A Kingdom Divided, Part 5

2007-3-10 06:00:00

As we have noted, there are two major divisions among humanity. It is also interesting to note that this duality goes higher than humanity and extends to The Masters of Wisdom, or The Brotherhood of Light as opposed to the Dark Brothers, the masters of cunning and feeding of the lower self.

That said I am going to explain something that I have never seen elaborated on before.

Many decent fairly non partisan people of the world look on the division of humanity into parties and the labels of liberal and conservative, and smile, as if they are above the fray and say something like this:

"One is just as right, as good, or as bad as another. All they need to do is settle down and just get along and all would be well."

First of all, the problem that creates the division does not have such a simplistic solution for it is instigated at levels higher than human. Secondly, two approaches to a problem are never both equally right or would work equally as good. Just as there are no two snowflakes the same or no two grains of sand of equal weight, even so, one approach is always more beneficial than another.

The seekers of the world must learn the Lost Key of the Buddha to discern and judge which of two approaches registers more beneficial with the soul, or the inner God.

The truth is that the two divisions that exist among humanity are used and influenced by the two brotherhoods, one light and revealing, and the other dark and restrictive. The question that arises is which is the extension of the light and which of the dark?

The problem in seeing this is that humankind always has difficulty in seeing its current situation correctly... BUT when looking back on history its vision of what is light and what is dark becomes clearer because on hindsight the good is much more obvious than is the good attempting to manifest in the present. The masses are also much more programmed and brainwashed about what is good and evil in the present whereas they can look upon the past with better dispassion.

Let us briefly look at three major divisions of the not so distant past.

The Revolutionary War in the United States.

Here the people in early America were fiercely divided between the supporters for the king and supports for independence. The supporters of the king were called Royalists and were comprised of about a third of the people residing in America plus, of course, the British. Then there was roughly a third who supported George Washington and independence. In addition there approximately another third who were the moderates and claimed to not identify with either side. They didn't care much who won as they mistakenly thought it wouldn't make much difference.

Now which side do you think the Brotherhood of Light supported - those who were fighting for greater freedom or those who were trying to suppress it?

The answer is obvious.

And who did the Dark Brotherhood support? That would, of course, be those who wanted to maintain the power of the Beast, the king.

The Civil War in the United States.

It seems extremely obvious now that the Brotherhood of Light would have supported Lincoln and the Northern States who were fighting to preserve a free union and against the practice of slavery.

It seems obvious now, but it was not obvious at all back then. Not only was the South much more united than the North around their ideals, but the vast majority of Democrats in the North (called Copperheads) and quite a few Republicans also thought it was wrong to be at war with the South to end slavery because the slaves were not worth it. Lincoln was not only hated by most of the South and much of his own North, but by most of Europe. England and France who received cheap cotton from slave labor thought the North was extremely misguided and did their best to sabotage them and some from foreign countries were even a part of a conspiracy to assassinate he who historians now call our greatest president.

World War II.

This was a conflict that divided the world as it had never been divided before. On hindsight, it is a no-brainer to see that Hitler's side would have been the one having the strings pulled by the Dark Brotherhood. Before the war broke out in earnest many good and well meaning people would have laughed at the idea that the Axis nations were pawns of the Dark Brotherhood.

Those who were sympathetic toward Hitler were great Americans such as Joseph P. Kennedy (Father of JFK), Charles Lindberg, Henry Ford (who saw them as harmless business partners), Chicago Tribune Publisher Robert McCormick and even Eleanor Roosevelt who was involved with peace movements to keep us from going to war with Hitler.

Even after the war continued in earnest, and was supported by the press, there were many who maintained that Hitler could be reasoned with and the United states was evil for participating in fighting against him.

Now, on hindsight the truth is obvious. If there was any person in history who would have been an agent of the Dark Brothers it would have been Hitler. Now we can see that the Allied Nations (imperfect as they were) supported the forces of freedom and light and the Axis powers represented authoritarian rule which would have taken the world backward.

Now in this age we are reaching another great worldwide point of division and again if the average guy had to pick which side was supported by the light or the dark he would probably laugh and say neither.

The division among humanity is classified by many as being between conservatives and liberals, but these labels cloud the issue for three reasons:

That which is called a liberal action is often conservative and visa versa. For instance, one of the greatest liberal ideologies is to be an extreme conservative with the environment and CONSERVE it as is. Those who are called conservatives are more liberal about developing business and technology and in hearing and discussing opposing points of view - hence the popularity of talk radio.
Extreme liberals and conservatives often take the same side against a common enemy. For instance, Hugo Chavez, president of Venezuela is an extreme liberal and Ahmadinejad, President of Iran is an extreme conservative. BUT, Chavez said that if the U.S. went to war with Iran they would support Ahmadinejad who makes Bush look like a flaming liberal.

Chavez and Ahmadinejad have become good friends, praised each other and signed agreements even though they have nothing in common. Or do they?

Another example is that the extreme conservatives and liberals both see a massive conspiracy behind the 911 disaster and hate Bush with a passion much more than they hate each other. There are many on both sides that would support an overthrow of the government by any means possible.

There are good people on both sides of every issue so it seems mean spirited to identify any belief as one that has the strings pulled by the Dark Brotherhood.

On the other hand, there were many good Germans who lived under Hitler. Even today it's hard to find friendlier, more good natured people than the Germans. Because there are good natured people on both sides of the issue do not be deceived into thinking some are not in illusion.

Charles Lindberg was a great guy to know, loved by all, but now, on hindsight, we see he was a well-meaning soul who was deceived and a pawn used by the Nazis and Dark Brothers.

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?

Hint:

In the global warming debate lie several clues.

Global Warming Enlightenment:

Many politicians would have you believe that ocean warming is caused by humans. Don't believe it. A recent study by NOAA found that half of all ocean warming takes place at 1,000 feet to 10,000 feet down. "It is important to note," the NOAA scientists said, "that the increase in ocean heat content preceded the observed warming of sea surface temperature."
(Levitus, et al. , "Warming of the World Ocean," Science, Vol. 287, 24 Mar 2000, p. 2225-29)

That's two miles down! I see no way that humans could heat the seas two miles down prior to heating the surface. No, it has to be...it must be...caused by underwater volcanism.
"Not By Fire But By Ice"
By Robert Felix, Page 140