Author: Joseph Dewey

Secret Places of the Lion

A reader pointed out that he read a book I recommended called Secret Places of the lion and disagreed with parts of it.

I read this book about 40 years ago when I was wrestling my way out of the illusion of the Mormon church into greater light. At the time I found it extremely interesting and stimulating. I wasn’t sure there was reincarnation at the time, and this made me think about it much more seriously.

I probably would not be as impressed today if I reread it as I was back then, but still I recall numerous things it teaches that I yet consider true. If one just judges it by who’s who in past lives he may come up with a big question mark, but there is much more to the book than that.

Here are truths I gleaned from it after I read it.

[1] Reincarnation is a reality. Williamson does more than just state there is reincarnation but gives some good logic and scriptural evidence.

[2] There is a “Goodly Company” of teaching souls that are seeking to assist humanity. Whether they got here as described in the book matters not.

[3] These souls incarnate again and again and have been some of the significant Lights who have been recorded in history.

I couldn’t verify how many of the named incarnations are accurate, but some that he gives evidence on strikes a chord; such as:

[4] Brigham Young and Solomon. The correspondence he gives between them was fascinating such as the fact they both used the symbol of the lion. Solomon built the temple without “the sound of a hammer” and Brigham built the tabernacle without nails which eliminated the need for hammers also. Both were famous for having many wives and they both gave similar sounding words of wisdom.

Similarly, the evidence he gave for Joseph [son of Jacob] being reborn as [King] David was very captivating.

[5] I believe the people from history that he selected as belonging to the Goodly Company was quite accurate. These people as a group were definitely a major effect in making a positive mark on human evolution. This is very true even if he missed on a number of past lives.

[6] He made corrections on ancient timelines that seemed reasonable to me.

[7] He taught that advanced souls can switch bodies when the plan calls for it. This truth is not dependent on his accuracy of who switched bodies.

On the negative side I think he brings flying saucers into the picture much more than was the case.

These are just a few things. Like I said, it has been about 40 years since I read it and have been thinking of reading it again.

Another reader asks when the soul enters the body of a fetus or an unborn child.

All that is established before birth is a link to the body and this can be changed if another soul needs the body for some reason of importance.

The fetus itself is animated by elemental lives that run complex computer programs with occasional contact with the designated entity.

Even after birth the soul is not entirely settled in the body. When the entity becomes self-aware to the point it is embarrassing to run around naked in front of others, then the soul has pretty well settled in. The link between soul and body is usually complete at about 7 to 8 years of age.

Aborting a fetus is not nearly as harmful as killing a self-conscious being for this affects the decided path of the soul. Even so, aborting a fetus can create negative karma, and if performed the person should realize that a payment will normally be required. I use the word “normal” because there are exceptions.

Another reader asks me to comment on the Sanskrit word MUKTI which means “liberation” from unwanted reincarnations.

The person’s soul will decide on the lesson that needs to be learned and sometimes puts him in a painful circumstances which he would never decided on in his earthly state of consciousness.

Eventually he becomes a seeker and gives more than he receives. Then when he gets a lot of his karma paid off he can choose more favorable circumstances to enter life. Even here sometimes the path of service is so clear that there is no decision necessary. For instance, the disciples of Jesus were so happy to be born in a circumstance where they could be disciples of the Master that they acquiesced to circumstance more than deciding upon it.

A reader asks this: If a lesser Avatar appears to the Jews in a physical body and takes over where Jesus left off, does this lesser Avatar have to go through the same type of initiation as Jesus had something else?

If he is born as a mortal he will have to repeat the initiations. Of course, they are a different experience each time they are approached. Few are physically crucified for the fourth initiation, for example. When repeating the initiations, the difficulty is not as great as when approaching a new one to be mastered.

Question: What initiation will the Christ be making when he returns?

The Christ is working on his seventh. If he is reborn, he will start at his first and work to finishing the seventh. If he just appears in a body or works by overshadowing, he will work directly on the seventh.

In this age Jesus and the Christ will work on separate missions.

Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it. —George Santayana

Dec 31, 2008

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

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Who’s Who?

Question: I feel a strong connection to Sirius. Can you shed some light on this?

In the order of hierarchies the Blue Lodge on Sirius is of a higher order than this system, though DK tells us that the order of kingdoms there is different than the four kingdoms we have here of mineral, vegetable, animal  and human. He tells us that after reigning on the earth for 1000 years in the office of the Christ it will be taken over by Master KH [Koot Hoomi] and our Christ will go to Sirius to complete his higher initiations and then return in another age as a “cosmic Christ.”

You are right that we do have a strong connection with Sirius and they do send avatars to this system to assist us from the higher planes though I do not know of them directly incarnating as of yet. It is quite possible that some of the Kumaras, or archangels, are originally from Sirius.

Question: I went to several websites teaching about Sanat Kumara and found a lot of conflicting views. Can you add some clarification?

If you go to the various websites claiming to speak the truth of Jesus you will also got a strange variety of claims and misinformation. Outside of personal revelation you have to use sources that have been proven to be authoritative.

First, I wouldn’t trust anyone who claims to be channeling the Ancient of Days, or Sanat Kumara.

The most authoritative source as far as I am concerned are the Alice A. Bailey writings. A second source that is generally reliable are the Theosophical writings. Many of these are good, but not 100% accurate and need to be read with a discerning eye.

 

Question: Let me see if I get this right? Joshua, who was with Moses, re-incarnated as Jesus. Then the one who is the Christ who overshadowed Jesus was previously Melchizedek, who was overshadowed by the Ancient of Days  

Yes. This is why it is written that he was without father or mother [See Hebrews 7:2-4.]. The Ancient of Days was not born as Melchizedek.

Question: Has the Christ overshadowed anyone since Jesus?”

There are different degrees of overshadowing and the Christ has overshadowed various disciples over the centuries. One with which you are familiar was Winston Churchill, though this could be called more of a link in relation to the overshadowing of Jesus. The link was strong during World wat II to assist the Allies in defeating Hitler.

Question: Has the Christ has not re-incarnated since Melchizedek?”

He has had many incarnations over the history of the planet but none we know of in recent times as he has been working through others by spiritual means. DK says he was also Krishna of Hindu fame and as a Mormon you might find it interesting that legend says he had 16,000 wives. The main authoritative source we have from him is the Bhagavad Gita.

Question: Has Jesus reincarnated in the past two thousand years?

Yes, Jesus has been busy in and out of incarnation, but we do not have all the details. I believe he overshadowed Joseph Smith — at least for a time — and in more recent times Pope Paul I in an attempt to reform the Catholic Church. Unfortunately, the plan was frustrated and Pope Paul I was killed after 33 days in office.

Is it correct that the Ancient of Days was incarnated into the first Adam 20 some million years ago? Now, Michael the Archangel was incarnated into the last Adam some 6000 years ago?”

Sanat Kumara incarnated as the first man around 18 million years ago.

I haven’t any definite proof that Michael was either Melchizedek or Sanat Kumara. Most likely he is one of the Kumaras in Sanat’s inner molecule.

H. P. Blavatsky gives the names of these entities as follows: The Exoteric four are; Sanat-Kumara, Sananda, Sanaka, and Sanatana; and the esoteric three are; Sana, Kapila, and Sanat-sujata.

She associates Sanaka with Michael, the archangel, representative of the Logos of Saturn — quite possibly the spokesman for Jehovah who spoke to Moses.

Question: Did the Archangel Gabriel incarnate as Noah who built the ark?

That is the Mormon tradition, but not verified anywhere else I know of.

Question: Are there any other important incarnations or reincarnations that I should know and understand?”

More important than getting these types of details is the understanding of principles. You will lose data from life to life, but the intelligence acquired through the understanding of principles will go with you to the next life and prove very useful.

Question: So this means that Christ and the Ancient of Days shared the same body in a person called Melchizedek? And then Jesus and Christ shared the same body in a person called Jesus?

Correct.

Question: Who was the Father that Jesus referred to who forsook him on the cross?

The Christ had left the body so Jesus was alone on the cross and he felt abandoned. Jesus wanted to avoid the crucifixion and stay on and build The Kingdom of God. The Christ was overwhelmed by the karma of the world, which seemed to rest upon his shoulders. In the midst of this point of darkness Jesus received a sure knowledge that the cross was essential, and the Christ in the Garden of Gethsemane established a thread of intelligence, linking Shamballa (where dwells Sanat Kumara) with the humanity on earth and a vision that this link would eventually dispel all darkness.

In this way he saved the planet from sin or error. However, this salvation occurs for the planet over a fairly long period of time.

To see a world in a grain of sand and a heaven in a wild flower, hold infinity in the palm of your hand and eternity in an hour. – William Blake

Dec 28,  2008

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

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Valkyrie and Stauffenberg

After missing the show earlier because it was sold out we decided to go see Valkyrie at the 1:40 Matinee. My wife told me to get the tickets ahead online, but I told her we shouldn’t have to worry because I’ve never seen such an early show sold out in my life — especially one that is not number one at the box office.

As my luck would have it, the show was sold out again. I couldn’t believe my eyes. My wife had “I told you so” written all over her face that I knew would be something she would bring up for years to come.

She said she didn’t want to come back a third time and it turned out that there was only one way I was going to see the show this year and that was to subject myself to the ultimate sacrifice that the male species on the planet can endure. I had to go shopping with my wife for two and a half hours — until the film was shown again. I bought two tickets for the next feature and made the sacrifice for the greater good.

The film was a good one, but not great. Even so, it was by far the best presentation of this story to date. There were a lot of things left out, but one has to realize that a film is limited in what it can include. The concentration was on the plot against Hitler and they had to sacrifice some interesting details to make the film move briskly along.

There were a couple things that could have been added without taking much time that would have enhanced interest:

First:  Stauffenberg was wounded worse than implied in the movie and would have died if a doctor had not been nearby in a Red Cross truck and was summoned to help:

“He was found, half-conscious, beside his overturned, burnt out and shell-pocked vehicle. His injuries were appalling. His left eye had been hit by a bullet, his right seriously damaged as well. His right forearm and hand had been virtually shot away, as had two fingers on his left. One knee was badly wounded and his back and legs were pitted with shrapnel. In this condition, he was rushed to the nearest field hospital, at Sfax. Here, he received emergency treatment. The remnants of his right hand were amputated above the wrist. The little finger and ring finger of his left hand, and what remained of his left eye, were removed.

  “Three days later, as Montgomery’s troops advanced on Sfax, Stauffenberg was transferred to another hospital at Carthage-a difficult and extremely painful journey, with the ambulance under constant attack by Allied aircraft. From Carthage, he was flown to Munich. He was running an alarmingly high temperature, and most of the doctors concluded he was unlikely to live. If, by some miracle, he did, he was unlikely to walk again. He would probably be permanently crippled, an invalid for the rest of his life. He might also be blind.”

  (Quote from “Secret Germany” by Michael Baigent & Richard Leigh)

Fortunately, he regained his sight in his right eye and soon walked again. During this painful ordeal he refused painkillers.

There is a story I read that states that Stauffenberg was born with a sense of mission but couldn’t seem to put his finger on what it was he was supposed to do. Then one day his wife was visiting him in the hospital and was by his side when he was hovering in and out of consciousness. Finally, he came to and looked at her and said: “I have found my mission. I must kill Hitler.”

The account made it sound like he had been given a message in a near death experience.

Secondly:  It would have added interest if they could have better illustrated what a fluke it was that Hitler survived the blast of the assassination attempt by Stauffenberg. Four things happened that saved his life. If one of them had not occurred Hitler would have been dead and history would have been greatly changed.

Here are the four things:

[1] At the last minute the location of the meeting was changed from below ground to above ground. If the blast had occurred below ground the concussion would have been much greater and everyone in the room would have been killed. As it was, the above ground windows released the pressure of the blast and made Hitler’s death much less deadly.

[2] Stauffenberg’s time to prepare the bomb was cut short so he only had time to prepare half the explosives. If all the explosives had gone off Hitler would have been killed.

[3] The briefcase with the bomb was in the way of a general’s foot and he kicked it to the other side of the table. If the bomb had exploded where Stauffenberg left it Hitler would have been killed.

[4] The bomb went off on the other side of the table and the explosion flipped it up in such a way that it shielded Hitler from the blast. Everyone but Hitler was seriously injured or killed. Without the shielding of the thick table Hitler would have been dead.

When the bomb went off Stauffenberg, who was watching, was sure that Hitler was killed and he said, “The antichrist is dead.”

The movie then did a good job showing the paralysis that affected the conspirators. Some historians believe that if they had not been paralyzed by fear, even though Hitler was still alive, that the coup could have still worked.

The third point of interest that would have helped was a few more details of the aftermath. It did briefly show some being hung by piano wire, but the uninformed wouldn’t realize that. The book “Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” gives an interesting description:

  “There was a wild wave of arrests followed by gruesome torture, drumhead trials, and death sentences carried out, in many cases, by slow strangling while the victims were suspended by piano wire from meathooks borrowed from butchershops and slaughterhouses. Relatives and friends of the suspects were rounded up by the thousands and sent to concentration camps, where many of them died. The brave few who gave shelter to those who were in hiding were summarily dealt with.

“Hitler, seized by a titanic fury and an unquenchable thirst for revenge, whipped Himmler and Kaltenbrunner to ever greater efforts to lay their hands on every last person who had dared to plot against him. He himself laid down the procedure for dispatching them.

“‘This time,’ he stormed at one of his first conferences after the explosion at Rastenburg, ‘the criminals will be given short shrift. No military tribunals. We’ll hale them before the People’s Court. No long speeches from them. The court will act with lightning speed. And two hours after the sentence it will be carried out. By hanging — without mercy.’”

They took movies of the hanging by piano wire and used it to discourage additional plots. Mysteriously the film disappeared and has never been found.

Hitler not only rounded up known conspirators, but used the plot as an excuse to eliminate around 5000 people he sensed may have something against him.

Thus many lights incarnated into Germany with a sense of mission, were denied that mission by Hitler, and most of them eventually killed after the plot was revealed. Many of these have been born into better circumstances, but still having difficulty in advancing the light.

The fate of his pregnant wife Nina who lived to the ripe age of 92 was interesting, but it was not practical to put in the film. Her story would make an interesting film of itself. Here is a brief account:

“The Countess was then sent to the Ravensbruck concentration camp, as was her mother, who subsequently perished in another camp run by the advancing Russians.

“The four Stauffenberg children, of whom the eldest was aged 10, were placed in a state orphanage in Thuringia and given a new surname, Meister. In January 1945 Nina Stauffenberg gave birth in a Nazi maternity home to her husband’s posthumous daughter, Konstanze.

“The separated family were much helped by the efforts of her sister-in-law, Melitta, the wife of Berthold’s twin brother, Alexander, who had also been interned. Although she was a Polish Jew, Melitta had some influence with government officials because of her work on the design of dive-bombers. Towards the end of the war, however, she was fatally wounded when her aircraft was hit as she was returning from a visit to her nephews and niece.

“By the war’s end, the Countess was being held as a hostage in southern Germany. Although her guards had orders to kill her, she was eventually liberated by Allied troops and reunited with her children. Thereafter, she devoted herself to promoting understanding between Germans and the occupying American forces.”

Taken from: (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/obituaries/1514824/Countess-von-Stauffenberg.html)

There was not time in the film to go more into Stauffenberg’s character and his unorthodox philosophy and thinking but it did do a good job in showing a heroic attempt against overwhelming odds.

Everything that could be found that was written by Stauffenberg was destroyed before the war ended so most of what we know of him is from the accounts of those who knew him.

An evil man will burn his own nation to the ground to rule over the ashes – Sun Tzu

Dec 27, 2008

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

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Check out JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Follow JJ on Twitter @JosephJDewey HERE

Finding the Truth about Democracy

A reader claims that we do not need a state that is 100% democracy to see that it is not workable. We have had enough examples to see that it does not work.

You must have been misunderstanding many things I have written about as I have basically taught the idea that the samples of democracy that we have had indicate, not its failure, but its success. In the previous post I said:

  “One can examine how elements of democracy have influenced society and then make an educated guess as to the pros and cons of a true democracy.”

What I said that you are resisting was that a true democracy has not yet been demonstrated.

Even so, many of the details and problems in working out a true principle will not be foreseen. A principle must be demonstrated in reality to know all the details and problems that will surface.

Using logic and principles one can predict possibilities, but in the demonstration of an idea you have free will and unforeseen circumstances entering in making it impossible to predict all the details.

A reader gave this quote attributed to Jefferson

“A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where fifty-one percent of the people may take away the rights of the other forty-nine.”

Snopes gave a good explanation how this originated in 2004 and was not said by Jefferson:

https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/jefferson-mob-rule-quote/

This explains why the statement is so out of harmony with his other comments on Democracy.

The word Democracy has a bad connotation among some, but these are usually people on the far right and left who are pushing for minority views and do not want democracy. I think there are many in the middle, like the early Perot supporters, who would be enthused about it.

I like a reader’s suggestion of calling the process “Molecular Democracy.” Anti-democracy people will be assailing it no matter what we call it so maybe we could put out a fire by using the name to begin with.

I previously asked my critical friend this question: “What principle are you using to which I am blinded?”

To which he said this: “The primary principle that you are blinded to is one of the most fundamental of all. ‘A is A.’ A thing is what it is, and no amount of wishing for it to be otherwise can change that principle.”

I don’t think I would call this a principle. I would say that the principle of correctly identifying or describing our reality works through the principle of perception.

First of all, most every conscious person on the planet believes “A’ is ‘A.” For instance — show 10 people an apple and they will admit that it is an apple. But what we are talking about involves more than seeing one simple thing or object and admitting it exists. We are talking about a subject with many nuances where we have to match up “ACDGFH” with “BCDEFJ” and use the harmonies to see the truth.

If the problem of you and I reaching agreement were as simple as seeing that “A=A” then why does few seem to be agreeing with you? The “A” that you are seeing must not be that obvious. Perhaps it is not just a simple “A,” but a more complex problem.

A reader  supplied a famous antidemocracy quote by Alexander Fraser Tyler, in “Cycle Of Democracy,” circa 1770, wrote the following:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship. The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.”

This quote is often used by strict Constitutionalists who cringe when our government is called a Democracy and insist on it being called a Republic instead. Some of this group have the notion that a Democracy would be much worse than a Republic and even compare it to a tyranny. A phrase often used is “a tyranny of the majority.”

That said, let us examine this quote an analyze it.

  “A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government.”

There are several problems with this statement. The first is there has never been a permanent government of any kind on the earth in the history of the planet. So if we predict the future based on the past we could say, “There is no such thing as a permanent form of any government.”

Thus singling out democracy as not being permanent is an illusionary contrast.

Secondly, there has never been a true democracy in recorded history. Athens was perhaps the closest to a real democracy in the ancient world but consider this.

Greater Athens had about 250,000-300,000 people. Only a male head of a citizen family could vote. Citizen families may have amounted to 100,000 people and out of these some 30,000 were the adult male citizens entitled to vote in the assembly. In addition to this those qualified to vote were required to vote.

Most people of today would not view a government where only about 10% of its residents having the power to vote as much of a democracy. Secondly, there is an obvious flaw in requiring citizens to vote. That is you get many people voting who do not care or are not informed about the item under consideration.

Even with its flaws, however, Athens grew to be the most prosperous and free society in the ancient world. Even after the government was destroyed by Sparta, the principle of democracy lived on and provided much inspiration for the Founding Fathers of the United States.

The quote continues:

  “It (democracy) can only exist until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the public treasury.”

The problem with this conclusion is we have never had an example of a democracy where all permanent residents can become citizens and all citizens can vote on issues. Thus one cannot say that the majority of such voters would selfishly raid the treasury.

This did not seem to be a major problem in ancient Athens, a partial democracy. Their main problem was from powerful leaders in surrounding governments, threatened by democracy and seeking to overthrow it.

On the other hand, this raiding of the public treasury is a major flaw in our Republic of the USA. The people here are not raiding the treasury, but our leaders are for the purpose of buying votes.

The quote continues:

“From that moment on, the majority always votes for the candidates promising the most benefits the public treasury with the result that a democracy always collapses over lousy fiscal policy, always followed by a dictatorship.”

This is true, but this describes a Republican form of government — not a democracy.

The quote ends with:

“The average of the world’s great civilizations before they decline has been 200 years. These nations have progressed in this sequence: From bondage to spiritual faith; from faith to great courage; from courage to liberty; from liberty to abundance; from abundance to selfishness; from selfishness to Complacency; from complacency to apathy; from apathy to dependency; from dependency back again to bondage.”

This sequence is incorrect for there has been very little real liberty in the history of the world. Perhaps Rome fits this model most closely, but its cycle took 1000 years.

Here is the sequence we see most often in history:

From bondage to rebellion; from rebellion to great struggle for freedom; from struggle to the overthrow of government; from overthrow to creation of new government that frees the rebels and brings bondage and revenge to the others. The government has only slightly changed and the victims are merely moved around. The new victims become rebels which leads to another overthrow. The cycle continues with slight improvements occurring over history.

All throughout history policy has been made by the minority, not by the majority through Democratic means. Until such a democracy surfaces we can only guess as to whether the people would raid the treasury, grow complacent or the government would just last 200 years.

“Democracy is based upon the conviction that there are extraordinary possibilities in ordinary people.”  —Harry Emerson Fosdick

Dec 22, 2008

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

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

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

 

True Democracy

A member gave this quote about Democracy

“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch.” Then he added this argument: “Democracy is mob rule. Democracy collapses when the majority discovers it can vote for itself treasure from the public coffers. Democracy is the last plateau of social order before anarchy.”

This quote is usually attributed with Benjamin Franklin, though there is no evidence he originated it. In fact, the word “lunch” was not even in use until around 1820, thirty years after his death. The quote most likely originated in the 20^th century and the author is unknown.

I’ve heard this many times and have difficulty in seeing why people cannot immediately see through the illusion in it.

First of all, we have never had a true democracy in the history of the world so the flaws here that are seen cannot be demonstrated. Athens in ancient Greece is the purest example of a Democracy, and only about ten percent of its inhabitants were entitled to vote. Even so, it was the greatest example of a civilianized society in the ancient world.

We can, however, see the problem with our current government which is far removed from being any democracy. The laws and spending that are passed are usually far removed from the majority will of the people.

Our current system is like two wolves living with 20 sheep and the wolves having power to decide what kind of sacrifice the sheep will make.

Under a true democracy we are all one breed — citizens deciding what will affect citizens.

His second illusion is as askew as the first. He says:

“Democracy collapses when the majority discovers it can vote for itself treasure from the public coffers. Democracy is the last plateau of social order before anarchy.”

So what has happened now in the current system with a republic instead of a democracy? Are the wolves voting us treasure from the public coffers?

Indeed, by the trillions at present.

Would a democracy do the same thing?

Very doubtful.

If you go through the spending disasters of history you will find that line by line the majority of people were against most of them. The spending disasters were created by a minority who thought they knew what was good for us. A democratic majority did not create our problems.

The anti-democracy people are at odds with numerous Founding Fathers — most notably Jefferson. Here are some quotes:

 “The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail.” (Thomas Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809.)

 “I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law.” (Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793.)

 “Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.” (Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809.)

 “[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law.” (Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa., 1808.)

A reader argued that we have had enough democracy  to prove that a pure one would be poisonous to the system

There was a little democracy even in Communist Russia, but did it kill the empire or even hurt it in any way?

No.

There was much more democracy in our original Republic which allowed for majority will elections on several levels.

Was that a poison to the United States?

Verily no. If anything, democracy has been more like a life-giving force than a poison.

A true democracy is not an impossibility like getting 100% pure gold or a poisonous element. Democracy is not a physical thing, but a principle.

A true democracy is simply a system where each citizen has a right to vote on matters that affect them.

Now anyone could take this word “true” and compare it to the word “pure” and dissect it to the degree that would make the establishment of 100% pure democracy impossible, but I think the average reader who does not see things in an extreme black-and-white fashion can see the principle here.

If the word “true” is a stumbling block we could call it “A system where all citizens have the right to vote on laws and initiatives that affect them,”

So I do not have to repeat such a long definition over and over I use the term “true democracy” for simplicity’s sake.

I have concluded that a true democracy would be a lot better than what we have now. One can compare North Korea with no detectable democracy with the United States with some democracy and conclude that democracy is one of the main items that makes us a more successful country.

One can examine how elements of democracy have influenced society and then make an educated guess as to the pros and cons of a true (much more accurate word than “pure”) democracy. The evidence suggests that it would be a worthy experiment, just as the original Republic was a worthy experiment.

We can guess at the flaws of something that does not yet exist, but we cannot demonstrate them in the present.

The reader argues that Communists states in the past claimed that they did not work because they were not pure enough or because of external problems.

This argument has nothing to do with anything I have said. I never talked about “pure” anything from a perfectionist point of view.

The Soviets had a “true” communist state though it may not have been “pure” in some eyes. Even though there have been numerous true communist states there has never been one true democracy where all have had a right to vote on matters that affect them. Even in Ancient Greece the vote was only available to a few — but still it worked much better than totalitarian regimes.

The reader then maintains that ignorant people in a true democracy would vote themselves so many benefits that the state would go bankrupt.

I would submit   that they would be armatures at spending compared to what our representatives are doing today. Have you checked our national debt lately?

The average person has at least some feeling of responsibility when he gets a credit card, unlike our Congress.

I agree that the voters need to be informed and educated in a true (not pure) democracy. BUT even in our society of “Jay Leno voters” they will still do better than Congress who votes according to the whims of political pressure that often has nothing to do with the will of the people.

Because an informed majority will make democracy much better, I have stated that one of the main jobs of a Molecular candidate is to educate his co-legislators. Our representatives’ prime job needs to shift from power broker to manager and teacher.

The reader states that “democracy may be like giving a loaded gun to a child who does not have sufficient knowledge of the danger involved, or the knowledge of how to use it safely.”

The problem is we already have a loaded gun at our heads. A democracy through Molecular politics, even with some ignorant included, would be an improvement.

Keep in mind that the uninformed are also uninterested, and many would not have the initiative to participate and to become co-legislators. I am adamantly against enforced universal suffrage of any kind. People should only be encouraged to vote when they know what they are voting for.

As I have written, I do not see a pure democracy as the most enlightened government, but eventually we will have the best of a representative leadership with the best of democracy at play.

At this point in history, I see the best path is to shift toward a system that truly represents the will of the people by encouraging participation.

Just talk to the average construction worker about national spending and you will find he makes much more sense than the explanations we get from Congress about the reasons they borrow trillions of dollars for pet projects.

“When work becomes play, and play becomes your work, your life unfolds.” – Robert Frost

Dec 20, 2008

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

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

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

 

Molecular Questions

A reader asks if there’s a difference between the spiritual molecular relationship and the more material ones such as molecular politics and the molecular business.

Indeed. There is a big difference between these two groups.

The organization of the spiritual molecular relationship is quite precise and demands certain numbers to obtain specific results. The spiritual molecular relationship among humans corresponds to the molecular relationship of the atoms. To produce a molecule of water demands two atoms of hydrogen and one of oxygen. Nothing else will do. Even so, there certain combinations of humans having soul contact that will similarly produce specific results. There will definitely be molecules of 24 and 14, or two sevens. But in addition, spiritual research will point us toward many other workable combinations producing varied results.

I used the word “molecular” in relation to the new political and business groups not because they are the same as the spiritual organizations, but because they lead to greater group work and they involve sharing group energy and thought. In other words, they are evolving closer to the spiritual molecular relationship than what we have now, but they are definitely in a different category.

For instance, specific numbers are not needed for them to work. The molecular numbers are always helpful in enhancing the sharing of group energy. However no materialistic group in the immediate future will draw down a master to overshadow the group to make way for a spiritual flow. They can however be a conduit for heart and astral energy that gives the group a lower form of molecular life.

A reader pointed out that the decay he was worried about in the United States was moral and intellectual strength and because we have such a low quality person to work with it seems questionable to him the molecular politics could work.

First, let me agree with you that this is a real problem. All you have to do is watch Jay Leno interviewing some of these people off the street, many of whom have a college education. Yet some simple questions such as who is the VP or leader of the House of Representatives and they seem dumbfounded. Then he might ask something like who fought in the Civil War or in World War Two and they don’t seem to know. It’s discouraging indeed to see the ignorance of some of the young people out there.

We had a young guy in his 20’s doing some work for us a while back and asked me which party I was a member of. I told him I was a Libertarian and he didn’t have a clue as to what that was. Then when I started telling him a few things I noticed that he didn’t seem to know anything about current events or terms. He didn’t even seem to know the difference between a liberal and a conservative. By the time I was done talking to him I was hoping that there weren’t too many like him in my home state of Idaho. But, who knows, perhaps the youth are as ignorant here as the ones interviewed by Jay Leno.

Then too, perhaps we can fall back on the thought that each generation thinks that youth has gone to hell in a handbasket, and then the youth learn the lessons and wind up performing pretty well after all. Let us hope this will eventually be the case but I wouldn’t bet my cable TV money on it. I think that we are definitely in the time where the youth of this generation are more morally and intellectually challenged than they have been for a long time.

Even in this generation there many good people that will surface and perform well. I see many young people in the military interviewed that look like very outstanding individuals that see service to their country and the world is a top priority. And I’m sure there are many others not in military and seek to serve humanity and perform well.

Molecular politics offers an important screening process that will weed out many of the ne’er-do-wells. That is in order to be a co-legislator one will have to show some initiative, volunteer and go through the procedure required to become a member. Then once he is a member and wants to vote on an issue, he will have to study that issue to figure out how he wants to vote. This process will weed out the people of the mentality that answer Jay Leno’s questions. Those who do participate as a co-legislator will normally be those who really care about their country.

And, as always, there is concern that pressure groups could infiltrate and tell thousands of people out how to vote in one big voting block but there are ways to circumvent such things. If we can create an organization that governs democratically by the votes of concerned citizens then we can create a much-improved government and society.

A reader expresses his belief that working to fix this country is an exercise in futility. He thinks we should just plan on building anew after things fall apart.

There are a number of reasons we do not want to see a complete breakdown of the United States. The main one is that this country is presently the first and last line of defense in keeping the free world as free as it is. If America were to fall and become powerless who would fill the vacuum? The Russians? The Chinese? The Moslem Extremists? If foreign armies moved here to restore order would that be a good thing?

I don’t think so.

If that were to happen would our citizens even be free to peacefully gather?

Probably not.

While it is true that a complete collapse can force a gathering, such a thing may turn out to be more like a forced evacuation rather than a planned gathering of lights.

Think back to the last successful gathering. It happened with the discovery of America. England was not in a state of collapse but was at its heyday of power. In the beginning its resources were a means of nurturing the colonies until the time came that they had power to live apart from the mother country.

Even so, a gathering of lights will be easier if western society remains intact enough so the new builders can have the resources to become self-sufficient. If we are to build cities on the seas we will need resources and technology from Western nations.

It is, therefore, in our best interests to support the principles of freedom in our native lands to the best of our abilities. It would be a big hindrance indeed if we only had tyrannies to deal with and had to use stone age tools to build cities of light.

I am extremely confident that Molecular Politics can succeed. After the first representative is elected, we will be half way to the finish for then the country will see how the idea works and the common man will love the idea that he can have a voice. After the first molecular Representative or Senator gets elected there will be nothing that can then stay the progress of the idea.

A reader voices concern about deluded people becoming co-legislators. Yes, this will happen. All types of people will participate, but the reason it will work is that the majority of informed participating citizens have the good of the country much more in their hearts than does our Congress which is only concerned with power and partisan politics.

Another thing to consider in the plan is this. Even if we achieve maximum success at reform, we are still very limited in how high we can take the country as a whole. For this reason, even with successful reform, we will still need a gathering of lights in order to demonstrate a government of light.

Only when a government of light is actually demonstrated will average people in the various countries want it for themselves.

“Some say the world will end in fire, Some say in ice. From what I’ve tasted of desire, I hold with those who favor fire. But if it had to perish twice I think I know enough of hate To say that for destruction ice Is also great And would suffice.” — Robert Frost

Dec 15, 2008

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

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

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

 

Implementing Change

A reader voiced his opinion that the United States has deteriorated to the extent that any reform is not feasible. He thinks it is best to anticipate its fall and gather the lights into a place of safety. He asks if I can cite one example of a nation reforming itself to the better.

Every civilization and kingdom has had its ups and downs. Without The Lights working to make things better there would have been no ups and history would be wrought with much more pain than we have had.

A reader gave a good example citing the Civil War. We had reached a point of tension where it looked like the experiment in Democracy had failed and America was going to collapse. Most of Europe expected a collapse. Instead, we fought to save the Union, and end slavery, and the forces of evolution prevailed. The nation became a more civil place to live. Even Congress became more civil. Before the war representatives sometimes attacked each other physically or challenged each other to duels to the death.

In the Roman Empire after a rule of some of the worst tyrants in history such as Caligula, Nero and Domitian, it entered into a period of positive change through five much improved emperors who were Nerva, Trajan, Hadrian, Antoninus Pius, and Marcus Aurelius. Their reigns lasted between 96 to 180 AD.

Some influences came from the bottom up, but in that day those at the top had to cooperate for improvements in government to be made.

We have a tremendous advantage in our day. The law, as we now have it, still allows change to be made from the grassroots level. This is an advantage that the Romans did not have.

Rome lasted around a thousand years and we are only a couple hundred years old. There still exists the possibility of turning the country around. It would be easiest if we had a great leader like Abraham Lincoln, but barring that, the people are our greatest hope. A situation must be created where the common people believe in themselves and assume more power, for they have more common sense than the uncommon sense of our leaders.

I believe it was William F. Buckley who said he would rather be governed by random names picked from the Boston phone book than by the Congress of his day. There’s a lot of truth in that observation.

Does my desire to save my country negate the need for The Gathering?

No.

The deterioration of a country reveals the need for a Gathering, and a Gathering is forced if there is a complete collapse. Of course, in a collapse you could have a gathering of good or bad guys who seek to create the new order.

If a government becomes too restrictive then the only solution for the Lights is to gather in a location out of the country or wait for a collapse and regroup.

But if a reasonable amount of freedom remains the Gathering can take place within the country. This would cause less hardship and is an important reason to work to turn the country around.

A reader asked for my advice in implementing Molecular Politics. He talked about gathering seven people and concentrating on 14 issues. Nothing wrong with the 7 people but the 14 issues is a problem. A candidate running on the Molecular platform has only one issue which is:

WHAT THE PEOPLE WANT!

This will have a very powerful appeal. As soon as you start talking about issues the public will sense which side you favor on them and half will turn against you right off.

Many politicians are skilled at avoiding the central issues. On the other hand, the Molecular candidate can honestly avoid the issues because he does not vote on what he believes, but what the people believe. This is powerful because most people believe the majority is not represented well.

Imagine the Molecular candidate in a debate and he is asked:  What is your position on abortion?

He will answer:

“It matters not what my position is, I will vote on what the people want, not what I want.”

When asked:  What’s your position on the balanced budget?

He will answer:

“It matters not what my position is, I will vote on what the people want, not what I want.”

When the people hear this over and over, they will register the plan and get excited over it.

If I were you and wanted to be the first Molecular candidate, I would seek office the established way through one of the major parties, though we may have to start out running independents, as orthodoxy generally rejects any change. I would seek out some top political people and explain the plan and seek their backing in raising funds. If you do not have money and power at present it would be an uphill battle, but just getting the idea out there could establish a seed for change.

It would be a huge step forward if my book introducing this was well received and the principle gets time on the major talk shows.

After the idea gets a foothold, the next step is to create the Committee for Representation. After this is established, we then approach perspective candidates to run on the Molecular platform.

If you seek peace, be still.

If you seek wisdom, be silent.

If you seek love, be yourself. – Becca Lee

Dec 14, 2008

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

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

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

Molecular Politics Examined

A reader posted encouraging members to run for office on molecular principles. If they run on the Molecular Politics platform of representing the people, no matter what their personal opinions are, they will have a great advantage right there. BUT that by itself is not likely to get people of good will elected. Unless our guy is a very savvy and dynamic personality, large sums of money will be needed to get anyone elected.

The first step will be popularizing the Molecular Politics ideas. The second step will be to gather seed money from people interested in the idea. The third step will be to create a national organization dedicated to this purpose.

The fourth step is to then approach potential candidates who have enough gravitas to get elected. The appeal for them is that Molecular Politics will appeal to the people and will provide a means to get in office. The downside for them is that they must accept is that they will not have the personal power and glamour of the other politicians because they follow the will of the people and not their own will. Even so, many fair minded politicians would be interested in this plan. For one thing the first ones will be part of a movement that could change the political world all over the planet.

Fifth, after a candidate gets elected, we set up co-legislators and a secure Internet site where they can make known the will of the people in the appropriate district or state to the representative.

The only way to make Molecular Politics work is to first commit the politician BEFORE he gets elected to honor the will of his co-legislators. Any politician that is already elected cannot be expected to give a rats behind about the idea, but these will generally belittle it and fight against it. Current politicians listen to their peers and interest groups much more than their voters.

Question: How about just going with the system we have and the representatives voting their conscience? Wouldn’t that be best if we had  good candidates?

Under the current system you are correct. The most desirable candidate is one who truly wants to serve his country and votes for what he thinks is best no matter what the consequences.

This would also be the ideal candidate in a truly enlightened system and works this way in the spiritual Molecular Relationship, except he can be immediately voted out of power if his people feel short changed.

But we are in a transition period where, instead of enlightened representatives, we have mostly corrupted ones because of the outside pressures having little relation to the will of the people.

Under the current system when the representative goes against the will of the people it is usually an unenlightened rather than an enlightened decision. When one averages out what the people as a whole think (when properly informed) vs. how the politicians vote, then we see the will of the people is the more enlightened of the two.

To make Molecular Politics work the candidate must agree to follow the will of his co-legislators with his voting, even if it goes strongly against his beliefs. Keep in mind that the will of the people will be different in various districts. If he has a strong belief that he will follow even if it goes against the will of his co-legislators then he could not be a molecular candidate. He has to absolutely commit to the will of the people and if he violates this once then the Molecular organization will not support him for reelection.

The Molecular organization will have great power over the politicians because when the people see how it works, they will vote for the organization rather than the person running.

Under this plan the Representative will be both a manager and educator. If he thinks he sees more correctly than his constituents he will seek to educate them so they will change their minds toward a more reasonable direction. If the representative is a good teacher he will have a powerful sway over his constituents, but if he cannot convince them he must vote with the majority of those he serves.

One may ask, what if the majority demands something crazy, like sending a nuclear bomb to destroy France?

First, something this crazy will not even come up for vote and secondly if it did the representative could just vote for what he thought was right and become a one term representative.

Molecular Politics, when established, will have teeth because every representative wants to get re-elected and keep his good reputation. When the people see that their will is being followed through the Molecular Politics organization they will continue to vote within that system. If a politician defies the will of the people he will be thrown out of that system and disgraced so he will not be re-elected. The voting of the people will be turned away from voting for the personality to actually voting for issues.

Question: How it is that the politician will accurately know the will of the people? Or how the people will know and be able to punish the politician who doesn’t follow it.”

His constituents would be invited to be co-legislators with him. This would be open to anyone in his voting district. Let us say there are a million potential voters there. Not all of them would sign up. At first, the number would be below 10% but would grow as Molecular Politics became more popular. Let us assume that the politician has 100,000 co-legislators and two items are coming up to vote. The first is a funding project for electric cars and the second concerns abortion. 30,000 show up to vote on the electric cars, but a whopping 80,000 vote on the hot topic of abortion.

On the first 18,000 voted for the funding for electric cars and 42,000 voted against the abortion bill. The legislator then looks at the tabulation and is committed to vote with the majority in both cases. He will vote for the funding bill and against the abortion bill since that is what the majority of those who voted told him to do.

The molecular organization placed the politician in power through endorsing him and raising money for his election. He has made a strict commitment to always vote with the majority of his co-legislators. If he does not then all funding through molecular sources will get cut off and it will be published that the politician has disgraced himself by breaking his word. When this program becomes popular with the people the politician has to cooperate to avoid disgrace and losing his position.

Another point that helps ensure that the politician cooperates is that he will understand the plan when he signs up. Many who clearly understand that they must vote according to the will of the people will be the type of people not looking for power and more likely than average to keep their word without coercion.

Politics is supposed to be the second oldest profession. I have come to realize that it bears a very close resemblance to the first. – Ronald Reagan

NOTE: For more details about how Molecular Politics work see my book “Fixing America.”)

We now have our first molecular candidate running for the U.S. Congress. I’m sure he would appreciate your support. Check him out here:

https://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=61555896358347

Dec 12, 2008