Examining Initiates

2003-1-26 05:48:00

Keith writes:
Speaking from the viewpoint of my personality - (not my soul, emphasis added): I cannot even fathom how George Bush, Tony Blair and Putin could be considered second degree initiates. Now, the fraternal order of stooges - maybe, of the Larry, Curly and Moe variety - that is.

Rapter Keith (So, Larry Curly and Moe are just one step from conquering the three lower worlds of form - not. Sorry, I just couldn't resist being facetious.)

Bush has had up to a 90% approval rating with his constituents, Putin 87% and Blair has also been quite high. A Larry, Curly or Moe does not get elected to a major nation and obtain such a high percentage of the support of the people with serious issues.

I would guess that your disdain for them comes more from a political disagreement rather than a true assessment of these men as three frivolous jokers.

The interesting thing about initiates is that they will appear on both sides, and the middle of the political spectrum. Neither you nor I will agree with them all. They will almost always be controversial, if they have any power, and do not always agree with each other.

All initiates cause some controversy, but not all people of controversy are initiates.

After the third initiation, initiates will come much closer in their views and approaches to problem solving, but first and second degree initiates will often disagree.


Because illusion is not dispelled until after the third initiation. Illusion is built upon a foundation of incorrect core beliefs and until a person examines his core beliefs and corrects them, he will have many incorrect branch beliefs and disagree with others with differing core beliefs.

A first degree initiate obtains power over his physical self. These three show evidence of this in the fact that they have honored their commitments to their wives and have the self control to not use their station of power to satisfy the lower sexual nature.

Bush quit drinking and taking drugs completely and has had the self control to stay clean for decades. Blair and Putin are moderate drinkers which is another sign of self control, especially for one in a position of power.

On the emotional plane, all three are very emotional but are able to direct them to create desired ends.

The most obvious sign of a second degree initiate is the ability to initiate a creative and constructive change using physical, emotional and lower mental means. Other world leaders often destroy more than build and change by itself does not qualify.

Keep in mind that not all will agree with the direction of initiatives created by initiates and they are often far from 100% beneficial. Even so, they are fruits of an initiate. An initiate is one who initiates. One who claims to be an initiate without initiating or assisting to initiate a creative change or work according to the highest he knows is deluding himself.

What did these three men initiate?

First let us examine Bush: The latest thing he initiated is the shift of power in the Senate from Democratic to Republican giving him much more power to accomplish his objectives than before. No one expected this to happen but he set the goal and campaigned exhaustively and strategically to make this happen. Most political strategists, Democratic as well as Republican, believe that he almost single handedly created this shift of power which hadn't been seen in an off year election since 1934.

After 911 he initiated a war on terror with the effect of neutralizing any major calamity from Sept 11, 2001 to the present date. Few at that time would have predicted we could have even gone another year without another major attack.

Positive results materialized in the War in Afghanistan with greater rights given to the general population and a much more democratic government. The situation is far from perfect but much better than it was when the Taliban was in control.

He was responsible for getting the UN inspectors back into Iraq.

Tony Blair: I do not know as much about him but I do know that he initiated changes in his labor party. In 1995 he initiated a positive change in his party's constitution which altered an almost communistic goal of common ownership and controlling production. Overall, he redirected his party toward lower taxes and more individual initiative and freedom.

Vladimir Putin: He took over a country on the verge of collapse and has brought a positive stability which has increased to the present time. This alone is a major sign of an initiate.

An extremely important item he initiated is a 13% flat tax. While other nations have just talked about doing such a thing, Putin actually did it.

This has had positive results to date and will have long term effect that could very well make Russia a major economic power in a few years.

The interesting thing is that the first year after the tax rate went from 30% to a flat tax of 13% that tax revenues increased by 28% and the economy grew by 5%. Maybe people are more willing to pay when they think the tax is fair.

Wouldn't it be great if our maximum income tax were 13%?

This initiative on his part will also bring more investment to Russia for many years to come.

Initiates on both sides of the political spectrum will often be portrayed as stupid, reckless, dangerous, goofy, or worst of all ignored by the press, their enemies and the powers that be. Enemies will also have much false data and accusations circulated about them. A case in point was Bush's low IQ in comparison to past presidents. This was a complete fabrication to reinforce the idea that he is dim witted. On the contrary, those who know him well say that his intelligence is very underestimated. It has been reported that he has been introduced to up to fifty people and was able to call them each by name without error before the gathering was over, something I certainly cannot do.

An interesting sign that Bush is an initiate was after his first meeting with Putin he stated, "I looked the man in the eye, I was able to get a sense of his soul."

An initiate does have the ability to get a soul sense of others important to his work that is beyond the interplay of words.

Putin was asked about this soul remark in the following quote:

David Montgomery, a reporter for a U.S. newspaper chain, Knight-Ridder (recorded by the Russian transcript translator as "Nightrider"), addressed Putin with a familiarity few Russian heads of state have been accorded in public:

"Vladimir Vladimirovich, you are about to meet for a second time with President Bush.

"During the first meeting in Slovenia he said that he looked into your soul. Did you look into his soul, and if so what did you see?"

Bush had said that when he inspected Putin's soul he found he could trust him.

A former Soviet KGB agent whom nothing seems to faze in a press conference, Putin responded to the soul question put to him:

"You know, maybe it's normal for the USA, but for the Russian ear the phrase is a bit strange.

"When President Bush is mentioned, he is called George Bush Junior. For me, he is not junior. I was born in 1952, he was born in 1946, I think. [Right, on July 6.]

"For me, he is first of all a colleague in the work in the regions. You see, I know how he feels in this sense.

"I, myself, worked in one of the major regions of the Russian Federation for seven years. I was deputy mayor of St Petersburg, whereas Bush was head of one of the major states.

"Maybe that is why it was fairly easy for me to talk to him."

Then, in what has become typical of Putin's handling of the press, he launched right into a question not asked, thus resurrecting a point he wanted to rub in by indirection:

"Second, I should say that I do not share the opinion of some that he lacks experience. He and I are fairly professional.

"In my 18 months as Russian president, I have been trying to gain an understanding of many things myself, and I have tried to do that as deeply as possible.

"I must say that in this respect he is a totally competent interlocutor, with whom one can talk a common language and understand what is being said.

"That is also a positive aspect, because it is hard to talk to a person about something when they do not understand. I had no problems in that respect. He was very well-prepared.

"Third, just as a person, which is probably also an important aspect - I don't know if he will like me saying this or not - it seemed to me that he is a pretty spiritual person, nice to talk to, maybe even - again, perhaps I shouldn't say this - maybe a bit sentimental. But I think that is a good sign.

"Although at the same time, he firmly stood his ground, especially on issues of international security. I have nothing to add there. You know, we did not even try to reach agreement on certain issues that we discussed. We just set out our positions.

"This is all a very good basis on which to build both a personal relationship and to try to find solutions to the complex issues that we have not yet managed to agree on." Quoted from NewsMax.com