. Where in them will you find a truly dynamic leader who is willing to take the initiative? We have the same problem in big business. Many seem to be “yes men” who are afraid to make a bold move. All decision-making seems to get bogged down by people who are either afraid of making a mistake or have no authority to move.
The reason for this is very simple. In all hierarchical organizations today, the selection process for leadership is determined by appointment, from the top down. In the Molecular organization, the principle is the opposite. Established leadership is determined by election.
Another method of acquiring leaders will be the same in the Molecule as it is in the world today. We could call this principle “leadership by initiation.” To initiate means to begin something. In other words, an initiate is a self-starter. As we mentioned earlier, the higher the initiate, the more far reaching will be the work he or she initiates.
The most common initiates in the free world today are those who start their own business. Because they do not need approval of a higher up, those with initiative can go ahead and begin using their own intelligence and resources. They have the advantage of not having to please a hierarchy above them, but soon find they must please their stewardship (employees and customers) if they are to be successful. Those from below keep them on their toes, not those above. This produces effective stimulation because those below are recipients of service and are by far the best judges of its quality.
Leadership by initiation is basically Molecular, or bottom-up leadership, because an initiate can begin no organization or business without the freewill support of the people. In a way, the success of an initiate is determined by the election process. If a sufficient number of people do not elect to support him or her, the enterprise fails. Most businesses fail because the would-be initiate did not have a solid base of public support. If one decides to sell dresses at a baseball game, for instance, the people will probably vote the entrepreneur out of business. Consequently, if the person does not have enough vision to initiate something better, the discouraged initiate will usually go work for another initiate.
The free countries of the world have some of their leadership elected by the Molecular Principle, but unfortunately, even in the United States, most leadership is not by election, but by appointment. All government agency leaders are selected by appointment, as well as almost all leaders in business, religion, science, medicine, education, and most times even the person who is running for elected office is appointed by the power brokers. Thus, our power to truly elect the people’s choice to leadership has been very minimal. We might call the benefit of this the “trickle-down effect.”
Nevertheless, the benefits of the power of election are still quite obvious when we compare strong authoritarian countries and the United States. In many countries such as North Korea, Cuba and others there are no free elections; leaders are appointed from the top down. Therefore, each leader is concerned not about pleasing those under his stewardship, but the party boss who has life or death power over his career. No one dares to broadcast to associates that they think their leader is deficient or mentally disturbed.
Another disadvantage is that there is very limited power for the people to initiate their own business or for the people to elect which business they wish to support.
In the United States, the political leaders are selected from the bottom-up. (We realize, as we said earlier, that the power brokers often determine who will run for office, but the theory and partial practice of the US, and other free market countries, is bottom-up leadership.) Because the elected officials are responsible (at least partially) to the people, they are concerned about pleasing them so they can return to office. Anyone can go to the street corners and tell the world how out of place they think the elected official is without fear of being hauled away.
In addition, the U.S. offers everyone the opportunity to go into business and testing it with public approval.
The difference in the prosperity between the free and controlled enterprise is directly related to the power of the people to have their choice of leaders in business and politics. We can examine the 2024 Index of Economic Freedom by the Heritage Foundation to see the correlation between freedom and quality of life. The highest seven rated nations using twelve freedom parameters are Singapore, Switzerland, Ireland, Taiwan, Luxembourg, New Zealand and Denmark.
The United States comes in at number 25, but that is way ahead of authoritarian China at 151, Russia at 131, and the last three on the list which are Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea at numbers 174, 175 and 176.
The problem in the free world is that bottom-up or elected leadership in business is still very minimal. While it is true that anyone in the free world can go into business for themselves, the freedom principle is reversed within the business once it is established. I do not know of any business where the leader is selected by election of co-workers. The same applies to religion and to most other branches of society. They are generally governed by the top-down appointment system just as is the government of China.
The Molecule Order will set the example wherein leadership will be selected entirely by the bottom-up principle, or initiation, wherein there will be no appointments. Its efficiency is destined to become “an ensign to the nations.”
Free elections, however, only take us half way toward truly effective leadership. What good does it do us to elect a good leader if he has no power of decision? What good is it if we have a George Washington or an Abraham Lincoln leading us if we tie his hands and do not let him lead? In the Molecular Order the leaders are free to lead and have full power to make decisions for their stewardship. This immediately, with one master stroke, eliminates much of the sluggishness that exists in organizations today.
Do not get the idea that the Molecular leader is a dictator who has power to boss people around. As Jesus pointed out, the Molecular leader is not a dictator, but a servant: “And he said unto them, The kings of the Gentiles exercise lordship over them; and they that exercise authority upon them are called benefactors. But ye shall not be so: but he that is greatest among you, let him be as the younger; and he that is chief, as he that doth serve. For whether is greater, he that sitteth at meat, or he that serveth? is not he that sitteth at meat? but I am among you as he that serveth.” Luke 22:25-27 He also said: “He that is greatest among you shall be your servant.” Matt 23:11
Examples of servant leaders are George Washington and Abraham Lincoln. Examples of you-serve-me leaders are Hitler and Stalin. The first seeks to serve the people; the second seek the people to serve them.
In the Molecule all leaders are forced to have their attention on service because their position can be taken by a more worthy member at any time. Nevertheless, this does not mean that they have to get the group’s permission on every little item of business they handle. One of the main purposes of the Molecule is to streamline effectiveness and encourage the power of initiation.
The Christ did not ask for permission from the twelve for every decision he made. Instead, he made many decisions on his own initiative which were designed to increase his ability to serve. Even the servant must have power to do his job without getting permission for every little detail, or else he or she will not be an effective worker. If the servant has a job watering horses, and the day is hotter than usual, then the good servant would naturally increase the amount of water, even if the master’s permission is not available. Indeed, it is understood that the master expects the servant to use his best wisdom to insure the health of the horses. If servants use poor judgement and the horses die, then they will be dismissed, but if they keep them healthy then the master cares not how they do their job.
Many groups cannot seem to understand this point. They seem to think that no decision can ever be made without endless group discussion. They would let the horses die for lack of water in favor of endless debate. They are so afraid of an individual decision that they allow no one the power to serve.
Not so in the Molecular Order. The leader is indeed a servant, but also has power to serve, and power to serve only. The moment the male/female unit begin to exercise unjust authority, the group will be offended and replace them.
This order will also be effective on a practical basis with single males and females where the zero point in spiritual energy balance is not sought.
A little realized fact is that a group decision reflects, not the highest intelligence of the group, but the average intelligence of the group. Molecular decisions are to reflect the highest intelligence of the group by allowing the freedom of the individual to exercise initiative.
Leaders in the Molecule, therefore, have power to serve their group to the best of their ability and, if a decision has to be made at a time when the group is not available for discussion, the leader has power to make it. Normally, however, the leading unit will present all important business to Molecular members, for if they do not get their input and participation, the leadership is likely to be challenged and replaced.
If the leadership sees a direction that they feel is good, but the group may reject, it will be their duty to teach the group the logical principles behind the idea. They will encounter difficulties with their ability to lead if they lose the support of the group; therefore, they should look on other members as his brothers and counselors and include them as much as possible in all major decisions. On small decisions the group should trust their leaders to have sufficient intelligence to deal with them, thus saving both the leader and the group much small talk and wasted time.
For example, I have been a salesman most of my life and have found I would much rather sell to the small business owner than to a large company. In a large company you often have to present the product to three or four leaders before you can find the person you really need to talk to; then, he will often report that he has to present the idea to some committee. If you then call back a month later, they will usually have shelved the product and tell you to call again later or ask for additional information.
When small business owners are approached by a salesperson, they generally state right away whether or not they are interested. Neither the salesperson or the owner’s time is wasted and both can get on with their work. Every salesperson appreciates the efficiency of a company where there is one individual who can say yes or no.
In the Molecular Order there is always a person who can say yes or no. The leader always has power of decision for his stewardship.
One may be alarmed at this and ask if this cannot lead to dictatorial powers, where the rights and input of the individual are abused. This is an important consideration, for in top-down governments, the power of authority is always abused; but not so in the bottom-up governments. In the Molecular Order, any leader who does not operate in the best interests of the majority will be challenged and replaced through the election process. Therefore, if the leader wants to keep his position, he must not lord himself over others, but consider their feelings, ideas, and opinions.
Because leaders must keep the stewardship happy to remain in power, they will have a natural desire to keep the organization as democratic as possible. They will find they must present every major decision that comes up to the group and receive their input. If the group disagrees, then their job is to guide the group to a decision that all can be happy with and support. If someone who is not in a leadership position comes up with an idea or project, it is to be heard with full consideration.
The two primary jobs of the leader are: (1) To stimulate the group with ideas, projects, and concepts; and (2) To lead the group to union through prayer, meditation and teaching so all can achieve Soul Contact and become one on the direction that needs to be taken.
If the leadership uses their authority and makes major decisions without taking the group’s feelings and thoughts into consideration, then they will be quickly corrected by the outcry of the people. If they make this mistake a number of times, they will be challenged for leadership and replaced.
Nevertheless, the leader must be trusted with some decision-making powers or we will merely have an organization like all others that are sluggish and with no power of movement. This will be left up to the leader’s discretion. It is too difficult here to draw a black and white line. We do not need to do this. The group will do it for their leadership. Thus, it is important that the leader tune into the consciousness of the stewardship and judge for where the line is.
Soul confirmation will be sought on major decisions and, hopefully, oneness can always be reached. If it is not, it means that some (or all) members are out of harmony with the Soul. If oneness cannot be reached, then the leader may seek for a majority vote on the problem. If the majority approves on the side of the leader, then the whole group should consider the decision as made for the whole. Those not in agreement may not want to support the project and should not be forced to participate in something against their desires, but they should at least cease opposing it. At this point we should remember the maxim: “Lead, follow, or get the hell out of the way.”
If the majority go against the leadership after Soul confirmation has been sought (and this should be a rare occurrence) then they should try to adjust the plan so it is acceptable to the majority and seek an answer on this. If they are unable to get the group to support and believe the will of the majority runs contrary to the Spirit of Truth, they must again do all in their power to teach the correct principles to the group and seek Soul confirmation with them. The leadership (as with all of us) must follow the light of their Soul, and revelations confirmed by the Soul, even without majority support.
If the time comes that the leader does not receive majority support, a crisis will certainly appear. First it must be recognized that no person is infallible, but the Soul is always to be trusted. If the leadership has indeed received Soul confirmation, then the right decision has been made. If they are going by the light of the personality, then they could be wrong. Those in the group who have not received Soul confirmation will be at the whims of personality discretion as to whether the leader is correct. They will have no way of knowing if the leadership is following the Soul or the personality. In this case, all they can do is sit back and let the leadership take those who support them and pursue the goal. Time will tell if the leader is right or not.
If the leadership proves to be correct, then those who disagreed with them should question their own ability to be open-minded, and seek with greater sincerity to obtain Soul contact so they can support the next endeavor and make the success even greater.
If the leader proves to be incorrect, and those who disagreed with him believe that they can do better, then they should challenge the leadership and replace them with someone more sensitive to Soul contact.
Perhaps it would be helpful here to look at how leadership works in the operating Molecular Order. Let us say that Jack and Barbara are on the earth at the time that the Molecular System is set up, and they decide to join a Molecule. First, they become an associate member of an existing Molecule. Then, when enough associates are available, a new Molecule is created. Leaders are then elected for each triangle and a male-female Unit is selected over the entire Molecule.
Let us say that to begin with, Jack and Barbara have no leadership position, but as time passes, they feel more comfortable in the Molecule and they believe they should lead the triad. All they have to do is challenge the present leader for their position and call for a vote. If two out of three Units vote in their favor they now preside over the three units of six individuals.
Now, Jack and Barbara are somewhat dissatisfied with the leading unit of the Molecule. The unit has been pushing their weight around and not getting enough input from the members and has also been avoiding taking the initiative. Jack and Barbara believe that they can establish a better rapport with the members as well as create strong leadership so they challenge the Molecular head and call for a vote. The majority feel that they want more representative leaders so they vote Jack and Barbara in.
Jack and Barbara are happy to be in leadership position but they soon discover that they must be careful how they use their authority. They find out that people’s feelings are very sensitive and they become aware of the fact that they too will be challenged and replaced if they are not considerate and effective leaders. They discover that they must always get input from the Molecule and allow each individual a maximum amount of freedom of choice.
As Jack and Barbara become more familiar with their leadership role, they begin to look toward greater positions. The next step up would be the head of a triangle of Molecules and after that the head of a Master Molecule. As they look higher and higher in the leadership, they notice that the quality of the leaders definitely improves, for in this system those of highest leadership potential float automatically to the top in a short period of time. Just as water reaches its own level, so does intelligence in the Molecule. Instead of reaching the highest level of incompetence, as the Peter Principle works in our present system, the Molecular Order causes a person to reach one’s highest level of competence. Jack and Barbara see that they can advance in leadership to head the entire Molecular Order if they demonstrate that they have the wisdom to do so.
Here we see that the Molecule is basically a true representative democracy, but with maximum authority (which can be removed at any time) in the hands of the leaders. It follows the Middle Way principle and uses the best of the democratic system combined with the efficient elements of the authoritarian system.
To search the website, containing millions of words, replace the word “search” with the word or phrase you want to find and place the entire line in the Google search box.
“Search” site:freeread.com
To access all the chapters so far see the directory at the top middle next to the meme.
For videos explaining the Molecular Relationship go HERE:
Easy Access to All the Writings
Check out The Immortal HERE, a free book by JJ