Teachings – Page 25

HPB, Handwriting and the Mahatma Letters, Part 1

July 19, 2016July 28, 2016 Joseph Dewey

HPB, Handwriting

and the Mahatma Letters, Part 1

I was asked to check out the handwriting of H. P. Blavatsky with the Mahatma letters to see if the letters are in her handwriting or distinct enough to be written by someone else, such as the Master KH.

I am a good person to tackle this project as I have over 50 years experience in handwriting analysis and am not out to prove HPB is a fraud or otherwise. No matter what the findings reveal I see her as doing an important work and personally believe in the existence of the Masters.

I was surprised to discover that no serious attempt has been made since Richard Hodgson with the Society for Psychical Research (SPR) in 1884 to determine whether HPB or someone else wrote the Mahatma Letters. In consultation with a noted handwriting expert of the day he determined that HPB was the author of the letters – that the handwriting was from the same person. Then he also examined other phenomenon produced by her and determined fraud was used in some cases. Confessions and accusations made by those who turned on HPB did not help matters.

What did give him pause was this happening:

By the end of the first week of January, Hodgson, having little more to do at Headquarters, moved back to Madras and on the ninth he paid a call on Emma and Alexis who were living at Saint-Thome with a missionary family, the Dyers. In the course of a general conversation, about premonitions, Hodgson was just admitting he had no theory to account for them, when

“something white appeared, touching my hair, and fell on the floor. It was a letter. I picked it up. It was addressed to myself. M. and Madame Coulomb were sitting near me and in front of me. I had observed no motion on their part which could account for the appearance of the letter. Examining the ceiling as I stood I could detect no flaw; it appeared intact. On opening the letter, I found it referred to the conversation which had just taken place.”

From: Madame Blavatsky, the Woman Behind the Myth, by Marion Meade, Page 338

This unusual occurrence was not enough to change his mind as he suspected trickery.

The Theosophical Society never accepted Hodgson’s report but it stood as accepted by the SPR until 1986 when SPR member Vernon Harrison scrutinized the report and found various flaws within it. It appears that he investigated the report rather than refining an investigation into the handwriting itself. Amazingly, I cannot find anyone who has carefully compared Blavatsky’s to that of the letters since 1886. I guess then that it is about time that such an examination should take place.

I checked out HPB’s handwriting a few years ago, but at the time samples were scarce. All I could find on the internet was her signature and one ragged sample of regular writing. Now, fortunately, a few more samples are available, though not as many as I would like.

Fortunately, there is quite a bit of handwriting on the web from the Mahatma Letters.

I have a good selection written in 1880 and some others up to 1884. Curiously, while appearing to be written by the same person, the 1883 KH letters have significant differences in some letter formations from the ones from 1880. Such changes usually do not happen in an adult individual over such a short period unless a conscious attempt was made at making a change.

For my comparative analysis I will mostly concentrate on the 1880 samples of the Mahatma letters as they are consistent in style and I have plentiful samples of them. Here is the site from which they were derived.

For HPB’s handwriting I used all the readable samples I could find on the web. They are located at these links.

LINK 1 LINK 2 LINK 3 LINK 4 LINK 5 LINK 6 LINK 7

The question now before us is this. Were the samples I have of the K.H. Mahatma letters all written by Madame Blavatsky, or by K.H., or some by K.H. and some by a scribe? In other words were there one, two or three writers involved in the samples?

First let us put out the samples for the reader to examine. Here is one from HPB in 1882

Here is one from KH in 1880

And here is one from KH, verified by HPB as written in his handwriting:

Sample3 KH

The untrained eye will see that none of these are an exact match, but they do have similarities.

Few realize this but one of the first things a forgery expert looks for are two sets of writing that are very close to an exact match. If he finds such a thing then he can be 95% sure that a forgery is at work.

Why?

Just take a look at two or three of your signatures. They have similarities but they are not generally close to an exact match. Everyone’s handwriting will have some variation in it. Intelligent people will generally have more variation than the average person.

HPB was far above average in intelligence and, not unexpectedly, her writing varied much more than average. This is a good part of the reason that no one has been able to make a convincing case as to whether or not she wrote the Mahatma letters. She was a complicated person who was very versatile and adaptable. If she wanted to pull of a trick or two she would be quite good at it.

Now whether we love her or hate her we must take off the blinders and look at the evidence as it exists in the real world.

Go To Part 2

Index for Recent Posts – includes this series

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Discovering the New Age, Part 9

July 15, 2016July 15, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Discovering the New Age, Part 9

Sorting out Mind from Emotion

Risk and Judgment

The emotionally polarized person looks a risk much differently than the mental person. He reacts to risk because of how circumstances creating it makes him feel rather than the actual degree of risk. On the other hand, the mental person will react to risk according to the degree of danger involved.

For example, many emotional people will be against nuclear energy, not because they have studied the current data, but because of associations with the atomic bomb, alarming news stories or unfounded fears gained from watching the movie, The China Syndrome. Once the feeling nature is convinced nuclear energy is bad then the person will not accept any risk attached to it at all, even if the facts tell us the new generation of reactors are the safest source of power on the planet.

The mental person, of course has feelings also, but is not governed by them. He will examine the data, compare alternatives and make his decision on what makes the most sense. If the benefits outweigh the risk then he will accept the risk.

The emotional person is more black and white. If an endeavor poses a risk that negatively impacts his emotions he will often reject it completely. To accept a calculated risk does not enter his mind.

On the other hand, if something involving risk has not negatively impacted his emotions he is likely to ignore it altogether, even if the risk factor is high. Then if eliminating the risk takes time or money away from something he feels good about he will definitely ignore it as if it did not exist.

An example of a very high risk factor that is ignored by the emotionally polarized is the growing national debt. It is a mathematical fact that the current debt expansion cannot be sustained much longer yet because there are no negative repercussions seen in the present there is no fear or concern. He is completely unconcerned about borrowing money to sustain his pet projects that feel good to his emotional nature.

On the other hand, the mentally polarized will look at the numbers and voice grave concerns and seek to get people in office who are financially responsible. They realize that you can only borrow so much before a day of reckoning will come.

As we move into the new consciousness of the Aquarian Age we need to move beyond the emotional approach of either total rejection or acceptance of risk. The Aquarian person will realistically examine the risk involved and compare it to the benefits. He will then go with a certain amount of calculated risk.

People have different value systems so the risk vs. benefits will vary from one individual to another. There may be a risk of getting a concussion from playing football but the player may figure that the glory and the fun achieved are worth the risk.

There may be a small risk to owning a handgun but the owner may think it is worth it because of the extra security he has for himself.

The astronaut knows he is in a risky profession but the thrill of achievement makes it worth it.

We cannot eliminate risk, but we can put it in its right perspective. To do this the mind gathers all known data so he knows as close as possible what the risk is and then he balances that off with possible benefits and makes a judgment. For the Aquarian Age person that judgment will be reasonable.

Index for Recent Posts – includes this series

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Discovering the New Age, Part 8

July 13, 2016July 15, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Discovering the New Age, Part 8

Sorting out Mind from Emotion

Putting Risk in Perspective

The mentally polarized person puts risk in perspective whereas the emotional/astral person does not. The astral consciousness fears risk because of anecdotal evidence that is placed in front of him whereas the mental looks at all the data.

In other words, the way of the old age is to look at the piece and magnify it as if it were the whole and the new age vision is to look at all the pieces available to see the whole picture.

Let us go through several examples.

(1) Airline travels verses land.

When an airline crashes anywhere in the world tremendous news coverage is generated which strikes fear in the emotions of many causing the emotional impression that air travel is unsafe. But is it?

Let us put this in perspective for passengers on air travel in the United States.

Since 2009 only three passengers have died in a commercial flight taking off in the USA. That is about a half of a death per year.

How does that compare to auto deaths? Since that same time we have had 30,000-35,000 auto deaths a year plus untold suffering through injuries.

Yet how many people are nervous about boarding a plane but have no fear of getting in a car to go shopping?

Does not compute unless you factor in the unreasonable emotional factor.

There are many things more dangerous than boarding a plane in the United States such as.

Falls – most of them around the house, produce 30,000 deaths per year. In addition 38,000 died through unintentional poisoning.

Most people are not afraid of their doctor, but medical errors cause 250,000 deaths each year.

In fact you are more likely to be killed by a bear, or by taking a selfie than dying on an airline in this country.

The fact is this. When several hundred people die instantly in a dramatic air crash more publicity is generated than 50,000 people getting killed off one or two at a time.

Because of the publicity the illusion is created that air travel seems much more dangerous than it is.

(2) Racial tension.

Much of the recent racial tension is caused by the same type of illusion. Certain types of incidents get most of the coverage creating the illusion that such incidents are the norm.

For instance, there have recently been several shootings of black men by police that appear to be without merit. Most likely the cop involved didn’t wake up in the morning thinking he was going to seek out a minority to kill, but overreacted and made a mistake.

The fact is this. When you have over a million police officers in this country one or two of them are going to be making an error in judgment at any given time.

“But,” says the offended one, “It is obvious that the police, especially white guys, are biased toward blacks and it’s like they are picking them out for targets?”

And why does it seem this way?

For the same reason that it seems that air travel is so dangerous. Certain shootings, such as happened in Ferguson and Minnesota recently (2016) received more publicity than thousands of other blacks murdered during the same period. Taking two or three incidents out of thousands and giving them most of the publicity gives the illusion that the publicized abuse is the norm.

But is it?

Rarely.

Roland G. Fryer Jr., a professor of economics at Harvard, himself an African American, because of the lopsided media exposure had the impression that there was an unwarranted amount of black killings because of bias. He decided to do some research to find out the truth. The results surprised him.

Whereas he did find some evidence of bias in certain types of actions toward blacks this was not the case with police shootings. After examining data in ten cities examining 1,332 shootings between 2000 and 2015 the New York Times reported his findings that “officers were more likely to fire their weapons without having first been attacked when the suspects were white. Black and white civilians involved in police shootings were equally likely to have been carrying a weapon. Both results undercut the idea of racial bias in police use of lethal force.”

Next Mr. Fryer wondered about how eager police officers were about the use of force when it seemed justified in a dangerous situation. He was surprised to find that in such situations, officers were about 20 percent less likely to shoot if the suspects were black.

Fryer’s research, as well as other investigations, reveal that there is no wholesale war to take out African Americans. It is unfortunate indeed that the media gives such lopsided coverage that not only gives the wrong impression but produces anger and racial divide that has created a backlash creating a real danger for our police officers, most of whom are doing their best to serve the public good.

Some illusions are just threatening to our sense of truth, but others, like this one, can lead to much danger and civil unrest.

Again the mental person who is in harmony with the focus of the new age will not judge situations like this based on what the media tells him to think, but he will seek out the truth from real data and reasoning and come to conclusions that see through the hype of the media.

There are many other areas of life that are distorted by the media, Hollywood, politicians and various authorities. Instead of just swallowing what is placed before us, that may appeal to the feeling nature, the true Aquarian age person will seek out the facts and use pure reason to come to justifiable conclusions on such subjects as:

Gun control

Socialism

Capitalism

Communism

Free enterprise

Liberalism and conservatism.

Candidates to vote for.

Helping the poor.

Taxation and Federal spending.

Political Correctness

Climate change

Education of our kids

Religion

And many others.

May we rise up above the fog of emotional polarization and see things as they are through the clear light of reason is my prayer.

For Part 9 GO HERE

Index for Recent Posts – Includes this series

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Discovering the New Age, Part 7

July 11, 2016July 15, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Discovering the New Age, Part 7

Sorting out Mind from Emotion

Dealing with Risk.

Emotional people are terrified of certain types of risk and others not so much. The risk that concerns them are those that are decreed to be dangerous by their beloved authorities.

On the other hand, the mentally polarized are concerned about risk based on data, reason and probability.

Let us take global warming, for example. We may hear some politician, who knows little about science, stating that “all scientists agree” with him on global warming and we must therefore do A, B & C or we are doomed.

The emotionally polarized and little children will fear and some even traumatized feeling the end is near unless we all drive a Prius.

Most of these people in a state of fear know nothing about exactly what it is the scientists agree upon or the proven facts involved. If they were to go back to the 1970’s 1980’s, 1990’s and read the various predictions on climate endorsed by politicians and activists and compare them with what has actually transpired they would find much comic relief as many of them were so far off that it is laughable. It’s kind of like reading psychic predictions in an old tabloid and then comparing them to what actually happened. It is kind of fun to see how off the mark they were.

We do not have time to go into the arguments for and against various climate change views, but we can say this. Based on the lack of accuracy of previous predictions we just do not know what the climate will do in the next 50 or 100 years.

Many geologists claim to have a better handle on climate change than climate scientists and tell us that we are due for another ice age soon and such an event would be much more devastating than a few degrees of warming.

Also overlooked by the fear mongers is that with or without government decrees technology on alternative energy is moving forward and clean energy will be available in abundant form in 50 to 100 years as long as we do not destroy civilization first.

Does this mean we have nothing to worry about?

Not hardly. We live in a world saturated with risk at every turn. With or without human influence the climate will change and devastation could occur. Whole continents could sink and others could rise. Farm land could become as deserts and deserts could bloom as the rose.

I’ve studied both sides of climate change and find I have much more concern about overreaction and illogical approach to it by politicians than I fear climate change itself. Economically it makes much more sense for humanity to invest in preparing to deal with it getting cooler or warmer rather than attempting to keep the earth at some perfect temperature through spending trillions of dollars.

So… if one switches from emotion to mind will he find others things that should be feared more than man made climate change?

Actually there are quite a few. Let us discuss some of them.

(1) Asteroids. We know as a fact that asteroids have wiped out most of the life on earth in the past whereas high levels of CO2 never have.

Why then do we not hear politicians sounding the alarm, warning us that we must invest in preventing such a thing? For a small fraction of what it would cost to change the climate we could develop the technology to detect and then alter the course of an incoming asteroid.

The politicians never bring up this danger, not because it is not real, but because they get no political mileage from it. They can’t use it as a means to pass new laws, regulations and taxes so the danger takes a back seat.

(2) Solar Flares. The question is not if, but when. In 1859 we were hit by one that knocked out telegraph systems all over America and Europe. Scientists say that we are overdue for another one which could knock out most of the electoral grid and many computer systems and storage. The result could be a collapse of civilization that could set us back decades or more.

This is a much larger threat to our way of life than climate change as such a coming event is quite certain. Again, preparing for it would only require a fraction of the cost of changing the climate. The electrical grid in the United Sates is out of date and needs to be replaced. If we replaced the current grid with underground wiring we could be protected from the next major flare.

(3) A Magnetic Pulse. This could be created by an atomic explosion in our atmosphere by a rogue nation and would produce similar results. A nation such as Iran or North Korea could knock us out with just a couple explosions in the atmosphere rather than many that would be needed in an all out war.

Again, rebuilding our electrical grid would give us much more protection here.

(4) Nuclear War. This should be the greatest concern of all thinking people and we have to do everything in our power to prevent it. This is number one on my list of concerns for humanity.

(5) Super Earthquakes and Volcanoes. There is not a lot we can do to prepare for these, but they indeed should be on our list of concerns for they do happen from time to time. One concern is the super volcano in Yellowstone. If it blew it could produce devastation that would reach for thousands of miles. Then, of course there is the danger of the San Andreas fault creating a megaquake of biblical proportions.

There is indeed lots to worry about, but should we allow risk to control our lives or should we move forward productively with a certain amount of calculated risk? We’ll discuss this next.

For Part 8 GO HERE

Index for Recent Posts – Includes this series

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Discovering the New Age, Part 6

July 5, 2016October 1, 2019 Joseph Dewey

Discovering the New Age, Part 6

Sorting out Mind from Emotion

Acceptance of Reasonable Risk.

Risk is seen as a horrible thing by many of the black and whites in that it must be avoided at al costs. The mantra is, “If we can just save even one life, it will be worth the effort.”

To the feeling nature this sounds good and right, but not so with the one who uses the mind. To one who uses Aquarian reason this statement makes no sense and is counter productive in many circumstances.

Let us look for example into the cost of saving lives. “The Life You Can Save” organization says “According to the New York Times, in 2010 the US EPA used $9.1 million for the value of a life in justifying its regulations, the Food and Drug Administration used $7.9 million, and the Transportation Department used about $6 million.” LINK

When it comes down to specific endeavors the cost is much more. For instance, EPA’s rules on dioxin in hazardous waste costs $560 million per life saved. The nuclear regulator commission is willing to spend around $200 million per life saved on regulations on emissions of radioactive iodine. This is in addition to other safety measures built n a nuclear power plant.

Let us not go with the greatest number, but pick the average cost of a life saved thanks to the EPA, which is $9.1 million.

Is this reasonable?

Maybe not so much when one compares this to the cost of saving lives by other means. If one is really looking at the greater good and saving the maximum number of lives there are a number of very economical means, such as providing clean water in third world nations. Millions of people die each year or suffer immensely from drinking polluted water.

A company called Sun to Water has developed devices to use solar energy to take clean water right out of the atmosphere. They say that buying and distributing these can save lives at a cost of around $13 per person. LINK

Volunteers who provide dispensed water to the third world claim that if done at scale, costs a mere fifty cents per person per year per life saved – truly a bargain in human salvation.

Now instead of going with Piscean feelings let us use the mind and do a little calculating.

The EPA averages $9.1 million to save a life while the solar water people can do the same thing for $13. What is the difference in expenditure? Let’s see… $9,100,000 divided by $13 = 700,000. So our government through the blessed EPA spends 700,000 times as much to save a life.

What can we gather from this?

Actually the answer goes over the heads of the emotional black and whites which is this. Instead of saving one life for 9.1 million we could save 700,000 lives.

But that is not all. There are more shades of meaning to see here.

Let us suppose that you had $9.1 million in your pocket dedicated to saving lives and you were the decision maker between these two alternatives. Which would you choose?

Would you save one life or 700,000?

Another way to look at it is this. If you decide to save the one life, then 699,999 will die because of you. Do you want to be responsible for killing 699,999 people?

Putting it this way, all but the clinically insane would choose to save 700,000 lives.

If this is now so obvious to the reader the question becomes this.

Why do authorities in our government support such a waste in human lives?

Secondly, why do so many gleefully support our government’s wasteful efforts to protect us from risk?

Some may answer this way. “Our priorities are not third world countries, but our own. We need to make things as safe as we can here first.”

Okay… Sounds a little selfish considering the 700,000 to one ratio in human lives, but let us go with this for a moment.

It is true that in the United States it costs a lot more to save a life than in the third world. Few here starve to death or do not have decent water to drink.

However, there are thousands of poor elderly people who die from lack of heat in the winter or air conditioning in the summer. It certainly would not cost us millions of dollars per life saved there.

The National Law Center on Homelessness and Poverty states that approximately 3.5 million people, 1.35 million of them children, are likely to experience homelessness in a given year. Many of these depend on charitable refuges that save many lives from extreme weather and hunger and the cost per life saved there is very reasonable.

There are many ways to save lives everywhere that does not cost millions of dollars.

The point I am illustrating is that many people do not use their reasoning faculties in determining what they will support or how to deal with various risk factors. Many anti nuclear people are happy to see us spend hundreds of millions of dollars per life saved and as a result if you live next door to a nuclear power plant you get less radiation than you would from a luminous dial on your watch, or the bricks in your house.

That is more safety than we need . Many of those millions could have been better spent and saved thousands of lives.

Risk is a strange thing. Emotionally polarized people either get spooked by it and will support any amount of wasteful spending that claims to eliminate it or they will hide their heads in the sand and ignore the risk altogether.

We’ll discuss this further in the next section.

To be alive at all involves some risk.

Harold MacMillan

For Part 7 GO HERE

Index for Recent Posts – Includes this series

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Discovering the New Age, Part 5

July 4, 2016July 15, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Discovering the New Age, Part 5

Sorting out Mind from Emotion

Shades of Gray

There are two types of people on this planet. Those who see things in black and white and those who see shades of gray.

The first tends to categorize things as either all right or all wrong and the second is inclined to take all circumstances and data into account.

The first is the lazy man’s approach which requires little thought or contemplation. This is the Piscean Age of emotion approach as feelings tend to go one direction or the other with little thought of the in between. The second is the Aquarian mental approach which requires the use of the mind.

The black and white attitude is on display continually in politics and this tells us that we still have a ways to go before we get both feet in the Aquarian Age where mind is dominate.

The party or candidate is either all right or all wrong. If one disagrees with his mindset, he or she will be rejected out of hand and the accuser will defend his view as if all is in order.

The black and white attitude also shows itself when a candidate may agree with him in all matters except one that presses his buttons. In this case many black and white people will reject everything about the candidate. For many, the candidate must be philosophically pure to be accepted.

Many accept political issues based on black and white feeling rather than thinking through the total effects of their implementation. For instance, the previous subject of waste and inefficiency are often completely overlooked.

Here are some other examples of black and white thinking.

(1) Abortion is either all right or all wrong.

(2) Socialism, or any other “ism” is either all good or all bad.

(3) When there is a problem many will automatically support laws, rules and regulations as a solution rather than working with education that trusts in the people’s common sense.

(4) Politically correct speech is quite black and white as expression is limited to one correct way instead of multiple colorful and creative ways.

(5) Global warming. Many on both sides know nothing about the science but believe some sound bytes without questioning. Their side is all right and the other is all wrong.

(6) Spending. Many have a black and white support of spending on anything that sounds good without consideration of the debt or waste involved.

(7) Education. Many condemn or praise education as if all is bad or all is good.

(8) Risk. Many are willing to subject us to any amount of risk to get what they want but will accept no risk at all from policies of the opposing view.

And this brings us to our next topic – dealing with risk.

To every thing there is a season, and a time to every purpose under the heaven:

A time to be born, and a time to die; a time to plant, and a time to pluck up that which is planted; A time to kill, and a time to heal; a time to break down, and a time to build up; A time to weep, and a time to laugh; a time to mourn, and a time to dance; A time to cast away stones, and a time to gather stones together; a time to embrace, and a time to refrain from embracing;

A time to get, and a time to lose; a time to keep, and a time to cast away; A time to rend, and a time to sew; a time to keep silence, and a time to speak; A time to love, and a time to hate; a time of war, and a time of peace.

Eccl 3:1-8

For Part 6 GO HERE

Index for Recent Posts – Includes this series

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Discovering the New Age, Part 4

July 1, 2016July 15, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Discovering the New Age, Part 4

Sorting out Mind from Emotion

The Law of Economy and Waste

Doris just received a very large credit card and decided to make the most of it. Unfortunately she was a captive of her own emotional desires and not only overspent, but spent wastefully. Instead of checking for sales and finding the best price she often spent more than double what she had to on various products. Then when a store brand would do the job she would buy the much more expensive name brand. In addition to this she would often buy overlapping products. For instance, she had many more shoes than she needed and three cell phones when all she needed was one.

Shirley also received the same card, but took a reasonable approach and just used it when it was logically necessary. She shopped around and made sure she got the best price on needed items and used store brand and generic items when there was negligible difference in the quality. She refused to buy overlapping products and just purchased what she could efficiently use.

By using her mind and common sense Shirley subjected herself to the Law of Economy.

And what is that? DK mentions it often in the Bailey writings. It is basically this.

The creative Intelligence of the Universe follows a path which produces the greatest efficiency while using the smallest possible expenditure of energy. Those who follow the Law of Economy produce very little if any waste.

The Law of Economy can be seen at play from the sub atomic level on up to atoms, molecules, cells and all living things. The efficiency of nature is spectacular indeed.

We human beings have made many advancements in technology by observing nature, but we seem to really lag behind in incorporating this law in our lives and politics. Too many of us are like Doris and not enough like Shirley.

Unfortunately, most governments throw efficiency and the Law of Economy out the window and spend like Doris, often with no means to pay the final bill.

Here is the really strange part. Many who are quite conscientious about their personal budget and see themselves as common sense Aquarians will support extremely wasteful government spending. If government borrows to spend on a product or service they approve of, they give it their support while not even making a smidgen of effort to calculate the waste involved or voice concern.

Supporting government programs involving extreme waste is like being married to Doris and just trusting that she is doing the best possible job in making effective use of her credit card.

Does such wrong-headed support belong to the emotional Piscean mind or the mental Aquarian?

The answer should be obvious.

There is tremendous waste and inefficiency in most levels of government “help” and spending. I’ll just pick one – healthcare.

Before government started allocating spending on its citizens in an attempt to lower healthcare costs health care was pretty reasonable. I know because I had an accident at the age of 13 in 1958 that caused me to undergo six operations and spend a total of three months in the hospital. Four of those operations were by a renown specialist, the equivalent of which would charge a huge amount today.

My first stay in the hospital lasted a month and my room cost was $8.00 a day. The most expensive room was $14.00, but being concerned about money and having no insurance we opted for the most economical available.

$8 in 1958 dollars equals just $66.50 in 2016 dollars. That was a bargain any way you look at it.

The accident happened at the worst possible time. My Mom just divorced my Dad and received no child support. Our only means of support was from both of us picking fruit in the summer and my mom worked for near minimum wage at a potato processing plant for the rest of the year.

Could a fruit picker with no insurance pay off major surgery and a month’s stay in the hospital today? Not hardly. Today’s bill could easily run a quarter of a million dollars.

Now here is the crazy part. We paid off all the medical bills using our own money with no help from the government or insurance companies. My mom did take out a loan, but paid it off.

For later corrective surgery we did receive some help from a private charity, but again government was not needed or involved.

Today a typical stay in the hospital is around $4,000 a day or more. That means if I had to stay in the hospital today, the cost would be about 500 times more than in 1958. Adjusting for inflation it would still be about sixty times as much.

The irony is that, today, gas prices are a primary sore point with the public, the media and politicians. Everyone wants to investigate “Big Oil” for gouging us. Many also want to penalize them by taxing more of their profits.

But, even though gas prices seem high we should be praising big oil for holding their prices as low as they are.

The price of gas in 1958 was 39 cents a gallon in the area where I lived, and no one was grumbling about Big Oil. If the price of gas had risen 500 times, it would now cost $199.50 a gallon!

Why is it that by 2016 the price of gas and many other items has risen less than ten times the 1958 price, whereas a hospital room has risen around 500 times? It is puzzling that no one is asking this question. Even more puzzling is why people are not grumbling more about big hospital than they are about big oil or other commodities.

This great inefficiency started to plague us about the time that government stepped in to help us with our medical bills in the form of Medicare and Medicaid.

When these programs started in 1965, they seemed like a good idea to many, especially in consideration of the cost projections at the time. The public was sold on the idea that Medicare’s $3 billion cost in 1966 would only reach an inflation-adjusted $12.0 billion by 1990. The actual cost in 1990 was a whopping $67 billion. The “experts” were off by 7.44 times. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007, or 16 percent of all federal spending. Since that time, spending has continued to rise.

The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense.

The question is whether the bill could have even passed if the public had been given an accurate representation of what the actual cost would be.

In addition to this, the annual cost to taxpayers of Medicare and Medicaid fraud (not counting waste) is estimated to be around $100 billion. One estimate of the fraud of the whole health care system is $272 billion a year.

The bottom line is that there is no way one can claim he is in harmony with the Aquarian energies of the mind when if he supports programs that create such extreme waste. Anyone not ruled by pure emotion would support the elimination of waste and applying the Law of Economy before spending money on new programs that will do more of the same.

When I tell someone today. who thinks the government is doing a great job with our medical dollars, about the time before such programs when even a fruit picker did not need insurance because he could pay his own way, his eyes just glaze over and mumbles something to the effect that, “things are different today.”

Yes, things are different today and not in a good way, Government is extremely inefficient with our money in most areas of endeavor and the common sense, mental, Aquarian, new age attitude should be to shout, “Stop! Let us fix this problem before we throw even more money at such a broken system.”

Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that write grievousness which they have prescribed;

For he saith, By the strength of my hand I have done it, and by my wisdom; for I am prudent: and I have removed the bounds of the people, and have robbed their treasures, and I have put down the inhabitants like a valiant man:

And my hand hath found as a nest the riches of the people: and as one gathereth eggs that are left, have I gathered all the earth; and there was none that moved the wing, or opened the mouth, or peeped.

Isaiah 10:1, 13-14

For Part 5 GO HERE

Index for Recent Posts – Includes his series

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Discovering the New Age, Part 3

June 30, 2016July 15, 2016 Joseph Dewey

Discovering the New Age, Part 3

Sorting out Mind from Emotion

Freedom

Those who are stuck in the old age ruled by emotion will have a much different view of freedom than will the Aquarian thinker governed by mind and reason.

The astral approach to freedom is to take the black and white approach. This means the person will either discount rules and regulations so he can have his way or to support an excess of them to control the other guy. The Piscean character will assume that the other guy cannot be trusted with much freedom as he will abuse it whereas he sees himself as supporting freedom and he wants rules dropped that may control him.

An example would be the guy who wants drugs legalized because he wants the freedom to use them, but wants strict controls on guns as he does not own one.

The mentally polarized can see that the principle involved in both is the same. They both have a dangerous side and if we trust our fellow humanity with one then we should with the other.

The mentally polarized can see that much more can be accomplished with maximum freedom than with excessive rules, regulations and laws. The right amount of law insures freedom but excess destroys it.

There are around 40,000 new laws and regulations passed every year in this country and anyone but a madman should realize that is too many. How many can name even a dozen passed last year? Very few. There are so many that most of us broke several of them yesterday yet probably did not know what they were. The advantage for corrupt authorities having so many laws is that they can turn most anyone who offends them into a lawbreaker and go after them.

I have already written a lot about the Principle of freedom. Here is an excerpt from my forthcoming book on Principles.

The principle of freedom is a mystery just as most principles are. Why? Because it takes a certain degree of consciousness to apply the second key of judgment to understand and apply it.

When freedom is discussed among all people of divergent views it is interesting to note that all of them see themselves as struggling for freedom, even those who are enslaving others. Hitler often spoke of freedom. The Taliban speaks of their own freedoms. The Old South maintained they needed slaves to insure their own freedom. Abraham Lincoln noted this and observed that some people have a pretty strange idea of what freedom is.

Some think that freedom can only exist in a state of anarchy, but this is illusion for it takes a number of laws to insure the maximum freedom of the whole.

Others think we need laws to cover every detail of living to insure freedom, but too many laws and rules hinder freedom.

There are those who think life is not fair so they make restrictive laws to make everyone equal thinking greater freedom will result. This usually results in less fairness and diminished freedom for the whole.

The problem with freedom is that people view it from their own restricted vision. Instead of looking at it from its effect on the whole they look at it from the view of their own little isolated world. It may be true that a man could have had a slave and the slave helped him have a temporary increase in his own physical freedom, but the whole was less free.

The problem with freedom is we are looking for the manifestation of maximum freedom for the whole and to obtain this there has to be some restrictions on the individual. For instance, the individual burglar must not be given the freedom to break into homes. On the other hand, too many restrictions will suffocate freedom. Only those who see the fine point of balance in the middle and how the whole is affected will understand.

What is true freedom then? Again, it is the removal of restrictions either imaginary or real, so the power of decision has complete freedom within the sphere of its plan. Thus the true principle of freedom lies in the idea that the soul energy to accomplish is released so its life can flow through the ideas and thoughts of the pilgrim until all desires are fulfilled.

No matter what your belief system there will come trials in harmonizing the Principle of Freedom with personal feelings.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against abortion must allow the woman her freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against gays living together must allow them that freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against illegal drugs must allow the user his freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against Neo-Nazis promoting their doctrines must allow them that freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against cutting down trees must allow others the freedom of choice within their own sphere whether that choice be right or wrong — as long as no great harm is done to the earth.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against rules being laid down in a school, group or business must allow others freedom of choice within their own sphere of activity whether that choice be right or wrong — for the seeker retains the choice to work for another company, join another group or take another class.

Each potential disciple will have some final temptation to support the unreasonable restriction of others in the name of promoting his personal desire to see that which is good triumph. The deception is that true good can only magnify in an atmosphere of maximum possible freedom.

So the principle that the gathered lights will always apply is maximum freedom for the whole. The only time any freedom is taken away from the individual is when it increases the freedom for the whole. Like I say, we take away the burglar’s freedom because the burglar takes away the freedom of the whole so by taking away the burglar’s freedom we increase the freedom for the whole. The principle involved with freedom is the wholeness aspect; maximum freedom for the whole. The seat belt law is a simple little thing but it’s totally unnecessary to have a $200 fine for a seat belt infraction. It may force us to buckle up but on the other hand it creates big brother telling us what to do with outward authority over our lives.

What we need to develop is power to have our own personal freedom and do what is right because we decide to do what is right. We do right because we see what is right; to help our fellow man because we want to help our fellow man. By doing these things we can enhance the flow of the energy of God because the energy of the Holy Spirit operates on total freedom.

Where freedom is taken away, the Holy Spirit does not flow. People have gone to very oppressed nations and visited them, particularly Russia when it was totalitarian and was in full power-it’s a lot better now than it was-but when people have gone and visited these oppressed nations, people look depressed, they don’t talk to each other, there is no flow of ideas. They’re afraid that somebody will report what they’ve said. They’re afraid all the time. There is a spirit of fear. They’re doing what’s right maybe, according to the state, but they have no freedom.

The greatest evil is always generated when people are forced to do what is right. The force to do what is right has so much power behind it because they say, “We need to create a law to make this happen.” People say, “That would be good. Let’s go ahead and do it.” They don’t even think about the principle of freedom involved. They never argue the principle of freedom. When our legislators are talking about passing laws, they never think they’re taking away freedom. The argument is always over making people do what’s right. If they would only argue over what the maximum freedom would be generated. How can we make the law so freedom will not be infringed, freedom of the whole will be amplified rather than held back. There are, like I said, a small handful of laws for robberies and rapes and murders and these types of laws, are good for people but there are too many laws that infringe freedom.

For Part 4 GO HERE

Index for Recent Posts – Includes this series

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Gathering 2016

June 29, 2016August 17, 2018 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 18 of 31 in the series Audios

Part 1 Shirley’s Trip to the Future

Higher Spiritual Contact& Dreams by JJ

Next we have Curtis Harwell talking about making a heaven on earth. We missed the first couple minutes of his presentation so it starts in the middle of a thought.

JJ Continues here and talks about Discerning the Truth

JJ on Illusion and glamor

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Discovering the New Age, Part 2

June 20, 2016July 15, 2016 Joseph Dewey

June 20, 2016

Discovering the New Age, Part 2

Sorting out Mind from Emotion

The core difference between the old age and the new is emotional polarization vs mental. DK emphasizes that a great benefit of the coming age is that people will shift to the mental plane in their thinking, “the plane whereon the Masters can be found.”

Humanity has made some progress in this direction but the vast majority are still emotionally polarized. If you confront their dogmatic beliefs with logic and reason they will just tune out, reject and seek to have their astral ideals reinforced.

There are a lot of things I could present, from the plane of the mind, concerning political beliefs that would be instantly rejected by many students. Such controversy usually accomplishes little but the establishment of grievances. Instead I am going to present several items of a political nature that most would agree must be handled with logic over feeling. If we can see eye to eye on these then perhaps a door may be open for wider agreement.

The first item to examine is the completely illogical and outrageous national debt.

By the end of the Obama administration the debt will be around $20 trillion dollars. That is about a quarter of a million dollars owed by a typical family of four.

And where can you find a typical family of four to come up with the quarter million cash to pay their share?

You can’t.

So the politicians just kick the can down the road in hope that the someone in the future will be responsible for the reckoning.

Is it logical that our government has run up such a huge debt in our name?

No.

Is it logical that the American people just acquiesced and let them do it?

No.

Is it logical that millions of Americans encouraged such borrowing and support it to this day?

No.

So, what accounts for this madness? Does it come the emotions or the mind?

Obviously such recklessness does not come from a people centered in reason, but from the emotional plane where logic usually takes a back seat.

But even emotional people have a brain. We all know lots of emotional people that still handle their budget in a reasonable way. How could we have let this happen to or country?

The answer is really quite simple. We the people have just not been paying attention to the details. We have trusted our financial fate to politicians and they tell us that there is no problem with the money they are spending… not to worry.

If we compared our country to a family it would go like this.

Jeb has a credit card with a very high limit but just makes an average salary. There are many things the family desires that cannot be obtained with his salary alone. Since his wife and kids are always complaining about what they do not have Jeb feels under pressure and starts to cave. He drives a used car but everyone wants a new one, and a sporty one at that. He buys one with his magical credit card and is a big hit with all in the family except little Eddie. Eddie is a smart little kid, a whiz on computers, gadgets and numbers.

“How are you going to pay for this car, Dad?” He asks.

Everyone turns on Eddie and frowns. His skepticism seems to spoil their excitement.

“Don’t worry about it,” says Dad.

“Yeah, don’t worry about it,” the others echoed.

Now the family had been pretty frugal with buying their groceries and Jeb was getting complaints that the neighbors eat better than they do. He thought about the praise he had received for buying the new car so he thought, “What the heck! I’ll buy better quality groceries with the credit card. After all, why should we do without when the neighbors have what they want?”

Jeb started buying quality foods with his credit card and soon little Eddie voiced concern about where the money was coming from. Jeb had some second thoughts and cut the grocery budget for a few weeks, but got so many complaints from the rest of the family that he went back to buying the good stuff. He thought, “We deserve this,” and threw in some expensive wine on the purchases.

Soon his son, Andy, graduated from High School and wanted to go to a good college. They had enough money set aside for him to go to a local junior college and live at home, but Andy didn’t like that idea.

Andy told his Dad, “I don’t want to go to the local backwoods college and stay at home. That is humiliating when all my friends are going to the good university in the big city.”

Jeb responded, “But, son, that would cost three times as much as the local college, especially considering, higher tuition and room and board.”

“But Dad, it’s for a good cause. It’ll give me a greater chance to get a good job.”

Jeb hesitates, “We just don’t have the money son.”

Andy triumphantly comes back with, “But you have that great credit card and if you really loved me and wanted what is best for me then you would use it.”

Jeb did love his son and he felt guilty that such love was ever in question so he gave in and sent Andy to the good college.”

Little Eddie voiced some concern about the large debt and interest accumulating on the credit card, but the Mother said, “You love Andy, don’t you?’

“Yes,’ said Eddie.

“You want what is best for him don’t you?”

“Of course.”

“Then let us get behind supporting him and sending him to the good college that he deserves,” said the Mother.

You see where this is going? Soon, not a month goes by that some new desire to spend for a benevolent purpose surfaces. There seems to be no end to good spending causes for the family.

And what is the inevitable result of such recklessness? Basically the same as a Ponzi Scheme.

Soon the payments and interest become so great that Jeb has to make payments by charging them to the card itself.

Finally comes the day that the bank carefully examines Jeb’s situation and becomes alarmed. They completely cut off his credit and take his card back. Then they demand payment in full. They tell him that if he doesn’t have the savings to pay then all his assets will be sold and proceeds taken by the bank.

The Jeb family then suffers a total disaster. They have to sell their car, their house and Andy has to drop out of college and get a low paying job. They now barely have enough for groceries and all other wonderful purchases are sold or returned.

Now they have nothing of value.

And why?

Because they followed desire/emotion rather than reason.

What could have prevented the disaster?

The solution was extremely simple. They should have only bought what they could afford and when they saw they were over extended they merely needed to cut back on their spending. They needed to realize that they could not afford everything they desired, even if the desired seemed to be benevolent.

Now the really odd thing is this.

Most families are fairly responsible with their credit cards and even the majority of the more irresponsible ones do not go so crazy that they will suffer a collapse through purchases that are not absolute necessities.

Now we, as a nation are like a big family that has a huge credit card, as did Jeb. Most of us can stand back and look at Jeb’s decisions and see them for what they are. They were based on the old age emotion desire aspect and not the Aquarian reasoning.

BUT…

Half or more of our population seem to have no problem with our exorbitant debt or adding much more to it as long as part of the money spent fulfills some of their personal desires they see as benevolent.

So I ask this question. Do decisions that support this dangerous spending come from the plane of the mind or the emotional/astral? Are they related to the old age, attached to desire or the new, seeking a mental polarization?

One would think that all but those anchored like cement on the old age would see where the mental polarization would lie.

Conclusion: Those attached to the old age, linked to the desire nature, will support totally irresponsible spending, even for many things that are not real necessities, to get what they want.

The mentally polarized will seek to a balanced budget and responsible spending, even if some of the good things they desire are not obtained. Instead they will work to obtain their desires through practical and logical and harmless means.

For Part 3 GO HERE

Index for Recent Posts – Includes this series

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE