Clarification On The Beast

2008-8-24 19:08:00

After reading a number of comments on the Beast lately I thought some further clarification may be needed.

First, let us remember that I have written many words on the subject already and it may be a good idea, especially for newcomers, to read up on some of the material in the archives. We covered quite a lot on it in the first couple months of the Keys back in 1998, and then I have made comments from time to time as well as devoted a major chapter to this in my book, "The Unveiling."

Perhaps the greatest misunderstanding seems to be that any strong use of authority is a beastly act.

Nothing could be further from the truth.

The use of authority by itself is a neutral thing. Like money or any manner of power it is neither good nor bad by itself. It only becomes good or evil when it is directed toward positive or negative use.

One can use money to hurt someone or to help them. Even so it is with authority. It can be used rightly or wrongly, but by itself it is a neutral force.

One thing that makes beastly authority so difficult for many to see is that it is nuanced. For one thing, the authority of the Beast can be used to accomplish good things now and then. For example, Stalin used his beast-like authority to aid us in the war against Hitler, an even greater threat to freedom than himself.

In China the Communist party leaders used their authority to aid earthquake victims as well as organize a successful Olympics.

Thus, whether the authority is put to good or bad use does not tell us if the authority of the Beast is at work.

What does then?

The key is whether the authority is justified and earned rather than unearned and not justified.

An earned and justified authority can use great authority and not be beastly. An unearned and unjustified authority can be very timid in his use of authority, yet be connected to the Beast.

Here is a list of what the Beast is and is not:

The Beast is not:

The use of strong authority even though the agent if the Beast is more likely to use strong authority than his counterpart.
Not known by the fact that discontented or contentious members surface grumbling about wrong direction or even of beastly authority itself.

An organization not governed by the Beast will usually have more contention than one controlled by the Beast because there is more freedom of expression without the worry of reprisals.

[Compiler's Note: In a private off-list email asking for verification of the above paragraph, JJ Dewey wrote the following:

"I meant what I said here. Take the founding fathers for example. As they were breaking off from the Beast they got so mad at each oither they were about ready to kill each other at times.

"King George just made the decisions and no one argued because of fear."]

It [The Beast] does not represent an inherently evil goal, but is usually seen as benevolent by many.

For instance the Beast can promote Jesus, Buddha, healthcare, and even freedom -- though slavery is seen when illusion is stripped away.

Represented by mean-spirited people. Many of the agents of the Beast are good people who do not understand that they are captivated by the Beast.

What the Beast is:

An authority that demands respect when he has not earned it.
An authority that demands obedience when he has not earned the respect of his associates.
An authority who demands to be believed when he has not demonstrated credibility on the subject at hand.
An authority who makes unjust demands, especially for sacrifice he is not willing to give of himself.

These are just a few points to illustrate the subtle differences between the two uses of authority. The main point I wanted to stress here is that one can use strong authority when the circumstances demand it and not be an agent of the Beast. During World War Two, for instance, Churchill used strong authority, but was not an agent of the Beast, but defeated a Beast.

"Happiness often sneaks in through a door you didn't know you left open."
-- John Barrymore (1882 - 1942)

Word of the Day

Arriviste -- Pronounciation: "are - vest." Noun. A person who has recently acquired status, power, wealth, or success, often by dubious means, and who is regarded as an upstart.

Example: He saw the arrivistes make economic gains and take government jobs.