Author: Joseph Dewey

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

April 6, 2024 Joseph Dewey

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

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

April 5, 2024 Joseph Dewey

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

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

April 4, 2024 Joseph Dewey

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

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

April 2, 2024 Joseph Dewey

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

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

April 1, 2024 Joseph Dewey

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

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

Detecting Hierarchies

March 30, 2024 Joseph Dewey

Detecting Hierarchies

I have made a few brief comments about Hierarchies and have received several comments back indicating that the enlightened way to believe is that there should be no hierarchies.

I can understand this way of thinking if when I say “hierarchy” that the Piscean age authoritarian view comes to mind. One of the great causes I personally espouse in my own life is to eliminate the slavery that the old-style hierarchies create.

On the other hand, another word for hierarchy is “order.” Order is only created by a hierarchy of some kind, subtle or otherwise. Therefore, if one is against hierarchies period, one is also against order. Without order no permanent change, good or bad, will happen. The only change of sorts would be disintegration.

There are hierarchies, or orders, of darkness and those of light. The basic difference is this:

In the hierarchy of darkness there is a very structured order that the individual cannot deviate from. If he does, he is eliminated either by death (if possible) or cast out. The leaders in this hierarchy seek to be served and to receive praise whether they deserve it or not. The leaders often see themselves as better than their brothers and sisters, and as the center of their universe, and feel that they have some divine right to force their will upon others because their will is somehow better.

This hierarchy does not allow questioning unless they are in some position that forces this. They often rely on mysteries that no one can explain to keep people in the dark and deceived.

They may teach free will but they will do everything in their power to discourage it. They rely on illusion. They project the illusion that they are better, more powerful, more virtuous than the rest of us, but in reality they are about average people.

They obtain their position, not by the free will of their group, but either in seizing it by force of deception.

The hierarchy of light is quite different. They obtain their position through the power of election. This is the true meaning of the teachings of Christ about the “gathering of the elect.”

This hierarchy does not force its will on the group. If anything, the group forces its will on the leader making the leader the “greatest servant.” All leaders are chosen by the group as a servant to help them in their chosen goals. The leaders see themselves as servants and seek not to be served for the ego’s sake. They see themselves as one with their brothers and are willing to do the most menial work of the group if necessary.

The leaders of the Brotherhood of Light can and will initiate, but there is complete free will whether or not one is to follow. The only punishment for not following is like those who did not help the little red hen. They will not share in the benefits.

Any time a leader is not doing his job he can be voted out and there is no fear of reprisal.

The order in this light hierarchy is not so tight, but allows and encourages individual thinking.

The leaders allow any question and will answer them to the best of their ability, unless the answer would create some harm. Everything is out in the open and done in the light of day with no deception.

The greatest advancement we have had toward a hierarchy of light is the creation of the Constitution of the United States. Unfortunately, a lot of deception and manipulation has crept in, but still the power of election has created much more freedom than the world had in the “Dark Ages.”

In the future there will be hierarchies based on cooperation rather than competition and the freedom of the individual will be great, but the other benefit is that the abundance of the many will overflow.

Those who are against hierarchies answer me this one question. Where has there ever been an accomplishment in the history of the planet that has benefited the world where there has not been some type of hierarchy involved? If you cannot name one then how can you say that having no hierarchy is good?

The subject of hierarchies within atoms and molecules came up again. Just because they look the same from a distance means nothing. From a distance every one of our McDonalds looks the same, but they are governed by a very strong hierarchical structure. In fact, THE ONLY WAY that each McDonalds has the power to keep its uniformity is through hierarchy. This is also the only way the atomic world keeps its order.

If you look through a powerful electron microscope you will discover that the atoms always gravitate into hierarchical orders of various numbers, such as three and then often twelve. Other times there will be a leading atom at the center of a circle of fellow atoms. Atoms, electrons, protons may seem the same, but they are not. Atoms of the same element all have approximately the same charge, but not exactly. One will always draw or repel the other because of its differentiating charge. Atoms of different elements have very different charges. One will have power to pull or repel and the other will be unable to resist that pull or repulsion.

In any atomic order there is always an initiating atom or molecule. This atom will be the head of its particular order. The others are the same because they are following a leader, just like McDonalds does.

In fact, the order in the atomic world is much greater than that among humans because their hierarchies are much more developed and refined. This relative perfection which has been achieved makes any hierarchical activity minimal and difficult to detect.

A reader accuses me of lacking in love and placing too much emphasis on the mind.

You ask me where love fits in? Reading between the lines here it sounds if as you are crying out for more love in your own life. I speak sincerely, not sarcastically. You seem to have a strong need for me to express it toward you almost as if you have some link with me in a past life. Do you feel anything in that direction?

Perhaps more has been written about love than any other subject. I will be writing about it off and on, but at the present I feel that it would be of most benefit to emphasize the keys. Actually love is at the center of all the keys because they open the door for greater love and union.

The feeling of love is not related to another person by merely speaking and theorizing about it. Nor is love entirely emotional. You have heard of “loving thoughts” have you not? How about loving actions? Some of the people who talk most about love communicate it the least.

You say you have felt no love in my words. Others would disagree. I have received many good reports on my parables. Some have said that they brought them to a point of tears because of the love in them, yet the word love is generally not mentioned. Some have said my writings have changed their lives.

Love was felt in the parables because love was behind the writing of them. Did you not feel that my brother?

True service is love in action and the true servers of humanity are love incarnate.

Because one incorporates mind in his makeup as well as emotion does not mean that he has pushed love aside. If he stays on the path of light then he greatly increases his power to serve, to enhance and free up the love energy. Body, mind and emotion are all vehicles for love to express itself. Mind has even greater power to give love than emotion because Mind was before emotion and has the power of decision over emotion. Emotion can influence mind and mind can influence emotion, but mind has the final say on any decision. That’s why we say “make up your mind,” and not “make up your feelings.”

Mind on the dark path becomes the dictator of emotion. But mind on the path of light becomes the liberator of feelings in denial. Suppressed emotions cannot free themselves. The mind must free them. On the other hand, mind is captive to illusion and cannot free itself. It is at the mercy of Spirit to free it.

Your posting is a strange mixture of words. I know you are a disciple of “The Right Use of Will” books. They contain some great truths, especially the teachings on denial and the fact that we should express our true feelings with no denial no matter what they are.

The ironical thing is you seem to be telling me that my feelings are not true and that I should express something else. That is not what your teacher teaches to do.

I think it would help you to read some other metaphysical books like “A Course in Miracles” or “Seth,” and get a little balance in your life.

You say I resist you and distance myself from you. Could it be the other way around? Could you be the one resisting me and distancing yourself? If feel no resistance or distancing within me. I am here for you my brother as much as I am able.

You tell me that I am playing the same cosmic tapes over and over. Why don’t you tell me of a new cosmic tape then? You think I need to learn about love. Teach me something about it. You want me to learn from you. How can I unless you say something I do not know or demonstrate something I do not have? It would be nice if you were to spend as much time sharing love and knowledge as you do criticizing.

You say there is no heart vibration in my words. I say there is. What my words do lack is solar plexus vibration which turns the heart energies upside down and deceives the whole world. Those who have felt the true energies of spiritual love from the heart will feel spirit in my words when I teach. I’m not sure how much they will feel when I am answering criticism such as now, but when I teach, they feel it. I wish you could feel it my brother, because I know from experience the spirit of love is in the teachings I relate.

“The reason why worry kills more people than work is that more people worry than work.” — Robert Frost

Dec 10, 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

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

Hierarchy and Unity

March 29, 2024 Joseph Dewey

Hierarchy and Unity

A reader had some criticism of my post on Hierarchy thinking that I was in support of some singular physical leader who dictates orders.

I never talked about a hierarchy with a single physical leader. However, it is true that the hierarchy of light does have a single leader. This is the Holy Spirit. The reason the hierarchy of light is one is because they all receive confirmation from this single source. Without this confirmation oneness is only achieved by force, fear or deception as with the dark hierarchy. Yes, I agree with you the darkness is a necessary part of the program.

There is no physical hierarchy in the human kingdom today that achieves oneness through the Holy Spirit. The difficult thing, however, is that hierarchies are necessary to accomplish anything of note. It doesn’t matter whether the dominate force is male or female. You never gave me an example of an accomplishment done with no hierarchies that benefited the world.

You mention the [American] Indians, but all Indian tribes had Hierarchies. You have heard of Chiefs and medicine men haven’t you? You have thousands of books with proven historical events to examine and cannot find me an example of your belief. I’m sure there will be none. The reason? Hierarchy is a prerequisite to order in our past and foreseeable future.

In the hierarchy of light, one is not “better” than another. The leaders do not force. They are true servants. In the dark hierarchies the problem is that the leaders control the people. In the light hierarchies the problem is reversed. The leaders, not the people are the servants and the people try and control the leaders. The servants are always the ones who are in danger of too much control because those being served always want the service enhanced and continued.

You seem to have a strong resistance to the possibility that anyone can teach you or lead you. Is this correct? If it is why do you feel that way?

Concerning the atomic world what makes you think there is not a dominate atom or molecule in the various atomic orders? You have no proof of that. On the other hand, I do have proof based on the law of correspondences. As above so below, as below so above. This is a basic metaphysical principle, but you won’t learn it in chemistry class. McDonalds will have a correspondence in the atomic world and the principles that govern will be similar, but not exactly the same. All things in macrocosm have a correspondence in the microcosm.

You accuse me of being very black and white yet you are the one who teaches the one way to salvation: “through the heart only.” I’m the one that teaches that mind and heart are two parts of a greater whole and both have necessary doors to take us back home. Who is really black and white here?

Love is bigger than the heart only. Love permeates mind, heart, solar plexus and even the body. You are limiting the power of love to a small part of ourselves. Love embraces the whole person, even the mind if we allow it. The whispers of Love can come through both the heart and mind, and the intuition is only correctly perceived when heart and mind have been balanced. Without balance great deception will be present.

Another reader expressed perplexity that intelligent seekers can be so diverse in what they see as truth. She wonders why there is not more unity among the spiritual seekers.

There are three reasons for this problem.

First, few people in the public arena have passed the third initiation where illusion is dispelled. All who have not achieved this will still cling to their foundation beliefs which have illusion or untruth within them. Such people are unwilling to let them go unless the truth hits them over the head with great force so it is undeniable.

Therefore, you can have two advanced people teach inspiring material yet in certain core areas the following can happen:

[1] They both can disagree on core issues and each be wrong.

[2] They can disagree on core issues and one be right and the other be wrong.

[3] They cannot both be right and disagree.

Secondly, two people of equal advancement can be polarized in the right or left brain, or the emotions or mind. Those who are polarized in the emotions see solutions that feel right as being right. Those polarized in the mind see solutions that make sense as being right, even if they may not feel right.

The Republicans are basically left-brained and the Democrats right-brained.

These two individuals may fiercely disagree and argue, even if their spiritual evolution is similar.

The true disciple who has transcended illusion will balance the two energies and weight the tug from both feelings and mind. Then he will use the Second Key of Judgement.

Both of the above two individuals will argue with him from time to time and see him as in error.

A major problem the Brotherhood of Light is working on at present is moving the polarization of the world from the emotional base of the Piscean Age to the mental perspective of the Aquarian Age.

A third cause of the problem is focus. Many teachers are narrowly focused on areas of importance to them and they are not rounded off with information about opposing belief systems and thus do not know their reasons for the belief and action of others. These will often criticize that which is not deserving of criticism setting off a no-win disagreement.

“By faithfully working eight hours a day you may eventually get to be boss and work twelve hours a day.” — Robert Frost

Dec 4, 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

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

The Coming of Christ and Questions

March 28, 2024 Joseph Dewey

The Coming of Christ and Questions

The coming of Christ is in three stages.

The first stage is the permeation of the teaching of the Christ consciousness and the rising of the Christ consciousness in the hearts and minds of numerous individuals.

This first stage is nearly complete.

The second state is called the “Overshadowing.” Preparations have been made, but this stage is not yet complete. In this stage the Master teacher who was Melchizedek and later as Christ in the body of Jesus of Nazareth will come in and share the body of one of more disciples. In this stage the actual presence of the Christ will be on the earth, yet unrecognized.

In the third stage the Christ, if he deems it necessary will materialize a body for his own use. When, how and if this third stage will happen is a secret kept within the mind of God.

Many believe that the coming of Christ is merely the raising of the Christ consciousness. This is part of the entire plan, but only the first part. Such people forget that there was and is an individual Master who is the Christ and that every individual entity reappears periodically on the earth. The Christ is not an exception. He will indeed come again.

Now we hear that several gurus and teachers who claim to be the Christ. Not even Jesus publicly made that claim. His works and his teachings claimed it for him.

Anyone who claims to be the Christ should be asked at least one discerning question. Ask him to teach us just one principle or at least a piece of knowledge that is not found in a commonly published book. I would prefer a principle because principles bring forth a flashing forth of light from the soul. If this light is stimulated it is evidence that a true teacher has arrived.

Question: DK teaches there are seven planes. How far up the ladder can one go through out of body travel?

Exploring the worlds of form is a much different thing than exploring the formless worlds.

Astral travel can involve the astral body leaving the physical yet still being connected by the silver cord. In this case the person can do a certain amount of exploring the physical and sometimes other worlds.

A higher form of traveling is through the mental body. Here the person travels by bringing the world to him rather than going to the far places of the world. This is like sitting in your chair, not leaving your body but watching a 3D screen that takes you where you want to go.

When the seeker travels in the formless worlds he doesn’t see things in the earthly sense but sees in different ways. He sees through the eyes of understanding, through the soul, through impression, through seeing principles and others. The trick for him is to register these impressions sufficiently on the physical brain so he can retrieve them in regular consciousness.

Learning to see auras helps prepare for mental travel for when one can see the outer film on the aura, he prepares himself to see things in the far distance.

Question: “Are you also suggesting that we too should be devoting our ‘free time’ and/or focusing our attention (activities, etc.) to serving others versus ‘personal progress’”?

I wasn’t suggesting anything for anyone else but only dealing my own path.

The disciple on the path goes through cycles of receiving and sending. The first 30 years of my life was spent in receiving and then I reached a point where I sensed the world need, and that I had much to give. My polarity thus switched. I moved from a top priority of inner development to outer sending.

Of course, in the sending mode, I still learn but learning is not my main focus at present. I see ways in which the world can be changed for the better and that is where my focus is.

Each person seeking the path must search their own souls to see where their focus must be. If it feels right to concentrate on inner development and learning then that is most likely where your main focus should be. If you feel a responsibility to serve and send, then put your focus there. But always remember the Middle Way of judgement, and remember that in the midst of receiving there are times to send and give and vice versa.

Never feel guilty or ill at ease for following what seems right to your inner center.

Sometimes a seeker will devote a whole life to inner development and then spend most of the next life in sending forth the light he achieved.

A reader disagreed with my view that two who are in touch with the Holy Spirit can always reach agreement.

Two can have spiritual contact on different points and disagree, but the disagreement will be on personality views, not what has been received from within.

As we ascend back toward spirit we are guided toward union, harmony and oneness, yet maintain our individual identity. I know from personal experience that it is possible to reach agreement on any point of truth. The trick is that one of the parties in the disagreement must have a point of truth because the Spirit of Truth will only affirm truth. If two people capable of spiritual contact seek that contact together, then the point of truth will be revealed without fail and unity will result. I have never had a failure in this as long as the other person is willing to take the steps to make the spiritual contact. When a point of truth is revealed through your soul it is impossible to deny to yourself unless you risk taking the dark path.

The woods are lovely, dark and deep, but I have promises to keep, and miles to go before I sleep, and miles to go before I sleep.” — Robert Frost

Dec 3, 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

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

A Master Plan

March 27, 2024 Joseph Dewey

A Master Plan

A reader complained that I had appointed myself to be a spiritual teacher, as if that were a bad thing. To this I responded as follows.

You and some others seem to feel that I am a self-appointed teacher and indicate that this is wrong for some reason. What makes you think I am self-appointed. You would be completely unaware if I was working with some higher life.

To the world Buddha, Jesus and Mohammed were self-appointed teachers. They felt they had something to say and they said it. They had free agency and they used it. Many resented them, but a few learned.

What kind of teacher do you want? Do you want some council to pick a person at random with no knowledge as to whether he can teach or not and say “be our teacher.” Chances are the poor fellow will have nothing to say.

Every true teacher will use some self initiative and test the waters by writing books, giving seminars and teaching those with whom he comes in contact. Self-initiative is the only way to commence the path of a teacher.

What would you have me do? Stay silent and never appear on-line again? I give you the freedom to teach or not teach to your hearts content. Will you not grant me the same privilege?

You believe that somewhere there is a master plan. You are not alone. Most religious people as well as New Agers do. However, the truth is often upside down to the way people think.

There is no great master plan — at least, not in the way people perceive it. In the beginning we all existed within the mind of God as one great life. In order to know itself God multiplied itself. He/She/It (He for simplicity) did this so his numerous parts could have every possible experience and learn to know the other parts. The only master plan is to put the puzzle of scattered parts back together. In the process of putting the puzzle together, however, every possible piece of knowledge is learned and every possible experience is lived.

There are lives in this universe that are put together or less fragmented than we as a human race are. These beings have great plans that will aid in putting the pieces of God together. If they were to share them with us they may seem so deep and beyond us that we would consider that a master plan, but in reality the only true master plan is the union of souls — “putting Humpty Dumpty back together again.”

The atoms, molecules and cells have put themselves together in alignment with the One God, but we have not, and the galaxies have not.

We have a long way to go and man is the point of tension for the life of God in our current universe.

We’ve had some new Alice A. Bailey students join the group lately and am sure they will be a good addition. Years ago, I joined their Arcane school, but the teacher assigned to me couldn’t answer any of my questions, so I couldn’t see any value in continuing. So far I have found no one that has been able to shed any light for me on DK’s teachings. There’s a group in Los Angeles, California, USA, that claims to be channeling him but I feel little light in their words. Then there is the Summit Lighthouse that claims to channel him and other masters. I feel no light there either.

Throughout my life I have been unable to find a physical teacher and have been driven to explore the books of the world. Through them I received much stimulation, but my greatest questions have been answered through revelation and inspiration and my inner master has instructed me to take certain steps in reaching out and assisting mankind to prepare for the reappearance of the Christ. How the steps are taken is up to me and this on-line communication is an experiment in disseminating the teachings.

I find that “A Course in Miracles” [ACIM] does seem very elementary from the viewpoint of technical knowledge, but from the viewpoint of the love-wisdom aspect I would say it is unsurpassed. Having the love-wisdom aspect of ourselves stimulated allows us to assimilate technical teachings, such as AAB much more. The main purpose of the book (ACIM) is to stimulate soul contact. Unfortunately most who believe they have reached “the atonement” have only touched some high emotional energy.

One can only go so far until a solid soul contact has been made. Then there is the baptism of fire from and through the Monad. A group must experience this “fire of the Spirit” and partake of its power to prepare the way for the Christ.

Many of the Hierarchy incarnated in Germany with the intent of picking up the Shamballa energy and Hitler beat them to it. These disciples were thus caught with their pants down and found themselves in a horrifying situation. Stauffenberg and Rommel were two disciples in on a plot to remove Hitler and were themselves killed along with 5000 of the greatest lights of Germany when the plot was uncovered. Some were strung up with piano wire and their death put on film to show the other German troops the fate of traitors.

I do not expect readers to believe any of my words just because I say them, but I feel that some could be of great assistance and whatever proof they need is available if answers are sought from the Inner Christ.

I have learned silence from the talkative, tolerance from the intolerant, and kindness from the unkind; yet strange, I am ungrateful to those teachers. – Khalil Gibran

Dec 2, 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