Category: Teachings

June 23, 2014

The Fifth Key

We had a great gathering with a lot of fresh faces. The Principle of Glory is now out there. For those who were not at the gathering here is an additional hint.

Question:

Who is it that can give glory and what is the only way it can be created?

 

June 25, 2014

The Fifth Key Revealed

Here is the latest hint:

Who is it that can give glory and what is the only way it can be created?

To this Assaf gave the closest answer:

“The ones who see the accomplished creation can give glory to the one who accomplished it, to the creator, whoever it may be.”

That is pretty close to the principle. What Assaf saw here is that the Principle of Glory may have nothing to do with God, but one who creates (God, angel or man) and the one who recognizes the glory of the creation.

Here is the principle of Glory:

One cannot give glory to himself, but depends upon others besides himself for any recognition he receives.

The group kept making the mistake of saying that only God can create glory, but this is not true. God could have created the whole universe and if there were no living being in it who appreciated the creation there would have been no glory. Not even God could pat himself on the back and given Himself glory. If he were alone there would be no evidence that the creation would be seen as a thing of value by another living being.

Let us say that Stephen King gave a speech saying, “I am one of the greatest writers who has ever been born and you’d better appreciate that.”

Would that enhance his glory as a writer?

No.

It would take away from it. People in the audience would think, “What a jerk!”

On the other hand, if a respected person introduced King and said, “Here is Stephen King, one of the greatest writers ever born, and he deserves our appreciation.” What would be the response? The audience would agree and his glory would be enhanced.

The story of Moses not giving glory to God illustrates that God himself cannot give glory to himself and depends upon others to do it. In the work that God and Moses were doing together God depended on Moses giving him credit where credit was due. Moses smote the rock and took credit for the water coming forth and violated the principle which is sacred, especially among the higher lives. God calls himself a jealous God because even He depends on others for glory and does not want others to deceptively take credit when the credit is due to Him.

In the parable of the best seats the guest tried to take glory to himself by taking the most honored seat. But he had no power to take the glory to himself. The host ordered him to take the lowest seat and placed someone else there.

John 7:18 “He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true.”

This very clearly illustrates the principle that you cannot be glorified by seeking it for yourself, but must be glorified by another. Jesus realized that  he was to give glory to God and in return God would glorify him. Neither Jesus or the Father could glorify themselves.

If we want glory and recognition we cannot demand it for ourselves but must wait for others to give it. If you do what you consider to be a great work and no one says anything then there is no glory. You cannot rectify the situation by demanding to be recognized. The only solution is to enhance the work until someone does recognize it and gives glory. After glory is given by one then others usually follow.

***

Sorin:

Sorry, but this so-called principle is plain common sense, and has nothing profound in it.

JJ

Then obviously you do not understand it with its implications. The highest of us all, the Christ, saw the profoundness of the principle and often talked about it.

Sorin:

If anything, it is so broad in definition (glory = external/public recognition)

JJ

You are not enunciating the Principle of Glory so obviously you do not understand it. The principle has little to do with the definition of glory as you just related.

Sorin:

that it actually encourages cult leaders and other delusional folks to think they are actually receiving glory because they are worshiped by ignorant people…

JJ

The principle has nothing to do with cult leaders and only worship as far as God is concerned. You are really confused here.

Sorin

This looks more like the principle of idolatry than the principle of glory.

JJ

So if you think someone does a good job and you tell them so you are them practicing idolatry? Strange reasoning indeed. I guess you are not an idolater then for I do not see much praise coming from you for anything to anyone.

Sorin:

There are people that received no external recognition but they are maybe more glorious than anyone else out there, anonymous people that sacrificed themselves for truth and justice.

JJ

This statement tells us you do not understand the principle which you just called “plain common sense.” There is no glory without recognition. Glory is created from the consciousness of intelligent lives. As I said, if God created the universe and there was no one in it to praise or appreciate the work then he would have no glory. You cannot glorify yourself. Thinking that a work deserves glory does not glory make. Many have sacrificed themselves for a cause and received no glory because no good was produced by the sacrifice.

 

June 26, 2014

Re: The Fifth Key Revealed

Ruth:

So, a molecule is activated only when someone gives glory to others in that molecule? Is that what this principle means?

JJ

Glory has nothing to do with the activation of a molecule. It is activated by the members achieving unity through soul contact, and being accepted by the Christ. The violation of the Principle of Glory could hinder group soul contact though.

Tom:

Thomas Kinkade never received glory for the great artwork he has done as most people put his artwork down…maybe he received glory from a few that

liked his work but most people hated his artwork and would not give him glory…what do you say to this,

JJ

I do not recall anyone here saying anything negative about your artwork.

All of us, whether high or low, must do the same thing with our work. We must do our best at creation and then present it to the people and let them decide. If they give us glory we will feel everything was worthwhile. If they say negative things or ignore the work then the creator must reassess his work and either work to improve or change direction.

Believe me… I have done many things for which I have received no glory and if I did not just accept the response and move on the effect on me would have been negative. Sometimes an attempt at a work that receives little recognition in one life is preparation for great recognition in a future life.

Tom

What if someone was working behind the scenes and helped create stuff for Steve Jobs that he later used for the computer but he never gave him any credit and took the credit for him self. This unknown person received no glory for helping to initiate the computer.

JJ

If you’re working at the creative level at Apple you are probably making over $200,000 a year. That is pretty hefty recognition for your contribution. A company does not pay that kind of money unless it recognizes a person’s talent.

A new product coming on the market is usually the result of the hundreds if not thousands of cooperating minds and rarely does the company list them all. If it is a fair company the management will do it’s best to acknowledge the contribution of its various employees.

Now if Steve Jobs had lied and stated he created an improvement when someone else was behind it then he would have been violating the Principle of Glory. When something like this happens in a company there are usually people who do know the truth and acknowledge the work.

Even if someone else takes credit for a work the creator still receives glory when people praise the creation because the creator will know that they are praising something he initiated.

***

Duke:

I must be missing something,

The way the story reads to me, Moses was not intentionally deceptive…

JJ

No one said that Moses was intentionally deceptive, but when he gave the impression that the power was his then he was thoughtlessly deceptive.

Duke:

but rather committed a social faux pas by not taking the time to explain that God deserved the credit.

JJ

It wasn’t that he was expected to give a sermon on it. God expected Moses to not take credit. After all Moses said,

“Listen to me, you rebels. Must we get water out of this rock for you? Moses raised his hand and struck the rock twice with his staff. Water gushed out in abundance and they all drank, men and beasts.”

If Moses had merely said something like “God will create water for us” he would have kept out of trouble. Instead God saw a violation of the Principle of Glory, which Moses understood, and “the LORD said to Moses and Aaron, ‘You did not trust me so far as to uphold my holiness in the sight of the Israelites; therefore you shall not lead this assembly into the land which I promised to give them.’” Numbers 20:10-13 NEV

Duke:

I also don’t see where God let him know he’d screwed up and gave him a chance to apologize and correct his mistake either; maybe he did and Moses refused, but I kinda doubt it.

JJ

He made it plain that Moses screwed up in the above verse. Moses did not lose his reward but the Principle of Glory is so sacred to the higher lives that God did not want to take the chance of Moses assuming unearned glory to himself again and thus falling into darkness. For the rest of his life Moses got to practice the Principle of Glory but suffered the effect by not entering the promised land.

As it was, Moses received great recognition:

And there arose not a prophet since in Israel like unto Moses, whom the LORD knew face to face. Deut 34:10

As disciples to enter the promised land of full soul contact we must consistently practice the Principle of Glory for as soon as we assume unearned glory a cloud of darkness descends which is difficult to lift.

Duke:

Must admit I’m not really impressed with this God that Moses was busting his butt to serve and then Moses uses the wrong wording and God holds it against him for the rest of his life.

JJ

Suppose you wrote a book that you were really proud of and you gave the book to a trusted friend to share with a group. Then you find out the friend makes the claim that he wrote the book and takes credit for it’s contents. You may not write the friend off forever, but you would be offended and not trust him again until he has proven himself over a period of time.

We are in the image of God and if we want to understand God we must understand ourselves and when our glory is taken by another we become angry. So do the higher lives on their own level.

Before the Principle of Glory is understood in its fullness the inclination is to think it is small minded to desire appropriate glory be given, but it is not small minded at all for without the implementation of this principle creation would come to a halt and the glory or God would cease to be.

Duke:

So does God really need his pats on the back, and does he really get that indignant when he doesn’t get them?

JJ

All life forms in the universe need this, even God. Truth is the core principle guiding higher lives and the Principle of Glory can only be violated with deception. To uphold truth, the Principle of Glory must apply. There is much more to it than desiring a pat on the back. If that is all one sees he does not understand the principle.

Duke:

Should we be like that too, and punish the people in our lives who fail to give us the glory we feel we deserve?

JJ

You are not seeing this correctly. That is not the problem. The problem is not receiving glory for what we feel we deserve but what we do actually deserve.

If I think a book I write is a masterpiece and you think it is a piece of junk and say so then you have not violated the Principle of Glory just because I think the book is good. I would accept that and allow you your opinion, as I should. But if you read the book and think, “This is great, I wish I would have thought of this,” and then proceed to present the book, or its original ideas, as if you wrote it yourself, then you are stealing my glory and I would be upset and would not trust you for some time.

Duke:

Yes I understand that credit should be properly given, but how pissed off should we be, and for how long should we hold our grudges, if we feel slighted?

JJ

I have had people steal my ideas numerous times and do not feel a grudge but do not trust the person in this area until he can prove he is willing to follow the Principle of Glory.

No one likes to be stolen from and the stealing of intellectual or spiritual property is seen as a much greater violation than the stealing of a physical commodity. Artists, for instance, are very upset when someone plagiarizes their songs or writings. This is why we have copyright laws which uphold the Principle of Glory.

Ruth

God still needs help in uplifting his lower self.

JJ

The Principle of Glory applies to higher and lower selves. Upholding truth is universal and applies to all planes of existence.

Greg Anderson’s Account of a Past Life Regression at the Gathering

 

June 22, 2014

Past Life Regression

By Greg Anderson

As part of the Gathering of Lights 2014 JJ Dewey did a past life regression exercise with the group. He began by having each in the group relax and then placed us in a deeper state of conscious hypnosis. He took us to our most recent past life. As I tried to view and understand what I was looking at, I saw a deep blue view before me. I thought it might be the sky, but there was little recognition or confirmation of what it was I was seeing

 

I next had a very brief view of a city in rural America much like what I imagined in pioneer days or seen in western movies. Inside I was straining to clarify the picture, but it would not budge. I felt hopeless in trying to see. To my surprise, JJ then went further and had us as a group; go deeper in thought and to see our next life. At his suggestion I was there. I could sense and see where I was. I was hiding in a wooded area a small distance from a military fort, and I knew instantly that I was a spy. I was looking upon the troop movements of the British army. I was thrilled. I had actually seen something. The feeling was profound. The visions was clear.

 

At about this time JJ chose to bring us out of the deep meditative thought and we were then brought back to the present. JJ then went around the room and questioned each as to what they experienced and saw. I shared with him, and the group, what I relayed above. After JJ visited with each person regarding their experience, he came back to me and asked me to come forward. He sat a single chair in the midst of the group, and had me sit down. JJ took me back to the deep meditative state and the life two times before.

 

I found myself back in the forested area looking upon the movement of the British troops. I knew instantly why I was there. I would record what I saw and then in code I would send the information to Washington and the Continental Army. I then saw that I was spotted by a patrol, chased down and captured. JJ asked me if I knew George Washington. This brought forth a flood of memories. I shared with the group that I indeed did know George Washington. I knew him very well. We lived in proximity of each other.

 

He asked me what I knew of the character of George Washington. My memories knew him to be honorable and a good man. JJ asked me if he was perceived as such by others in the area. The memories came forth and I shared that there were those within the area that were loyal to the crown and did not trust Washington. JJ asked me about my conversations with Washington. I remembered that they were of the finest conversations; much of what we discussed rang true to my soul. I had developed a trustworthy relationship with Washington. As the time came and war broke out, I was asked by Washington to be a part of a special group that was to gather information regarding the enemy and their movement. JJ asked me “What then.” My memories went back to my capture. I was questioned and beaten for two days as to Washington’s movements and plans. I did not respond. I did not yield, for I knew I held in my hands the lives of many friends.

 

On the morning of the third day I was dragged before a wall to be shot. I arose slowly as my broken body would allow in an act of last defiance. At this point tremendous fear flooded back to my memory. I began to weep as I continued relaying what I remembered. There were six muskets aimed at me. I looked into the eyes of each of my executioners, and then closed my eyes. JJ asked me what happened after I left my body.

 

Where did I go? I remembered a great peace that came over me. I was brought before an entity. I only remember the form and the intense light. A review of my life took place. JJ asked me how many people were there at the review. My memory could only recall two. JJ asked me what they looked like, but I could not gather any further clarity other than a form with great light. JJ then asked me what was the conversation between me and the entities. The memories came forth that in the review of my life that I had been sent to learn and manifest courage in the face of adversity. I remember being very disappointed that I was not able to help in the further cause of independence. I did however have satisfaction and peace regarding my purpose in this round.

 

JJ asked me what I knew of the outcome of the time regarding the war for independence. After searching for the right words to answer his question, it basically was that I knew that the probable outcome would be successful. JJ then asked “What then?” I remember planning with these entities my next round and what was need for my development, but also in furthering the cause of light. JJ asked me if I had ever been with these two other beings in carnation? The overwhelming feeling was yes! Who they are or were, I cannot clarify in my memories.

 

JJ then asked me to go ahead to a time between lives. He asked if it was a reunion with friends. I did not recall that. I remember the desire I had in my heart to be in the presence of those I considered to be Gods. I remember finding great love and solace in being with them for a time. JJ asked me if I had any birthmarks. I shared with him I did, and JJ indicated that they often indicate trauma from past lives.

 

At this point JJ brought me back to the present consciousness. At this point I was conscious in the present, but I was also still seeing this past life. Members of the group asked some questions which I tried to answer. The gathering was closed, we said our good byes to those who were not going to dinner with us, and left for the restaurant. However, as I was traveling with my wife and companions to the restaurant, a very profound experience then took place, with an extraordinary exchange between me and persons from that era, whom I had associated with regarding some instruction for the remaining time I had on earth.

 

I won’t share in this forum the remainder of those events, but it reaffirmed to me the doctrine of eternal lives and the principle of re-incarnation. I am indeed very grateful to Artie and JJ for the gathering and the time and efforts that were spent to help make me a better person. I feel very fortunate to have made many new friends, whom I can honestly say that I love. There is a familiarity with them that goes beyond this past weekend’s activities. To some this may seem like nonsense. To me it was very real, and I think those in the group that experienced it with me can attest to the extraordinary spirit that was with us.

 

June 27, 2014

Re: The Fifth Key Revealed

JJ Quote

“Many have sacrificed themselves for a cause and received no glory because no good was produced by the sacrifice”

Sorin

What about those that sacrificed themselves but there was nobody around to observe the good produced? Maybe they received the unseen glory of God.

JJ

Such people could not glory themselves but any sacrifice that accomplishes something good is seen and appreciated by someone, either in this world or the next, and thus the person receives recognition and glory.

Sorin:

Your principle is:

“One cannot give glory to himself, but depends upon others besides himself for any recognition he receives.”

My question is how does this principle help you discern between false and true glory?

For instance, you see glory for Bush when he started the war in Iraq, but I see false glory and accuse him of murder.

JJ

False glory is that which is forced upon people as has happened with tyrants such as Hitler, Stalin, Kim Jong Un etc. Here people have to praise their leader or go to jail, or be killed. Praise given in that situation is not real praise but truly false glory.

If praise is given freely then it is not false glory but sincere praise. Now, there are many situations in life where the decision to praise, be apathetic or condemn is a judgment call. Moses was not praised by everyone and I’m sure there were a number who though he was guilty of lots of sin including murder. His own brother and sister judged him to be unworthy because he killed an Egyptian, but Jehovah affirmed (gave glory) that he was the man for the job.

Most everyone who receives glory for something that is a judgment call does not receive accolades from all. Some people even hate the Beatles but since a high percentage give them glory they will go down in history in a positive way. The fact that some hate the Beatles does not take away from the glory given by those who like them.

Even so with Bush. The fact that you do not approve does not take away from the sincere glory of those who praise him for certain actions.

Some time from now the world may see Bush in a much different light than they do now just as we now see Truman in a much better light than those did who lived under his administration.

The main point of the Principle of Glory is not to get everyone to agree or disagree that a certain action is good but that glory comes from sincere praise and recognition from somewhere else besides the creator of the action or work. The one responsible for the work should get the recognition (good or bad) and not another. Glory should not be stolen.

Believe me if Bush had found lots of WMD people on both sides of the aisle would have been lining up to share the glory. When glory is achieved people come out of the woodwork to take or share credit when no credit is deserved.

Sorin

I use the principle “Judge a man by his actions”, and consider the evidence out there.

JJ

That is what everyone tries to do, not just you, but different opinions are formed and for every action some give glory and some do not.

Whether or not an action or a teaching is good or bad is a judgment call and the closer it is to the will of God the more glory the person will eventually have. Jesus only had 200 people to give him glory after the resurrection while the world condemned him, but now billions give him glory. Even though a small number still do not give him glory he is probably the most glorified person in our history.

It is definitely true that Bush was responsible for taking us into the war with Iraq and deserves the recognition, pro and con, for that action. It is also true that John Lennon wrote the song Imagine and deserves to be recognized for that. By following the Principle of Glory the ones who are responsible for an action get the glory or the condemnation. If someone plagiarized Lennon’s work then he would be violating the Principle of Glory.

Sorin;

Secondly, how does your principle add more to the standard definition of glory?

JJ

It doesn’t. Why would you ask a question that has nothing to do with the Principle of Glory? People already know what glory, praise and recognition is. We do not have to add to it. Obviously you are not looking for the principle.

Sorin:

The meaning of glory already presupposes the idea of recognition by others. That’s the simple meaning of the term. It’s common sense.

JJ

All principles are simple and appeal to the common sense. The key to understand the principle has nothing to do with understanding the definition that everyone already knows but in realizing that you cannot give glory to yourself or obtaining it by demand or theft. It must be voluntarily given by others. Even God would have no glory without us voluntarily giving it to him.

Sorin

How can you tell between a good job and a bad job if only the good job should receive glory? Your glory principle ignores this point…

JJ

No it doesn’t. Through deception a person can obtain temporary glory for a bad job but when the final results are seen the job can be more correctly assessed. For instance, Obama started out in a blaze of glory which is quickly diminishing because of poor results. Bush is now more popular than Obama according to Gallup.

After we leave this world the true quality of a person’s work will be much more accurately seen and there the right people will receive just glory.

Sorin

I am not saying that your definition is wrong, what I am saying is that it adds no new understanding to the concept of glory.

JJ

I do not believe I have defined it because everyone knows what praise and glory is. You are missing the principle. When you see it vistas of understanding will open before you as it has for many who see a glimpse of the keys of decision and judgment – two other key words of which everyone knows the definition.

I will post the audio on it soon. Maybe that will help.

***

Sorin:

Both you and JJ get so upset sometimes, which is surprising for honest seekers of truth.

JJ

It does not mean that I am upset just because I disagree with you. If we used that criteria it would mean you are upset all the time. You have no power to upset me.

Sorin quoting JJ

Glory should not be stolen. […]

Sorin

The issue is not that people steal glory because they don’t know what your principle of glory is, they know what glory is.

JJ

You need to argue with what I say not with what I do not say. Of course that is not “the issue.”

Sorin:

They steal it because they are jealous and want the glory of the truly glorious one.

JJ

Agreed. And your point is?

Sorin:

Your principle doesn’t help much in convincing people not to steal glory.

JJ

That is not the main benefit of understanding the principle, though such understanding does make one more sensitive to all the ways it can be stolen. When one realizes how important this principle is to higher lives then seekers will take it to heart with more intent and be more assiduous in not violating it. I know that such understanding had that effect on me.

However, the main benefit is in seeing how glory is obtained and then taking the correct path to receive it.

Obviously, most people do not understand the principle as the majority go the wrong direction numerous times in attempting to receive recognition and glory.

Sorin:

The principle of karma is a much more effective principle in preventing people from stealing glory.

JJ

The Principle of Karma is the root of all other principles so the understanding of this naturally leads to more correct behavior. BUT the more we understand branch principles related to karma (cause and effect) the better we can control the outcome of this and future lives. If one attempts to create his own glory it will have the effect of reducing glory. This is karma in action.

Sorin:

True glory should be given to God, not to himself, because creativity is a gift from God not a self concoction.

JJ

So if one practices all his life to master the violin are you saying the guy should get absolutely no recognition for the great effort that creates a performance that people enjoy? God himself in the scriptures gives glory to those who perform well and it is a correct principle for humans to do this also.

Sorin

It’s kind of a false dichotomy. You don’t need a principle for this to happen, it happens automatically…

JJ

All principles work automatically. What else is new?

Sorin

Well, maybe because your principle is not really a principle, and only repeats the definition of glory?

JJ

This has obviously gone over your head. The people in the Keys had weeks to guess the principle and over and over I told them that the definition of glory was not the principle. Now I have told you this in my recent posts and you still do not get it. After many attempts no one here got the principle so it is obviously not so obvious as you seem to think.

There is an insight here that has never been presented to the world before and as evidence of that you can use Google all you want and not find it. You can find lots of definitions of the word glory but you cannot find anyone teaching the principle and it’s implications – of which there is more to come.

Sorin

Everything you say is fair, but it’s nothing new or illuminating.

JJ

Okay, find someone else teaching the principle. You may find others teaching ingredients but not the whole principle, which has gone over your head, and when you argue with me you keep going back to the definition of glory rather than talking about the principle and it’s implications.

Nothing any teacher says is entirely new but sometimes new insights are given. Even many of the teachings of Jesus had been given before but not with the insight and emphasis in which he presented them.

***

Sorin

You’re logically inconsistent. How is “Glory should not be stolen” NOT part of the main benefit of the principle which is “seeing how glory is obtained and then taking the correct path to receive it”?

JJ

You have little power to prevent people from plagiarizing or stealing glory from you, but you do have full power over your behavior which will determine the steps you take to receive glory.

For instance, in the seating parable I cited. The guy had full power to pick his seat and he chose the highest in an attempt to glorify himself.

Sorin

That’s based on the law of karma not on the principle of glory.

JJ

All principles are related to karma, but you need to examine more than the word “karma:” to understand them. You are really being nit picky here lately. What is getting into you? You were not like this until you realized you disagreed with me politically and now you act like I am an enemy who can say nothing right. You are acting very out of character compared to the way you used to be. I think you should dispassionately examine your bias here.

Here are ten other principles out of many I have covered.

1 Male-Female Energies

2 Freedom

3 Law of Correspondences

4 Energy Follows Thought

5 Initiation

6 The Name of Christ

7 The Ring-Pass-Not

8 Good and Evil

9 The Ancient Law of Evil Sharing

10 Law of Dominating Good

These are all related to karma, but a surface understanding of karma will not explain any of them, just like it will not explain the Principle of Glory which you are attacking merely because I have presented it. It appears that from here on out that anything I present that is new will be attacked in the same way with your new approach to my teachings – with no effort to see the significance.

Sorin

No. Karma for instance has to be known to be actively used, otherwise its usage is passive.

JJ

There are people who suffer or benefit from the results of karma every day, not because they understand it but because it is automatic. After all, it is merely the result of cause and effect. When a cause is set in motion the effect is automatic whether the cause is known or unknown.

Sorin:

While your principle of glory “One cannot give glory to himself, but depends upon others besides himself for any recognition he receives.” states something widely accepted by everybody

JJ

If this is so widely understood them why did no one, including yourself, get the principle after weeks of time and dozens of hints? It is because that most have not realized that even God cannot give glory to himself but must get it from others. Where have you ever read before that God is powerless to manifest his own glory? You haven’t. Obviously I am not just stating the obvious. If it were so obvious someone in the group would have seen it after the dozens of hints I gave.

On the other hand, after a principle is explained it always seems quite simple though the real meaning is still going over your head, as you do not want to see it.

 

June 29, 2014

Re: Past Life Regression

Dan:

Awhile back you mentioned something about hypnotizing someone in order to have their “higher self” diagnose their illness.

1) What “higher self” would you contact via this method; solar angel, guardian angel, higher mental, etc?

JJ

If I said higher self I may not have been technically correct. Deep hypnosis can access all the computing power in your subconscious and often this access can give the patient a pretty accurate diagnosis. In doing this sometimes a link will be established with a higher part of oneself, in turn linked to the solar angel, and some information will filter down, but not always.

Dan:

2) You have mentioned that hypnotic experiences are fraught with illusion from various sources. Is there a way to “invoke” this particular “higher self” such that you have less chance of contacting a less reliable, “lower” self or the hypnotized person’s desire to please, and etc.?

JJ

There are many grades of hypnosis and the first thing to do to avoid illusion is to get the subject in a deep state. Information retrieved from a light state is not as reliable as that retrieved from a deep state unless the person is very sensitive. Even in a deep state the subject may be relating some misinformation. An experienced hypnotist can usually tell how reliable a subject is and there are things he can do to help with accuracy.

Greg seemed to be quite accurate. Some of the signs were the depth of the feelings retrieved and the amount of details given. If we had more time he could have come up with a lot more information.

Dan

3) Is it possible to do this via self-hypnosis? If so, will you suggest a technique/method/script for doing so.

4) Is “self hypnosis” really possible?

JJ

Most self hypnosis puts you in a light hypnotic state compared with regular hypnosis, hence to accomplish the same thing you need to give yourself suggestions or visualizations many times. The best way to do this is to make a recording of an affirmation and play it over and over. You can also enter the hypnotic state by using a recording of a hypnotist’s voice, but I would recommend one be present if you want to go deep. Once you go so deep you do not recall anything that transpired unless directed to.

With rare exceptions the only way to go deep through self hypnosis is to get a hypnotist to put you under and then direct you to have the power to put yourself under and safely bring yourself out of it.

Dan

5) Assuming #4 is “yes”, then will repeated self-hypnosis be as potentially detrimental as hypnosis (by another) and cause one to become more susceptible to hypnosis (hypnotic suggestion) from other sources?

JJ

Regular self hypnosis would do little to make you more susceptible, but if a hypnotist directs you to have the power then it could over time.

Except on rare occasions I use guided mediation which puts subjects in a light harmless state where they can bring themselves out at any time. This is deep enough to always get some in a group back to past lives. Going deep a couple times should be fairly harmless, but I wouldn’t recommend doing it often as it does increase one’s susceptibility to suggestion.

Ruth:

if Greg had not had that past life experience at the Gathering, would those two past life people still have been able to contact him later on at some stage to tell him more?

JJ

Probably not though he may have had impressions through dreams or reflection.

Ruth:

Was it just a coincidence, or did you specifically pick Greg out of the group at the Gathering to stimulate more contact with those working behind the veil.

JJ

In each group regression I pick someone who I think is sensitive to go deeper. We usually get something interesting retrieved.

Ruth:

I know you have said in the past that our past lives are not that important to focus us because we need to work in the now and with who we are in this life, and sometimes past life information can cause a glamor for that person if they think that they were an important person in one of their lives etc.

Or do the people at the Gathering who you take back into past life regression need to know who they were in that life and how they are connected to you?

JJ

I do not believe I said past lives are not important. After all, they make us what we are today. What I did say is that it is not important to let the world know who you are, especially if you think you were someone famous. There is a lot of glamour and control around this as many gurus claim they need to be believed because they were a great sage in a past life.

All knowledge can be useful and if one can retrieve a past life it will broaden his perspective. The knowledge of the retrieved past life should be for personal use and not as a tool to show the world how great you are.

 

June29, 2014

Here’s a treatment for gallstones which worked like a miracle for my wife.

Liver And Gallbladder Cleanse

1. Monday through Saturday noon, drink as much health food store apple juice or apple cider as your appetite will permit, in addition to supplements and regular meals.
2. At noon Saturday, eat a normal lunch.
3. Three hours later, take 2 teaspoons of disodium phosphate or Epson Salt dissolved in one ounce of hot water. The taste may be objectionable and may be followed by a little freshly squeezed citrus juice.
4. Two hours later, repeat step 3.
5. For the evening meal, have grapefruit juice, grapefruit, or other citrus fruits or juices.
6. At bedtime have
7. 1/2 cup unrefined olive oil followed by a small glass of fresh grapefruit juice, OR
8. 1/2 cup warm unrefined olive oil blended with 1/2 cup fresh lemon juice
9. Go immediately to bed and lie on your right side with your right knee pulled up close to your chest for 10 minutes
10. The next morning, one hour before breakfast, take 2 teaspoons of disodium phosphate dissolved in 2 ounces of hot water. Eat a large, greasy breakfast. (Ex. Bacon & eggs, fried potatoes, etc.) This will get the gall bladder to flush out any gallstones within hours.
11. Continue your normal diet and nutritional program. If a large number of gallstones is found in the stool, repeat in 2 weeks.

 

Re: The Fifth Key Revealed

Sorin:

I understand that criticizing can be annoying, but I am a bit disappointed when your response is an invitation to piss off. Obviously some will disagree with you, but it’s not the end of the world.

JJ

I do not believe I have told anyone to piss off in my life. Where are you getting this? You need to complain about what I do and say not with what I do hot do and say.

You have undergone a drastic change in approach of late, as if a switch has gone off in your mind, and you must now look at everything I say with a jaundice eye and disagree even before it is clear that you have anything to disagree with. After all, I haven’t even presented the audio yet on the Fifth Key.. I think the switch went off in you after we discussed the Iraq war.

The switch has not happened because I was reasonable in the past and now, all of a sudden, everything I say is completely unreasonable. That makes no sense at all and no one else is seeing such a change in me.

Sorin

You provided some good answers to my questions, hopefully your answers will be useful to some other people as well.

JJ

Actually even though you seem to have made a big switch in attitude your challenges are useful for they bring our more detailed explanations.

JJ Quote

It is because that most have not realized that even God cannot give glory to himself but must get it from others.

Sorin

On the other hand, if God suffused himself in all creation, isn’t God giving glory to himself?

JJ

A person can pat himself on the back but that doesn’t do much until someone else acknowledges that it is deserved. We have a local crazed guy who has run for president several times. He pats himself on the back thinking he is the best man for the job, but it doesn’t do much good until he can get others to vote for him.

To receive glory God had to nurture distinct individual lives. When we all realize our oneness and go to the great rest of pralaya then there will be go glory or light and dark, but rest and absorption to prepare for the greater glories to come.

***

Gathering Audio Explaining the Principle of Glory

LINK

 

June 30, 2014

The Gathering 2014

Yes, since we are talking about the Principle of Glory we should give Steve Evans recognition for coming the closest to enunciating the principle. This was the first gathering for Steve and Jenny and a number of others who were a delight to meet.

 

July 1, 2014

Re: The Gathering 2014

Ruth:

Why did you say in the audio that you gave out the 12th key earlier, just in case something happened to you in the future?

Are you worried that things are not progressing as fast as they should be, because of the failure to get enough home study groups or study groups off the ground around the World to prepare for molecules and the gathering?

JJ

The future is not 100% predictable and i am getting older so I figure I should get as much as I can out there in case something unpredictable happens.

The work has not progressed as much as I had hoped but we still have a ways to go to meet the time for the beginning of the gathering in earnest which I have always said should be around 2025-2030.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

June 5, 2014

Another Radio Show

I was on the air again with Dr Lorraine Hurley Wednesday morning. Here are the links if you want to listen.

Hour 1

Hour 2

June 6, 2014

 

Fasting

Looks like they are finally doing a long overdo study on fasting. Check it out.

LINK

 

June 7, 2014

Introduction to the Molecular Relationship

Stephen has been putting together a couple web pages as kind of an introduction to the Molecular Relationship. He’s been running everything by me for approval and doing his best to put together materials that will help the new seeker.

Take a look at his pages and let us know if you think thee are things that should be covered that isn’t or improvements that would help.

LINK1

LINK2

 

June 8, 2014

More on Global Warming

It is difficult to arrange my thoughts within the 200 word limit but here they are for the next Statesman Letter.

The thinking of global warming alarmism is comparable to a crazy guy heading full steam ahead over a cliff while putting all his attention on trying to correct bad radio reception.

There are a number of threats many times more serious than an increase in the plant fertilizer – CO2.

Here are some.

(1) The threat of an asteroid. The question is not if but when this will happen. In the past an asteroid wiped out about 90% of life on earth and another hit could destroy the human race.

(2) A solar flare. The question is not if, but when. In 1859 we were hit by one that knocked out telegraph systems all over America and Europe. We are totally unprepared for another event like this which would create chaos and destruction.

(3) A magnetic pulse created by an atomic explosion in our atmosphere by a rogue nation would produce similar results.

(4) Nuclear missiles headed our way. This can be overcome by a missile defense envisioned by Reagan.

Future generations will look back on our judgment and by comparison the flat earth people of the Middle Ages will look pretty good.

***

Keith:

J.J. every item on your real threat list is likely to happen. The only question is in what order?

JJ

Statistically the asteroid would be number four in order. We are not likely to have a major threat from one for thousands of years though one could show up next week. We just had a close flyby of one large enough to destroy New York City.

A nuclear attack is not a sure thing but a solar flare is and we are overdue for another one. We could avoid disaster by burying our cables underground – a thing which some other nations have done.

***

Sorin:

“The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.” http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

JJ

Wrong. Most researchers believe the Medieval Warm Period was warmer. In addition we had a period of about 1000 years with a midpoint in 1100 BC which was much warmer.

Take a look at this chart:

LINK

Sorin

“Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

JJ

I’ve responded to this numerous times but it must have went over your head. The 97% answered a couple very nebulous questions – so much so that I would answer with the 97% and cannot understand why even 3% of the scientists answered to the contrary. The 97% merely agree that humans have some influence on the climate but there are no specifics on how much that influence is. Within the 97% the guesses (and they are guesses) range from 1% to 120%. You ought to read the convoluted reasoning as to how humans could be responsible for 120% of global warming.

Sorin

NOAA:

“Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/climate-change-and-variability

JJ

First of all you are referencing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which places emphasis on ocean studies. You also need to check data from UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCRUT and then compare then to get a good feel of the overall picture.

So, if global warming is due mainly to humans activities then what has caused the non global warming, or the pause, in the last 18 years? Have humans ceased doing anything?

And how about the global cooling from 1940-1978? Did humans cause that also?

Overall we had global cooling from 1940-1978, global warming from 1979-1998 and then a pause from 1998 to the present. Did humans cause all these or just the warming from 1979-1998? Some basic common sense is needed here and many scientists lack this trait.

And if humans did not exist would climate change just cease to be? Using the logic of many of the alarmists that is the conclusion one would have to reach, which is ridiculous. Before humans arrived there were occasions where there was greater climate change in a week than the past 100 years.

You just can’t take in all that the beast of authority doles out to you or you will be deceived every time. You must look at the facts and put the together for yourself relying on your inner authority for the final conclusion. That is the path to be delivered from the mark of the beast in the forehead.

 

June 9, 2014

Faster Than Light?

Tom:

Physicists at the CERN laboratory in Geneva announced in September that

they had detected a neutrino traveling faster than the speed of light, a

finding that violated Einstein’s venerable theory of special relativity.

They retested the speed of the neutrinos and concluded they were not traveling faster than light after all. Overall Einstein was pretty accurate though even he admitted he made mistakes. He rejected the Big Bang at first and later accepted it calling his steady state theory his biggest mistake though his cosmological constant that seemed to be a mistake is being examined again to explain dark energy.

***

 

Failed Global Warming Predictions

I’m tabulating some failed predictions from global warming scientists and supporters.

FAILED PREDICTIONS

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. This did not happen. It would be difficult to find a dozen such refugees caused by global warming.

They have attempted to erase that prediction from the web but are now claiming that it will be further into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.

LINK

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 (Made Jan 8, 2007)

LINK

Prediction made in 2007: Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013

LINK

But in 2013, Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent from 2012 levels. Data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft showed that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic miles during the same time last year.

Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow. It was 14 years ago now when UK climate scientists argued that global warming would make snowfall a “a very rare and exciting event”.

LINK

May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

They were off about 400%

LINK

“Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972

“I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”

ABC, The Miracle Planet, April 22, 1990

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

Here’s a clincher:

95% of the climate models made by the scientists the left trusts so much are wrong.

LINK

Would you trust a wild eyed religious guru if his predictions were wrong 95% of the time? if not, why trust wild eyed Al Gore and his supporting band of U.N. scientists?

Conclusion: this teaches us to not trust the authorities of the world just because they say a thing is true. Look into it for yourself and then decide.

***

 

The New Key

Ruth:

Giving Glory to God is what Jesus always did.

JJ

You have mentioned the Key word which is “Glory.” Now the real question is what is the principle behind it and how does it work?

This is as far as I want to go in giving hints before the gathering. In the meantime the group can attempt to solve the key, and we’ll see who comes closest to the truth. We’ll talk about it shortly after the gathering.

***

 

June 10, 2014

Climate Change

Sorin

Did you just say that NASA is wrong and you are right?

JJ

It’s not just me who has an issue with NASA switching from concentrating on space to global warming. 50 former NASA astronauts and scientists had enough and wrote a letter protesting NASA’s dive into propaganda.

LINK

None of the current NASA employees had the guts to sign it because they were worried about losing their jobs.

Global warming activism at NASA comes mostly from James Hansen, a leftist and ideologue. Back in the Seventies he tried to start a campaign against global cooling but then switched to global warming when it became politically expedient. So, I guess NASA was wrong even from your view when Hansen warned of global cooling.

Sorin:

You misread. The text says “proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years”. Your graph only shows a sudden rise in temperatures only for our current period of time. The medieval warm period had a much more slower heat increase rate. What caused this sudden increase? Maybe humans?

JJ

Even interpreting   this literally it is still wrong. In this current time frame – that is the last 18 years – warming has pretty much flatlined. 2013 was cooler than 1998 so you can’t say that in the present time warming is proceeding an unprecedented rate.

From 1880 to 2012 the planet warmed a mere .85 degrees C which is not alarming at all and has made the earth greener and more productive. LINK We do not have complete records of the Medieval Warm Period but it is quite possible they had a similar rise in that length of time. It is guessing to say otherwise. Geologists tell us that the earth has had some quick temperature changes in the past.

Human caused CO2 has undoubtedly caused some warming, but the effect has probably been less than 20% of the whole.

JJ

The 97% merely agree that humans have some influence

Sorin

Did you just say again that NASA lied? The text reads “97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities”. I’ll go with NASA on this one too.

JJ

I wouldn’t use the word lie, but I would use the word “distort.” They present the idea that 97% of the scientists surveyed support the idea that warming is “due to human activities.” (And the survey was not done by NASA) They present it as an all or nothing thing which is absolutely false. The question is not whether humans are a warming factor. Instead, the question is HOW MUCH? If humans did not exist there would still be warming and cooling and this survey makes it sound like all warming is 100% due to humans.

Just about all scientists agree that CO2 is a warming factor but disagree on how much. The guesses range from less than 1% to 120%.

The reason, of course, they were not specific in their survey is that almost all scientists believe that human released CO2 does have a warming effect so if the answer can only be yes or no they will admit that humans do have an effect. I also claim they have an effect so I am with the 97%

Sorin

I have shown you that concerning the war in Iraq you where fabricating historical data to be in accordance with your view.

JJ

Your fantasies are getting out of hand here.

***

 

June 11, 2014

Cosmos Comments

Nathan:

You totally missed Tyson’s point JJ because, like you accuse of Tyson, you have the agenda of the global warming “skeptic.” Tyson did not deny that Venus being closer to the sun doesn’t contribute to its increased heat. Tyson was implying that a large portion of the increased heat is due to the CO2 content, which is absolutely true.

JJ

Here are Tyson’s actual words.

“The surface is hotter than a broiling oven, hot enough to melt lead.

“Why? You might think it’s because Venus is 30% closer to the Sun than the Earth is, but that’s not the reason.”

It sure sounds like he is discounting the fact that Venus being closer to the sun is part of the reason Venus is hotter. And he didn’t say that CO2 was a “portion” of the reason for the extra heat. He left the unscientific viewers with the impression that it was the total reason. And I think he made this distortion in an attempt to scare us into thinking the earth may become like Venus if we do not fall in line with Climate Change Agenda.

Like I said he would have been correct if he had said. “that’s not the total reason.”

The truth here is so obvious, I’m surprised you are trying to argue with it.

Nathan:

Venus is farther from the sun than Mercury, so how could Venus be slightly hotter? Perhaps it has something to do with, oh I don’t know, lots of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere?

JJ

You need to argue with what I say, not with what I do not say. Of course there is a greenhouse effect on Venus. There is also the effect of the high pressure of the atmosphere being 90 times that of earth which also creates some heat. My point was that Mercury is closer to the sun and has a surface of about 800 degrees, which is very hot and the heat is only due to the sun illustrating that being closer to the sun does cause a planet to take in extra heat. This point should be beyond any argument yet Tyson made it sound like Venus being closer to the sun than the Earth made no difference in temperature.

JJ Quote

But if we go upward about 30 miles we would arrive at an atmospheric density similar to that of the Earth, and get this. The temperature is no longer boiling hot but actually a lot like of our planet.

How can this be when the atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. Looks like we have the opposite of a greenhouse effect with CO2 there experiencing more earthlike conditions.

Nathan

Are you being serious right now JJ? Have you ever been up a mountain and have gotten that sensation of pressure in your ears? That’s because the atmosphere gets less dense as you go higher up. Everyone knows this. The same is true on Venus, so therefore even if the atmosphere is still 96.5% CO2, there is still much less of it and therefore much less greenhouse effect.

JJ

You missed my point completely. Of course all atmospheres get thinner as you go higher. That was what I was saying yet you are using it as a point of argument. That is very strange.

When you ascend on Venus until you get to the same atmospheric pressure as the Earth’s surface atmosphere the amount of CO2 is still 2400 times more in quantity than on the earth, yet the temperature is fairly cool like earth. So we have an example of an area (Venus’ upper atmosphere) where CO2 in an atmospheric pressure as on earth is fairly cool even though the concentration of CO2 is 2400 times as much as exists here. You’d think that with the extra solar radiation and the high concentration of CO2 that it would be a lot warmer, but it’s not. This indicates that scientists may be giving too much weight to the greenhouse effect of CO2.

***

 

Brat’s Amazing Victory

Here is an interesting piece of data concerning the election upset:

“Cantor’s office spent more money renting out steak houses for campaign events than Brat’s office spent during the entire election cycle, according to FEC campaign finance data.”

I’d say that if Cantor unsuccessfully spends $5 million to defeat an unknown candidate who only spends $100,000 that he needs to go.

LINK

 

June 13, 2014

The Fifth Key

We’ve just had a couple stabs at the principle behind the Key since I acknowledged the Key word is “Glory.”

Here are three members going the right direction:

Duke:

I see two aspects to the word “Glory”. One is, giving credit where credit’s due. The other is, a sending up of energy.

Ruth:

The Principle would have to be something along the lines of “Acknowledgement”..

Giving Glory to God is what Jesus always did.

JJ

These are all effects of the principle but not the principle itself.

The name of the Key is

“The Principle of Glory.”

There is a principle that brings glory. What is it?

***

 

Wind No More

Looks like the environmentalists will soon be protesting wind power as it is causing a huge disturbance in the animal kingdom.

LINK

Then solar power is also frying some birds that fly to close so if they get their way we’ll eventually be left with our own body eat as the only desirable source of energy.

***

Nathan:

No I’m afraid not JJ. There are no environmentalists that are protesting wind or solar power.

JJ

I was speaking of the future, but it is already happening and will just get worse.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most famous environmentalists in the country and the other Kennedys are not far behind, but have protested and enacted lawsuits to prevent the contraction of wind turbines way out in the waters of Nantucket Sound because they will destroy the pristine view even though you need binoculars to see them from land.

Link 1

Here are three other links of environmentalists protesting wind power.

Link2

Link3

Link4

Here are three links concerning protests of solar power. The last one takes place way over in China.

Link1

Link2

Link3

***

Nathan: “You are not referencing mainstream environmentalists.”

JJ

Wow, you are really a moving target You said nothing about mainstream environmentalists, but said: “There are no environmentalists that are protesting wind or solar power.”

On the other hand, you cannot get any more mainstream than Robert F. Kennedy Jr, one of the most famous environmentalists in history suing to stop production of wind power..

If you Google it you can find dozens of stories of environmentalists unhappy or protesting with aspects of wind and solar. I gave seven and that should have done the trick. One link was bad. Here it is again LINK

 

Nathan: “The only exception was with the one in China which protested a factory of solar panels, not solar power itself.”

JJ

That is like saying that people are not unhappy with oil itself, but the byproducts of oil. The manufacturing of solar panels is part of the whole package. No one protests energy itself, but many are upset at the processes that bring it to us including wind and solar.

 

June 14, 2014

Re: Wind No More

I answered Nathan’s letter last night but it seems to have disappeared into the ethers. I’ll briefly answer it again.

Nathan claims that I am painting all environmentalists with a broad brush saying that all, including RFK, are against wind and solar.

Nothing could be further from the truth and not sure where he is finding this in anything I have said.

He gives an incomplete quote from Kennedy. Let me repeat what I actually said.

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most famous environmentalists in the country and the other Kennedys are not far behind, but have protested and enacted lawsuits to prevent the contraction of wind turbines way out in the waters of Nantucket Sound because they will destroy the pristine view even though you need binoculars to see them from land.”

Now did I say there he is against all wind? No. He is against wind in his own backyard while claiming to support it. He compares putting the wind farm out at sea so far that you need binoculars to se it as the same thing as putting a wind farm in Yellowstone. That is a ridiculous hypocritical comparison. Wind farms at sea create a lot less distraction than many I have seen in California as I have driven though those distractions from nature.

It is an ironclad truth that some (not all) environmentalists are protesting some wind and solar production. This is not because they claim to be against wind and solar in principle but they are increasingly finding details with which they disagree that make it difficult to produce energy from these sources.

(1) They are growing concerned about, pollution during the manufacturing process

(2) They are concerned about wind and solar disturbing the environment, insects, birds, animals etc at planned locations.

(3) Windmills killing birds that fly into them and solar plants frying birds that fly into the hot zone.

(4) As we increase production, wind and solar becomes an eyesore on the natural environment. This causes an increase of concern not only to the environmentalists, but the general public.

My point which Nathan did not seem to understand is that environmentalists concern over the impact of wind and solar will only increase as the years go by. Even if breakthroughs are made in the technology and it appears that we can have unlimited energy from them I suspect that this will not make them happy and they will increasingly find reasons why more wind and solar cannot be installed just as they did with nuclear and hydro – the two cleanest, as far as release of CO2 goes.

I don’t know why that one link did not work. Here is the actual address. It works when I cut and paste.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1914&dat=19941028&id=zps0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=IGsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4643,6205779

 

June 15, 2014

Laggards

Ruth,

So did the Jew laggards lose the game in the previous universe, and now the game is harder for them in this universe, to learn from, of course.

JJ

In each round you lose some and you win some depending on where we put our attention. In the last solar system (according to DK) those who are now incarnated as Jews concentrated too much on the material aspect and not the spiritual and had come to earth at this time to learn additional spiritual lessons.

In many ways life is easier for them because they have, as a race, a lot of material savvy under their belts. That is why they have always been good at accumulating money and possessions – until their neighbors become jealous. Because they are old souls many of them have excelled at whatever they attempted because they have more experience than most other humans.

***

 

Re: The Fifth Key

The group has posted some good insights related to the Fifth Key but no one has enunciated the principle.. When you discover it you will see that it is really quite simple and makes a lot of sense and explains a lot.

I don’t want to reveal it here before the gathering but I will give these additional hints in questions.

If one expects to receive glory what must he not do, and what must he do? What must he receive from his associates and why?

***

Ruth:

Are we a talking about Glory as Praise or Glory as Light?

JJ

We are not talking about brightness or shining light and neither does praise always produce glory. Obama has received tons of praise from the media but will go down in history with very little glory.

We are talking about recognition of true achievement.

The group keeps naming good qualities that the person receiving glory should have. Yes, good qualities are important to good achievements but has little or nothing to do with how the principle works. A person can be trustworthy, honest, kind, loving etc and complete screw up the Principle of Glory because he does not understand it and has the wrong focus.

***

Larry Woods is dancing around the edges of the principle but no one

has stated it. It is like it is neatly tucked away in a box and

everyone is looking outside the box. Larry’s post looked at the edges

of the box.

JJ

***

Good comments from all but we are looking for the principle not definitions. We are not looking for the leaves of the tree but that which gives the tree life. Think. What is the principle that determines whether man, angel or God receives glory for his work? It is very simple but no teacher I know of has taught it in fulness.

I do not want to give out a lot more here as I do not want to acknowledge what the principle is until the gathering. So far only the edges of the box has been approached.

***

John Crane brought us closer to looking into the box in one of his posts. I can’t give many more hints without telling the group the key outright. Think again. What needs to happen before a person receives glory and what would be the sentence that encapsulates the principle?

 

June 18, 2014

Re: The Fifth Key

The group says some good things but no one has moved any closer to the principle since John Crane posted.

Here is a huge hint for you that illustrates the principle.

When he noticed how the guests were trying to secure the places of honour, he spoke to them in a parable : ‘When you are asked by someone to a wedding-feast, do not sit down in the place of honour. It may be that some person more distinguished than yourself has been invited ; and the host will come and say to you, “Give this man your seat.” Then you will look foolish as you begin to take the lowest place. No, when you receive an invitation, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he will say, “Come up higher, my friend.” Then all your fellow-guests will see the respect in which you are held. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled; and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.’ Luke 14:7-11 New English

***

Someone is opening the box and coming very close. I’m not going to say much more in the way of hints till after the gathering. I will give one more tonight. I will say this. The principle is hiding in plain site in the parable.

***

Johann

This must be it, start at the bottom and work your way up. The same applies for each new incarnation. Then the achievements are plainly seen for what they are, in time, and the respect that comes with them. Again this forms a chain moving ever higher.

JJ

Great discernment, Johann. That is not the principle of Glory but worthy of further contemplation.

That is the irony here. Individuals are looking for the truth in various directions and hence are finding truth; so even if you are not the first to discover the Principle of Glory you are likely to find something interesting.

Why?

Because you are looking.

***

Dan:

Seek not for glory, follow the highest you can perceive, and glory will find you.

JJ

That’s not the Principle of Glory, but a great statement of truth. It could be in the famous quotations section someday.

 

June 19, 2014

The Key

Major Hint.

The Key is hidden in plain site in these scriptures.

John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

John 8:50 And I seek not mine own glory:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

***

Ruth:

But we can’t guess the key before you have given it out at the Gathering……….?

Two or three words fit in here, but I am sure someone else might find the exact key word…….so I will add these in, because it is something along these lines…..

JJ

Sure you can guess it. That’s what the group is trying to do. If someone gets it I may not fully acknowledge it until after the gathering, but no one has got it yet though one has come close. You already have the key word which is glory. The challenge now is to explain the principle in a way that shows you understand it. In the past day the group has been saying some good things, but drifting away from the box.

 

June 20, 2014

More Hints

My Friends,

Thanks for your effort in attempting to grasp the understanding of the Principle of Glory. The group continues to make good observations but has come no closer despite the powerful hints. Some wonder how in the world can the principle be lying there in plain sight in several scriptures and hints and not be able to see them.

It’s a little like the story of Columbus and the egg.

After discovering the New World, a dinner was held in his honor. Afterwards they were talking and one of the guests stated something like this:

“Columbus, what you did was really no big deal. Since you have sailed to the new world, many others have done the same thing. What makes you think you have done anything great since others are now doing the same thing you did.”

To this challenge, Columbus took an egg off his plate and handed it to the heckler and said: “Take this egg my friend and see if you can make it stand on its end.”

The man looked at the egg and said: “It’s impossible.”

But Columbus urged him on: “You’re wrong. It is possible. Go ahead and try.”

The man tried several times and each time the egg rolled over on its side. After he failed several others tried it with the same results. Finally the frustrated audience handed the egg back to Columbus and said: “We do not think that such a feat is possible, but if you really believe that it can be done please show us how.”

Columbus then took the egg back and smashed it on its bottom end on the table. The bottom of the egg was crushed into flatness and the group stared at the egg doing the impossible – standing on its end. Then Columbus taught them an important lesson. “Now I’ve shown you how to do it, the easiest thing in the world is to follow.”

He was right. A minute before no one could make an egg stand on its end. A minute afterwards everyone could.

Similarly, there are many great principles hidden in the words of the masters and the prophets and we do not see them. I have had various scriptures memorized for maybe 30 years and then just driving down the road with my mind blank the scripture comes into my mind bearing a new meaning that I had never seen before. When this happens I almost feel like slapping myself for after such an event the meaning seems so obvious.

Even so it is with the Principle of Glory. The principle is very simple, more simple than some of the explanations that have been given here. It will seem obvious after I give it out. I’ll give it out to the group here shortly after the gathering.

One last hint.

Do not look for definitions or concern yourself with what glory is. We all have the general idea. Look for the principle that creates glory.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

May 25, 2014

Question Five

When seekers learn about the left hand path and the Dark Brothers they instinctively assume that they are not a part of that direction. And why do they assume this?

Because their intentions are good. Not only this but they want all kinds of good things – like world peace, eliminate poverty, equal rights, sharing wealth, do away with weapons of mass destruction, increase the level of education, increase human rights to name a few. Surely this seeker with such good values couldn’t be one the bad guys side, could he?

Don’t be so sure.

If a hundred randomly selected people were to meet a representative of a the Dark Brothers and talk with him over coffee, a good ninety of them would go away thinking the guy was a nice guy with good intentions and ideas. They wouldn’t have a clue as to what his true intentions were or where they would take us.

A small handful would sense that thee was something off in the guy and pay a lot of attention to the exact wording that comes out of his mouth. These would read between the lines and see that something was amiss.

If you meet a supporter of the dark side he is not going to stand out as some sinister figure who wants more crime, prostitution, slavery child abuse etc. Instead he will often come across as squeaky clean.

Take a look at that list of good intentions we made. He would be for all of them.

Let us pick just one – world peace.

The Dark Brothers and all their representatives want world peace and will openly call or it. The problem is that they want it on different terms than the Brotherhood of Light. They want to establish world peace by suppressing, by use of force, all dissent and points of view contrary to their thinking. Their idea of world peace is something like North Korea where there are no challenges to authority because all the people are controlled by fear.

Of course, they will not tell you this but they will tell you how much they are in favor of peace and such talk will sound benevolent to those who ignore their own souls.

The Brotherhood of Light will tell you what they want to accomplish and then proceed to do it. The Dark Brotherhood will pretend they want to do the same thing but then cleverly steer their acolytes toward a different end that was hidden from them.

The main dividing line between the two brotherhoods is the Principle of Freedom. This tells us that we should seek maximum freedom through the use of minimal force.

For more on this principle go here:

LINK

Now what creates a inroad for darkness is that it is necessary that those on the right hand path use some force. For instance, the threat of force must be used to prevent murder, rape theft etc. Unfortunately, this gives the Dark Brotherhood an inroad to use more force than necessary while claiming that they are no different than the good guys.

The Dark Brotherhood teaching on the use of force at first will seem reasonable, but then they will, inch by inch, turn it up a notch at a time until a bewildered following will discover that they are no longer free.

On hindsight the wrong use of force, which is in the direction of slavery, seems obvious. For instance, just about all people today see that the Southern States were wrong in using force to keep slaves. But it was different if you were back there. They saw the work the slaves did by force produced good results so this made it a good thing in their eyes.

For instance, maybe a community needed a new school built and several slave owners donated their slaves for labor. After the school was finished the people looked upon the structure and declared it “good” and thought to themselves how good it was that they had slaves to build this for them.

Most people today can look back on this and see the illusion the people were under.

But does the illusion still persist?

It does and only the circumstances have changed.

Today many slave away working hard hours to pay more taxes than they desire or think is just. The government takes the money from this slave labor and builds many government buildings and employs many bureaucrats to work therein and they stand back and say: “This is good. It is a good thing that we tax these people more than they want to pay so we can do all these good works.”

Question Five: If the slave labor doing good works in the first example is wrong then is the slave labor to pay the unwanted taxes for good works today wrong also?

Will a future generation look back on us as we look back on the illusion of the slave owners in the South?

Explain your thinking.

 

***

 

Dan

Being the “soul of the universe” just means the current focus of interplay between spirit and matter is on humanity – as it was on the quarks in their time and the atoms in theirs.

JJ

We are just getting started in our function of the soul of the universe. Our soul energy in our bodies use intelligence to give them their form from the cells to the whole body itself. The organization of the universe by humans hasn’t really began yet as you can tell by looking at the random forms out there organized mainly by gravity, inertia and other forces.

The imagination of man cannot fathom what will take place among the stars and galaxies when human beings throughout the universe assume their rightful place billions of years hence.

 

***

 

March 26, 2014

The Trap of Illusion

Duke:

I don’t consider myself a slave. I consider myself a free man with responsibilities and obligations, one of which involves paying taxes. I look around at the country I live in, and really don’t begrudge paying my fair share for its upkeep and support.

JJ

And neither do I begrudge paying a fair tax to support my country. That was not what I was referring to. I was talking about taxation that goes beyond fair and every person has a line where that may be, including yourself.

Apparently the taxes you now pay is an amount you consider just, so of course this doesn’t make you feel like a slave. But suppose you had to pay a 90% tax and your children were going hungry. Then how would you feel?

Actually, if we include all the hidden taxes the average person in the United States pays more than a 60% tax. Because much of it is hidden we tend to not feel so cheated. In ancient Rome it was common to have a slave run a business and the master took a third of the profits and allowed the slave to keep two thirds. This proved to be a good incentive to keep the slave working hard. Variations of this practice was carried on by some in the Old South. Some slaves actually made pretty good money and dressed quite flamboyantly. Others were not so lucky.

The point is that many pay more in taxes than slaves in times past and, unlike you, they feel they are paying more than their fair share and a good portion of their money is being wasted. This causes numerous people to work for many hours where they could be enjoying themselves instead. If you are contributing in a way that you consider fair then of course you would not feel like a slave, but if you have to give much more money to an all powerful government than you desire or think is fair then you are a slave to a powerful master.

What we have to look at here is not what certain individuals consider fair but what the taxpayers as a whole feel. I’m not in a high federal tax bracket so I would not grumble for myself there but I am just as outraged if my neighbor has to pay an unfair tax as if it were myself. As far as other taxes go I think the payroll tax is too high for what we get, our sales tax too high and property tax is too high. If the money were well spent and efficiently managed I would feel much better about it.

The Swiss have a lot fairer system than we do because the citizens prevent the federal government from getting out of control. The maximum federal tax there is 11.5% and if a married couple make less than $30,000 they pay nothing. The capital gains rate for individuals is zero and they pay about a third of the property tax of the United States. On top of this they have no national debt.

Now if our country were run like Switzerland there would be few who would feel like slaves to the system and people like me would be happy to pay their fair share – because it would actually be fair.

Switzerland, the most Democratic nation on earth, with a history of Democracy for 800 years does definitely not fit into the accused stereotype of an irresponsible people voting themselves free stuff to their ruin. On the other hand, we as a republic are following this path.

Duke:

I associate slavery with misery.

JJ

A slave isn’t necessarily miserable. Many slaves in the Old South, after they were emancipated, said they were happier as a slave than a free person. After the fall of the Soviet Union many didn’t know what to do with their new freedom and were said to be happier in their slave state until they adjusted. That, of course, doesn’t make it right, for maximum freedom of choice is the destiny and right of all humanity.

In addition, many can be happier in a bad situation because they have a good attitude than others in a good situation with a negative attitude.

Duke:

I would like to know whether you think I’m aligned with the Dark Brotherhood because of my current beliefs in this area.

JJ

I think you are one of the most honorable individuals I have met and you do your best to follow the highest you know. The world would be a much better place if there were more like you.

That said, all those who have not passed the Third Initiation are susceptible to the trap of illusion and even people with the best of intentions may find themselves throwing support behind an idea supported by the Dark Brotherhood now and then. Way over 99% of the population support some type of beastly authority for instance.

The key for seekers is to follow the highest they know. When they do this their illusions will eventually be revealed. When revealed the highest they know will move up a step and to stay on the right path they must then take that step.

Only when illusion is dispelled can the disciple make a conscious choice to follow the right or left hand path. Until that time he must follow the highest he knows.

 

***

 

May 28, 2014

Global Warming Logic

Here are some of the highlights of my posts to The Statesman on Tuesday.

The logic of the Left makes absolutely no sense. They want to place our top priority on dealing with the effects of an increase of CO2 while placing other probable disasters that would be much more catastrophic on the back burner.

This is comparable to a crazy guy heading full steam ahead over a cliff while putting all his attention on trying to correct bad radio reception.

For one thing, we have had about eight times the current CO2 in our atmosphere in the past and life continued to thrive. There are a number of threats many times more serious than an increase in the fairly harmless CO2.

Here are some.

(1) The threat of an asteroid. The question is not if but when this will happen. In the past an asteroid wiped out about 90% of life on earth and another hit could destroy the human race. We have more technology to deal with a threat like this than we do climate change, but we are at the mercy of chance if the threat comes.

(2) A solar flare. Again the question is not if but when. In 1859 we were hit by one that knocked out telegraph systems all over America and Europe. If one happened again and knocked out all our electrical systems chaos would be the result and some estimate that this would result in the deaths of the majority of Americans through starvation and mob rule.

For less than $79 billion we could take measures to protect our grid from this event, which is overdue.

(3) A magnetic pulse created by an atomic explosion in our atmosphere. This could be accomplished by even a rogue nation such as North Korea and the results would be similar to a solar flare.

(4) Nuclear missiles headed our way. This can be overcome by missile defense and if Reagan’s plan were carried out without Democrat protests we could be safe right now. Instead Obama has cut funding for missile defense and reduced support for our European allies.

This may be the greatest threat we face but we want to place many times the attention on human caused CO2 emissions instead.

Future generations will look back on our judgment and by comparison the flat earth people of the Middle ages will look pretty good.

What is amusing about comparing my approach and that of the Left to global warming is this.

I am about 10% as concerned over the danger from humanity as they claim to be but about ten times more willing to support projects that will actually reduce CO2 emissions. Go figure.

 

***

 

May 29, 2014

Question Six

We’ve established that we should only borrow money as a nation for national emergencies. Wouldn’t it be great if our leaders understood this simple idea?

The main source of revenue is our taxes and we are often hit up for tax increases nationally, state and locally.

What kind of situation or demand would justify a tax increase?

Here are some that are often put forward.

(1) Additional benefits for the poor, minorities, disabled, unemployed etc.

(2) More money for education

(3) Defense

(4) Healthcare

So, what do you think justifies a tax increase and who should bear the burden?

 

***

 

Fun Site

Check this site out. Enter your last name and it will search through 250,000,000 names in the United States and tell you what percentage of them voted Republican or Democrat.

LINK

 

***

 

May 30, 2014

WMD’s

Soryn:

It is interesting that JJ said that Saddam was a big threat to global freedom, but many people see America’s intervention in Iraq as abusive, politically and oil driven. It turns out, Saddam had no nuclear weapons after all. So unless you can foresee the future, you will be inclined to say that the US commit an abuse by invading Iraq and interfering with the freewill, the sovereignty and the maturity of Iraqi people.

Any opinions on this JJ? You did argue for the caterpillar principle and so on.

JJ

First, let me compliment you for standing your ground and taking the heat here while continuing to be polite. We have no problem with different opinions if they are presented respectfully. Unfortunately, on many forums, like the Statesman, this does not happen.

Just imagine what would have been the result if either the United States or England had decided to take Hitler out in 1938 just before the start of the war. They would have been subject to enormous criticism and attack. Many would have claimed that Hitler was not a real threat and we were just war mongers interfering with a sovereign state.

This would have been one of the most benevolent actions in the history of the world yet no one would have known. If something does not happen then it does not exist, even as a possibility in the minds of most people. Few would have believed that Hitler was going to unleash such mayhem on the world.

So it is with Saddam Hussein. Because he was stopped in his tracks it appears to many that he wasn’t much of a threat after all.

In truth there was a lot more evidence that Saddam was a threat than there was for Hitler in 1938. He attacked a free country. He invaded Kuwait and forcefully occupied it. Why did he do this? It was a first step for him in acquiring domination of the oil in the Middle East. He was going to continue his aggression until he had the power to control other nations that depended on middle eastern oil. At that point he could have merely bought nuclear weapons from several nations.

Fortunately, he was stopped by George H. W. Bush. That did not stop his desire for conquest, however. After Saddam was captured we learned quite a bit from him, thanks to the expert interrogation of George L. Piro, an FBI agent who was assigned to develop the former dictator’s cooperation. After creating a positive relationship and some trust Piro got quite a bit of information out of him. Saddam did say that he was successfully disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War and he created a great bluff to make the world think he had them. He said that his goal after the first war was to get sanctions removed and once this happened he would rebuild his arsenal and develop nuclear weapons.

He came close to getting the sanctions removed several times and if George W. Bush hadn’t taken him out then it would have only been a matter of time before this happened. France and Germany were already dealing with him on the black market and much of Europe was looking forward to buying his oil again.

Once the sanctions were removed and Saddam had lots of revenue he could have purchased nuclear technology from North Korea, as they had a close relationship.

We have plenty to worry about in the world at present, but I am convinced we would have a lot more to deal with if Saddam was not taken out. I felt this in the core of my being from the time of the first Gulf War and was very disappointed the Bush One did not finish the job and take him out then.

 

***

 

DK on socialism, capitalism and education

JJ places a fairly high credibility on AAB/DK. But quotes like the ones you gave point out to me a fairly common mentality of the time, one susceptible to the fallacies of the day, and not one inspired from a higher level. Just my view. I don’t place nearly as much value on the AAB/DB writings myself.

JJ

Even though he is a master he is not infallible. The Beaver Principle applies here. Even though the beaver is in a lower kingdom than ourselves he can still build a better beaver dam than a human can.

DK is far removed from human affairs, especially the business world. The principles he teaches in support of freedom apply well but sometimes he is way over idealistic about how supply and demand should be handled – and this is because is is not involved in the fire of human day to day living as we are.

I’ll comment more on this shortly.

 

***

 

May 31, 2014

DK Quotes

Soryn quotes DK;

The control of labour by capital or the control of capital by labour must also go.”

Soryn

The control of labor by capital: for instance, money driven corporations with no social awareness whatsoever.

JJ

I have never encountered a corporation with no social awareness. Can you name one for me? I’ve called on many thousands of business and corporations in my sales career and I never came across one without some social awareness. Most of them are very concerned about their community.

Actually, I think DK spoke correctly here but worded it in such a way that many wrong and damaging interpretations could apply. Some could use this teaching as an excuse to use force to implement this ideal and that would be contrary to his teachings about freedom.

If the Molecular Business were universally adopted then this statement would come true, but it would be accomplished through free will and not the use of force – which DK was against.

Soryn:

The control of capital by labour: freedom for science, art, education and spirit from dictators or from the private interest of big businesses and corporate powers that seek to commercialize everything.

JJ

That is a stretch to get all that out of DK’s statement. For instance, for science, education and art to prosper in today’s world capital is needed. Without it, not much research or education would get accomplished.

We cannot just snap our fingers and use force to accomplish DK’s idea but it will take some time to evolve through free will. In saying this I am not saying you believe in such force.

Let us examine the statement. He says two things must go:

(1) The control of labour by capital

Here is the negative part of the situation created by those in power over labor as related in my treatise on the Molecular Business:

Since the beginning of business history the basic mode of operation has been the same: the man with the bucks has power to initiate a commercial endeavor. If he has a degree of common sense he succeeds and makes it profitable. In the process he hires a number of employees to work for him. Because he is the initiator he has full life-and-death power over their jobs, of which there is always a scarcity. Because of the scarcity of employment the initiator (or “boss” as we will call him) assumes a position of tremendous power over the lives of these subordinates. Any hint that they may be terminated fills them with foreboding fear and distress. Thus the boss assumes life-and-death power (concerning career) over his subjects just as a king, or dictator, has life and death power over his people.

The boss, therefore, establishes for himself a little kingdom, and for eight to ten hours a day he rules with supreme authority. Only after the workday ends do the subjects regain their freedom to run their lives, hobbies or additional work as they see fit.

As a kingdom grows, so grows the bureaucracy of the king. Alone he cannot control (or govern) the lives of all his subjects, so he selects others who agree with his philosophy and gives them power to be governors, or overlords, over the lives of the people. The people have no voice in the selection of these overlords but are chosen completely by the decree of the king. Each overlord has the same power as the king over the subjects, but controls a smaller group. The overlord is subject to the king just as the people are subject to him and he maintains his power as long as he pleases the king and stays within the guidelines of His Eminence’s philosophy. Thus, the overlords are not free, for they are also subjects, but they do have the advantage of power of dominion.

Correspondingly, we can easily see that as a business grows, it becomes a microcosmic kingdom. The boss cannot control the whole enterprise so he selects a bureaucracy of overlords. These overlords (executives, vice presidents, supervisors, foremen) direct the working lives of the employees and have the same power over their lives as the Number One Boss, except over a smaller number. The employees have no voice in the selection of these overlords but are chosen completely by the decree of the boss. The overlord is subject to the boss just as the employees are subject to him, and he maintains his power as long as he pleases the boss and stays within the guidelines of His Eminence’s philosophy. Thus, the overlords are not free, for they are also subjects, but they do have the advantage of power of dominion.

(2) The control of capital by labour must also go.”

And how does labor control capital? It does this through the unions and other means of making demands. I believe that what DK was looking for was the end of the unhealthy condition where the worker feels like a slave under his boss and company. Then because of dissatisfaction he seeks to control his destiny through unions and demands. Both sides of this coin hurt productivity, hinder happiness and peace of mind.

The coming cooperative society patterned after the molecular business will make these problems unnecessary for in this system the employees will own the company and have a say on wages received and how the company is run. The election principle will do away with the feeling that you are being suffocated by an unjust boss and ownership will do away with the need for unions.

Soryn quotes DK again:

“The new world order will not impose a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations. The sovereign rights of each nation will be recognised and its peculiar genius, individual trends and racial qualities will be permitted full expression. In one particular only should there be an attempt to produce unity, and that will be in the field of education.

JJ

Notice he says “an attempt to produce unity I education. He does not mention the use of Big Brother type of force. Here is what he did say about unity from the same book – Externalization of the Hierarch

“Cooperative unity differs from an enforced unity in that the subjective spirit and the objective form are functioning towards one recognised end.”

Cooperative unity through free will is the goal. This is not something to be had with most governments today.

Soryn quotes D K again:

There must eventually be a closer tie-up between the educational system, the legal system and the government, but it will all be directed to an effort to work out the best ideals of the thinkers of the day.”

Sorin

Public education: free from the arbitrariness of private interest or from government abuse. Affordable for everyone, with no discrimination in the advantage of the rich and powerful.

JJ

He doesn’t say that private interest will be out of the equation. A private system can be as much or more cooperative than a public one. He’s also speaking of a future when there will be greater freedom and democracy. In a free world there will be nothing to stop the creation of a private educational system if desired. The point is that when a system is demonstrated that works well then others copy it and a cooperative union is the natural result.

Soryn quoting DK

“The new world order will recognise that the produce of the world, the natural resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all. There will be no nations under the category “haves” and others under the opposite category. A fair and properly organised distribution of the wheat, the oil and the mineral wealth of the world will be developed, based upon the needs of each nation, upon its own internal resources and the requirements of its people. All this will be worked out in relation to the whole.”

Sorin

Like those corporations and rich countries that exploit the resources and the labor of the 3rd world countries (via force and raw violations of the human rights).

JJ

He is talking about a system that will evolve in the future, perhaps hundreds of years in the making. Part of that evolution involves corporations helping third world countries by employing their masses so eventually they become wealthier and independent. There is no easy way to go from poverty to abundance in the world at this time, but it is slowly happening.

The above quote is one of the worst statements he has made and can be used to promote communism by force as Benjamin Crème does. DK is either just plain wrong or used bad wording to express his views.

Let us suppose that we adopt the idea that the “resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all.”

If we take this literally then we need to invade the oil rich middle eastern countries and force them to share their oil and riches.

I think that what he was getting at is that as the nations become more free and prosperous that they will develop a natural inclination to share. People will share with people and nations with nations through free will.

In your quote he said, “The new world order WILL NOT IMPOSE a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations.”

Soryn quoting DK

“National material assets and the needed commodities will all be provided for under an entirely new system. – Private enterprise will still exist, but will be regulated; the great public utilities, the major material resources and the sources of planetary wealth – iron, steel, oil and wheat, for instance – will be owned in the first place by a governing, controlling international group; they will, however, be prepared for international consumption by national groups chosen by the people and under international direction.”

JJ

Again, this is poor wording or he is just plain wrong. For one thing it disagrees with the quote I just gave. Let me give it again:

“The new world order WILL NOT IMPOSE a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations.”

In the quote you gave it sounds like the guy with a few acres raising some potatoes and wheat couldn’t do what he wants with the produce but would have to turn it over to an international organization for redistribution. If so, he would have no incentive to work as happens in communist countries like the old Soviet union.

That is crazy talk whether it comes from a master, angel or devil. It sounds like he is advocating a similar doctrine to Hitler and he despised Hitler and all he stood for. He is usually very encouraging of freedom. It makes me wonder if Alice A. Bailey got the transmission right on this.

If he envisioned a sharing through free will of the people and nations, fine I support that, but his wording could be interpreted in other directions where freedom is compromised.

Your comments have been in so many directions that I cannot possibly comment on all of them. Let us try and cover one subject at a time instead of the shotgun approach.

 

***

 

Soryn:

Another example: the majority in the US decided that the idea of Obamacare is best so they voted Obama. Do you have anything against this decision taken by the majority? I sure don’t. … Bottom line is: the majority must be respected.

JJ

Where do you get the idea that an elected president follows the will of the people??? Every president does a number of things that anger the majority. There has never been a proven majority in favor of Obamacare and if many lies had not been fostered on us a great majority would have opposed it from the beginning. There are still a lot of people uninformed about it.

As it is, the latest news from the Obama supporting Washington Post tells us that the majority, 55% presently disapprove of Obamacare. I personally think the number is higher than that. LINK

If we had a system where the people have the final say, as they have in Switzerland, Obamacare would have never passed. It is a nightmare in progress.

 

***

 

JJ

Where do you get the idea that an elected president follows the will of the people???

Sorin

I didn’t say that.

JJ

It sure sounds that way. Here are your actual words:

“Another example: the majority in the US decided that the idea of Obamacare is best so they voted Obama. Do you have anything against this decision taken by the majority? I sure don’t. You like it or not the majority decided FOR universal health care (and maybe for a good reason,”

It really sounds like you are saying that because the majority voted for Obama we voted for universal health care.

In voting for most of us it comes down to these choices for president.

(1) A candidate that rarely represents the voter’s will.

(2) A candidate who will sometimes represent his will.

Soryn:

It seemed reasonable to think that people voting for Obama also voted for Obamacare, as it was one of his main “selling points”.

JJ

There was somewhat true in 2008 but not so much in 2012. The main reason Obama won a second term was because he very successfully portrayed Romney as a mean, evil SOB that didn’t care a whit about the little guy. For many it was the choice between the corrupt guy they knew and the one who would be even worse.

 

***

 

JJ

I have never encountered a corporation with no social awareness. Can you name one for me?

Sorin

Well, that’s because you only look at what’s happening in the US.

JJ

You make a link that shows abuses made mostly by governments and people but no corporation is singled out as the bad guy. Let me repeat again:

Can you name one corporation for me that has no record of social awareness?

 

***

 

June 1, 2014

More on Floating Cities

LINK

 

***

 

Curiosity on JJ’s ethnicity

Sorin:

JJ, just a small curiosity.

I get this vibe from you that you are biased towards business, commerce, material abundance, individual freedom, capitalism and libertarian-ism. You also seem to side strongly with the right and oppose the left all the times. Dewey seems to be a Jewish name, so I would make a wild guess and say that you are probably 99% Jew. Am I right?

JJ

You’re picking up the wrong vibe on the Jewish blood. None that I know of. Most of my ancestors are from England. My consciousness is far removed from the typical religious or materialistic Jew. I have devoted my life to the spiritual path, often at the sacrifice of material things.

It is only the Left Hand Path that I am opposed to and that is the side that decides against the Principle of Freedom. With freedom comes free enterprise and abundance – and that is only a good thing from a higher point of view. Also workable social programs will emerge in a free atmosphere compared to those that do not work when forced upon us.

 

***

 

Keith

Creme’s comment that the ‘world is full of disciples’ is wrong. The world has only a handful of active disciples on the physical plane. The world has legions of aspirants and a small number of probationary disciples, but very few accepted disciples.

Sorin

That quote is actually from Alice Bailey and DK. 😀

Though is seems to be a description of what Creme is doing now.

JJ

DK said in one of his books that there were only a little 300 disciples on the whole planet so Keith is correct in his perception that the world is not “full” of them, at least as we understand the term.

 

***

 

Huge Mistake

Sorim:

Let me ask you something. If you were to vote for the ideas and the system proposed here by DK, based on your understanding of how economy and human coexisting work, would you vote Yes or No?

JJ

DK did not clarify exactly what the system was to be except to indicate the people and nations of the future will be more cooperative, more sharing and more benevolent and I vote yes in proceeding that direction.

There seems to be a point that you really misunderstand and that is this. All systems and enterprises and customs relating to the life of humanity do not function perfectly and many flaws are revealed on the road to relative perfection. This includes the gift of freedom as compared to a state of being controlled by the authority of the Beast – or outside source.

On hindsight we can see many flaws in the Old Soviet union where there was very little free market (mostly the black market) and the people were severely controlled.

After its fall and the people had a lot more freedom and some complained. Even though most liked the freedom others concentrated on the flaws revealed. People had to take more personal responsibility and if they did not then they seemed to suffer even more than before. Chaos seemed to reign for a while but after the people adjusted few now would want to return to the old system. The extra freedom revealed flaws that needed to be addressed but that didn’t mean freedom was evil.

Whenever you compare two systems you will almost always find that the one with the most freedom to act will be the one that is most successful and beneficial to the people.

This applies to endeavors to create abundance, choose your mate, your fiends, choose what you want to join, how much you want to participate in any legal interest, choose who to represent you, choose where you want to live and what kind of residence, chose the food you eat and what supplements you take, chose your doctor, healthcare plan etc.

Some would agree with all that except he free market. They think this must be controlled by force. In this attitude they are making a huge mistake.

Would you want someone stepping in after you fell in love and telling you that you must never see your true love again?

Of course not. Yet some would tell a person in love with his business, which provides much happiness to his customers that he has to change it into something he soon will not even recognize.

Maybe this same authority tells him that relationships has too many risks. Sometimes people even kill each other. Marriage is bad, therefore, for your own good, I am saving you, even if it is against your will.

Sounds ridiculous but this is what many try to do with free enterprise. Because everything does not turn out to be sunshine and roses some want to take away all (or a lot of) freedom in free enterprise.

The key piece of knowledge is this. In an atmosphere of freedom there will ALWAYS be more progress toward the desired goal than in an atmosphere of control by a self appointed elite.

Huge mistake.

Either a person believes in the Principle of Freedom or he does not. If he does then he can be of use to the Brotherhood of Light. If he does not then he will be of very limited value for they do all in their power to bring the desired results through the power of maximum free will.

 

***

 

June 2, 2014

Free Enterprise

JJ Quote

Either a person believes in the Principle of Freedom or he does not. If he does then he can be of use to the Brotherhood of Light. If he does not then he will be of very limited value for they do all in their power to bring the desired results through the power of maximum free will.

Sorin

So in the lack of a definite response from you concerning capitalism, I will assume that you recognize the obvious flaws of capitalism, contrary to what you previously believed.

JJ

Where do you get the idea I am changing my mind on capitalism or free enterprise? I believed in free enterprise yesterday and do today.

And what response do you want? No system is perfect but for our present consciousness it is the best we have. It certainly has proven more beneficial than communism and gives European countries the prosperity they have.

I think maybe Larry Woods had a good point in using a consistent name. Free enterprise encapsulates the Principle of Freedom as it applies to making our economic machinery work. Some crony capitalism is not so free, where the government decides the winners and losers. Free enterprise is more representative of those who can manage their business without undue interference or contributions from governments.

Just because we are not perfect human beings does not mean free enterprise is evil as you insinuate. It would make just as much sense to say that windmills are evil because they kill some birds.

Sorin:

Now, let’s get to your principle of freedom.

This is another case where you fail to see the forest because of the trees, because you fail to see how this principle is dependent upon other principles.

As I said, the maximum individual freedom exalted by capitalism and libertarianism will quickly shift toward maximum material individual freedom, which is exactly what is happening today

JJ

And freedom to pursue material things like a new car is a bad thing in your mind? Wow.

Sorin:

where you get a small minority of insanely rich people, that have tons of individual material freedom

JJ

And how does someone who works hard, creates jobs and produces products people like hurt you or me? I’d guess that any hurt to you is in your imagination because Bill Gates getting wildly rich has not hurt me or anyone I know in the least.

On the other hand, governments increasing our taxes or making a dumb regulation can instantly affect our lives for the worse.

Sorin:

but the freedom of the majority is severely affected

JJ

What have you been smoking? How does Bill Gates getting wildly rich take away from the freedom of the majority? The technology he developed has enhanced the freedom of the majority.

Sorin:

and the exalted individual freedom of that minority

JJ

Bill Gate’s wealth has given him some extra freedom. And my knowledge that I have gained has given me a lot of extra freedom also. Those who gain extra freedom through effort do not diminish the freedom of others. Just because I have some extra spiritual freedom takes away nothing from you and neither does Bill Gates with his material freedom.

Sorin

is corrupted by separation and materialism.

JJ

Some rich are corrupted but so are many of the poor. What else is new? Humans are not perfect.

Bill Gates is giving away billions of dollars to help the less fortunate. It sounds like he is trying to be a good guy.

Sorin

Applying the principle of freedom does not always entail pacifism. This is where you are confused.

JJ

I’m not confused on this at all.

Sorin

On the one hand, you agreed with FORCE, in the case of removing certain dictators – Saddam

JJ

Yes, Saddam invaded another country and tried to exterminate the Kurds, without provocation and needed to be removed to unsure maximum freedom for the whole.

Sorin:

but on the other hand you demand PACIFISM when it comes to SEVERE and DEMONSTRATED corporate abuses on 3rd world countries.

JJ

I do not know of any corporation that has invaded a country and enslaved them. Show me such a thing and I’ll definitely support a change of leadership by any means possible.

Paying low wages in the third world where such wages still improve the quality of the people’s lives is not a bad thing for it gives the people more freedom That is why they take the jobs.

Sorin:

As a matter of fact, the US invading Saddam was a clear violation of both your principle of freedom and caterpillar principle.

JJ

Wrong wrong wrong. It enhances freedom to remove a dictator who invades other countries to enslave them and seeks to exterminate a people, just as removing Hitler enhanced freedom. If you don’t think removing a Hitler type of aggressor enhances freedom then you have a problem.

Sorin:

Second, because the US imposed their political ideal – democracy – to Iraq, thus violating their freewill and the caterpillar principle.

JJ

You can’t really impose freedom or democracy. You can only offer a people a chance at it which we did. Whether or not they are successful is now up to them.

You do not seem to understand the Caterpillar Principle. The principle is you do not interfere with a circumstance where the life is moving forward on it’s own struggle. Suppose some stupid kid took the cocoon and buried it in some dirt where it had no chance to survive? If I saw such a thing I would remove he dirt to help it where it could not help itself, but then leave it to grow through its natural struggle.

Similarly we had to help the Jews during World War II because they were in a circumstance where they could not liberate themselves. We also had to help the Kurds to save them from extermination from Saddam.

Sorin:

While, my idea of enforcing human rights respects BOTH principles:

JJ

How about the right to operate your business as one sees fit? That is a pretty huge human right you seem to oppose.

Sorin:

First, the imbalance created by the big businesses (that rule America and the civilized world) are a sure threat to world peace, justice and FREEDOM.

JJ

Are you living in the Twilight Zone or what? Where are these businesses that are so threatening? No business is forcing me to pay them anything. None of them are taxing me, regulating me or making me buy anything I do not want. All they do is offer me products and services I can take or leave. None of them force anyone to work for them. Why you think this threatens world peace is an amazing thought.

It is the leaders of governments who threaten world peace. An argument can be made that the bankers sometimes assist but they are intertwined with governments and heavily regulated.

Sorin

So enforcing human rights acts purely on the basis of the principle of freewill.

JJ

It depends on the situation. Most human rights abuses are caused by the governments of the planet and it is those entities that you need to target.

Just because you accuse a business of human rights violations does not make it so. I haven’t seen you give one clear cut example yet. You throw out all kinds of nebulous stuff but never come up with one good example to support your accusations. Platitudes and talking points are not convincing.

Sorin:

Bottom line: I recognize that we have an issue. That issue is world imbalance created by big businesses that threaten the stability of both developed and developing nations and ultimately the peace and freedom of the world. What should we do? Let’s start with those human rights that everybody accepts but nobody respects, shall we?

JJ

I do not see any major human rights denied because of free enterprise but see many that are greatly enhanced. On the other hand, there are many human rights violations caused by governments. We could start by doing something to give females in the Middle Eastern countries basic human rights and to be free from female mutilation. Then in some places Christians are being persecuted or exterminated because they will not convert. I do not know of any business that comes close to a human rights violation like these.

 

***

 

Sorin:

The dark brothers are having a good laugh at you for supporting GW Bush invading Iraq.

JJ

You have strange logic indeed. You think the Dark Brothers are happy when a tyrant they support is overthrown but are gleeful when a private enterprise employs people in a Third world giving them an opportunity for a better life. Your reasoning is upside down just like Benjamin Crème who you seem to idolize.

Sorin

I just demonstrated you in plain simple logic and factual evidence that Bush committed an abuse of power. He even regrets it himself as stated below!

JJ

Cutting and pasting does not make your case which is extremely weak with an appeal to the low information crowd.

Sorin:

He disrespected the UN security council, and quickly started the war preventing the ongoing diplomatic approach that was preferred by the UN security council (Saddam already did what the UN asked of him in 1990-1991). US then proceeded to impose their political ideal to Iraq by MILITARY FORCE (while they made use of Saddam before when they supported him invading Iran and ignored his usage of chemical weapons).

JJ

You obviously haven’t studied the history but are merely repeating talking points. Instead of dealing with the actual principles of freedom you are creating a diversion into a topic that we have already spent a book’s work of discussion about. If you really want to find the truth of the matter go to the archives and read the many thousands of words covering this subject. We have covered this so much most are weary of I and do not want to go all over the arguments again. I’ll just sum it up with these words:

According to UN Resolution 687 authority was granted to resume the war in Iraq at any time.

The fact is that the first war with Iraq began because it attacked Kuwait with the intention of further expansion. The world community justly responded to stop this Nazi-type aggression and made war against Saddam and drove him out of Kuwait. After this the war was not declared over but a cease fire was arranged through U.N. resolution 687. The deal that Saddam signed on to in order to enact a cease fire and save his skin was that he would destroy all his weapons of mass destruction and not build any more. He also agreed to honor the civil rights of his people.

The deal was that if Saddam did not live up to his agreement (WMD and civil rights) then the cease-fire could end and the war would resume. No time limit was placed on this.

Bush and Blair enforced resolution 687 as well as the new one (resolution 1441) that was unanimously passed November 2003. Bush is accused of initiating a new war. It is not a new war, but an old one that was legally resumed. Bush and Blair merely enforced UN resolutions that others dragged their feet on because of their own oil contracts with the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. After 1441 Bush did not need a new resolution saying basically the same thing all over again.

Sorin:

By supporting Bush’s intervention in Iraq you advocate for a violation of the principle of freedom

JJ

I haven’t seen such upside down thinking since reading Benjamin Crème.

You think that removing a tyrant who seeks to exterminate a people (Kurds) is contrary to freedom yet a company giving people jobs is against freedom. You are a piece of work.

 

***

 

June 3, 2014

The Blur Factor

Even though there have been some excellent comments it is useless to drag on this conversation on the Gulf Wars any further. We covered this ad nauseum years ago to the point where members complained and now we are doing it again. Sorim has his mind made up and we are not going to change him.

This argument illustrates just how difficult it is for many seekers to see and understand the Principle of Freedom. Both sides are intelligent but see things in a totally different light. Part of it lies in degrees of discernment but that is not all. Another big part concerns the values held by the individuals in this and other debates. I’m not just talking about this group but people throughout the world.

Group one places a high value on group and/or individual freedom believing that being able to pursue goals with a minimal hindrance and control will bring the greatest possible happiness and prosperity.

Group two believes that too much freedom is reckless and leads to abuse and must be regulated and controlled for the greater good. If it so happens that the greater good does not materialize then they do not retreat but want more controls.

The interesting thing is that both groups will say they support the idea of freedom. It is easy to see why group one believes this but how does group two justify believing this?

It amounts to basically this. Too much freedom brings abuse, which they see as interfering with the greater good and reducing freedom in the end. Therefore, freedom must be regulated and controlled so we can have even more freedom. That may sound strange, but it is basically their mindset.

Here is where the blur factor comes in. Group one does support some control for obvious reasons. They support laws that suppress the actions of the thief, the murderer, rapist and the general harmful lawbreakers.

Group two will take these controls with which all agree and say, “A certain amount of control is a good thing and actually enhances freedom. We propose a few more that will be for our own good.”

The problem with group two is when they get their additional controls they are never satisfied but always want more and if they are unchecked tyranny will be the end result.

The difference between the two approaches is group one will specify the controls they want and that will be it. Very seldom do more controls need to be added.

Group two cannot specify how much they want to control us for our own good for they do not even know themselves. They merely watch for unseemly results they see from human nature and when it occurs their solution will be more control. The problem is that even when they manage to secure their controls humans will still misbehave and then still more controls will be needed. When group two gets involved in this vicious cycle and is not checked the freedom of the masses becomes suffocated until the time comes that they can’t even celebrate a touchdown because Big Brother will not approve.

The Principle of Freedom is what separates the two brotherhoods. The Brotherhood of Light supports progress in the arena of maximum human freedom and the Dark Brotherhood see humans as too stupid to have such freedom and that they need to be controlled and told what to do for their own good. The leaders are highly motivated because they see themselves as deserving power over the many but will have the freedom that they will deny to others.

The freedom they think they are obtaining is an illusion because they are slaves to their own selfish desires which will eventually become their undoing.

 

***

 

June 4, 2014

Re: The Blur Factor

My reply to Keith had so many typos I deleted it and am herewith posting a corrected copy.

Keith;

As long as we continue to view all ideas as coming from either the left or the right, we are never going to evaluate the merits of the ideas themselves.

JJ

We must also consider that there is a difference between the right and left hand path and the political left and right.

The main difference between the two paths is the Principle of Freedom, and we do not want to synthesis the two paths here at all. Do we want a combination of 50% maximum slavery with 50% maximum freedom or do we want 100% maximum freedom?

I, for one, want 100% maximum freedom and will struggle for this as long as I have breath.

Actually a permanent synthesis is close to impossible, as the two sides will always struggle until one prevails so you will end up with the people in a state of freedom or slavery.

The political Right is appropriately named because it supports the Principle of Freedom from the spiritual Right more than does the Left but has far from a perfect record. When dogma is at stake they will often be on the side of the Beast and the political Left will be on the side of freedom. As far as sex, drugs and rock and roll, the political Left has the Right beat in the freedom area. In areas where religion does not have a strong influence the political right usually has an edge in the freedom department.

So, yes a synthesis of the two political views would be good, but a synthesis of the right and left hand path would mean a victory for the Dark Brotherhood.

“I am a point of light within a greater Light.

I am a strand of loving energy within the stream of love divine.

I am a point of sacrificial Fire, focussed within the fiery Will of God.

And thus I stand.

I am a way by which men may achieve.

I am a source of strength, enabling them to stand.

I am a beam of light, shining upon their way.

And thus I stand.

And standing thus revolve

And tread this way the ways of men,

And know the ways of God.

And thus I stand.”

DK

Those who seek the right hand path must stand and stand firmly.

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

May 17, 2014

Freedom Dialog

Soryn:

One of the issues with capitalism is that everything’s for sale. Capitalism is like a spoiled child completely out of parental control. It gave people all the freedom in the world (to buy guns and cars and houses and airplanes and lands and people and even countries), but at the same time people ended up having no ethical limits to guide their “freedom”.

JJ

You’re not making any sense here. Are you saying that in a capitalistic country you can buy guns and cars and houses and airplanes and lands etc but in socialist France or Denmark you cannot? Last time I checked you could buy stuff in socialist countries just like you can here. Even in communist Cuba you can buy stuff for money. Some would almost sell their kids for a good internet connection there, or a T-bone steak.

And why is capitalism any more like a spoiled brat than a socialist country? There are spoiled brats in both locations. A spoiled child though is one who will abuse others for his own selfish will and I think you’ll find this type of individual in a lot larger numbers in socialist bureaucracies than in capitalist businesses. I don’t recall ever meeting a free market individual that was as spoiled as the average government bureaucrat.

Soryan

This poses a particular problem when it comes to food, because it is one of the prime necessities for survival. Survival – this is a good criterion to distinguish between capitalism and socialism. When it comes to basic needs of survival, socialism should kick in.

JJ

Does not compute.

North Korea and Cuba are as socialist as you can get and their people are starving. The only thing keeping Cuba afloat all these years is an underground economy using U.S, dollars. In North Korea the people have to eat tree bark and grass to survive.

In history we find that the greater the enforcement of socialism is the less fresh food is available.

In the last 100 years American has fed the world more than any country in history thanks to freedom and capitalism. That may be coming to an end as we are selling our freedoms down the river (not rover – typo in the last post)

Soryin;

Basic needs are a general good and a human right.

JJ

And who decided this? If a guy wants to cease all work and just play and have fun does he have the right to be supported by the rest of us? I think not.

In a free society do we have an obligation to help those in need who cannot help themselves? Yes. And in a free society this will happen.

Let’s go back to my youth when free enterprise flourished much more than today. When I had the accident in 1958 I spent over a month in the hospital and had two operations. Health care was so cheap that we paid it all off in the worst of circumstances. My mom and Dad just divorced and my Dad took off to Central America. We had no child support, no food stamps, no welfare and we had to pick fruit to survive in the summer or my mom worked for a minimum wage at other times.

Then I needed some reconstructive surgery that called for an expensive specialist. We couldn’t afford it so my mom found a private charity that helped and they paid for two more months in the hospital and four more operations.

We received all this help from these spoiled capitalists. Thanks to government attempts to help us and the restrictions of freedom imposed on the medical system today a fruit picker could never pay for a month in the hospital today nor could he find a charity with deep enough pockets for an additional two months and four special surgeries. The best hope today would be to get help through Medicaid, but that is not free. Every taxpayer pays through the nose for Medicare and Medicaid whether he uses it or not. The charities that helped me cost the taxpayer NOTHING. Everything was given entirely through free will.

Soryn:

Let’s make sure we live in a just world by allowing people to get on their feet where it is required. Let’s allow them, at least, to be able to make a failure or a success of their lives.)

JJ

And that is what happens in a free society.

After my accident at the age of 13 the only job I could get was orchard work – mostly fruit picking. I usually worked with my friend Wayne who was very competitive and if he picked more than me he would brag about it and rub it in. I decided I couldn’t let that happen so I increased my skills. Wayne and I were generally he fastest pickers in the orchard. We made around $20-$40 an hour in today’s money.

I bought all my school supplies and clothes. And I bought the finest clothes money could buy at the time, thinking that would impress the girls. Then I went in with my mom and we bought a car together.

I helped out with the food budget. If there was something I wanted to eat that my mom thought was too expensive I would buy it myself. Then I hunted a lot and brought home pheasants and ducks on a regular basis. I also fished a lot and brought home bass, bluegill, crappie and catfish – more than we could eat. In addition I raised pigs and chickens.

My mom was thrifty and industrious and her winter work at the potato plant later turned to full time and overall we had pretty good life by standing on our own two feet. I didn’t know anyone who was doing without food or going hungry. A lot of people thought our little family was the worst off they knew, but we didn’t see it that way.

Everything seemed to just work a lot better economically in those days. If we had the technology of today and the freedom of the past era we would have more abundance than we would know what to do with.

Soryn

Food. Something needs to change here. Raj Patel offers some insights on the matter. I would say that competition is overall bad when it comes to food. Investors trying to sell their products invest more on advertising (package), on durability and grow through unhealthy chemicals.

JJ

Reality does not bear out your competition idea. Countries with little competition like North Korea, Cuba, the Old Soviet Union have shortages whereas the U.S, has always had abundance.

Advertising is the necessary fuel to make the market and distribution system work. Countries than ban advertising unusually suffer food shortages or starvation.

I’m with you with the unhealthy chemicals. As people get educated they are buying more organic foods of their own free will, forcing many large companies to change their ways.

Soryn:

You see products imported from the other side of the planet because they are cheaper.

JJ

And why is that a bad thing? It allows many poor people to earn a living.

Soryn:

Most of the food supply should be localized – this creates less competition.

JJ

Where do you get that idea? We rarely imported food when I was a kid and everything seemed as competitive or moreso at that time. I think that growing our own food for health purposes and self sufficiency is good but it doesn’t eliminate competition.

Soryn;

The principle at stake here will be a socialist one. My grandfather had a piece of land that he harvested with some shared technological means. They were using some big machines to fertilize and to harvest the lands. At the end, they would split the production. Everyone got his share of food. And boy that farmer food was delicious, as opposed to the garbage that you find now in the supermarket.

JJ

Shared gardens are popular here in the United States and this idea can flourish in a free society.

Soryan

Private versus public property is another good criterion. Investors trying to buy the park where I go each day to take a breath of fresh air and replace it with a massive complex of skyscrapers of steel and glass should be restricted to a public decision.

JJ

Private parks are run much better than public ones and the visitors are much happier. Check out these videos.

VIDEO 1

VIDEO 2

Soryn:

The actual people that live in that place should decide whether or not it is in the public’s interest to allow the investor to swipe the park.

JJ

This can happen with a private park. Again, check out the video.

Soryn:

False advertising needs to be regulated (I’m tired of products being advertised in the falsest way possible). Also, safety and health measures (socialism) need to be in place.

JJ

These things can be controlled through the threat of legal action in a free society.

Soryn:

I just wanted to add that I think we have the technological means to greatly reduce the food problem across the globe.

JJ

Here we agree, but this cannot be accomplished by a dictator giving out orders. The second video link gives an example of how the pilgrims solved the food problem.

Soryn:

Reducing corporate exploitation and pollution can greatly improve the lives of those people that provide food to rich countries.

JJ

There are areas where people do complain of corporations who overreach, but these are often in countries that are highly regulated wit little free enterprise for the individual.

Abuse is not limited to corporations. Communist China makes U.S., corporations look like Mother Teresa. Here are two examples from Wikipedia:

From 1993 to 2003, 2.5 million people were evicted in the city of Shanghai. In preparation for the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, many of Beijing’s densely populated neighborhoods were torn down in order to make way for new developments and infrastructure projects. The Center on Housing Rights and Evictions estimated that 1.5 million people in and around Beijing were forced from their homes, often with inadequate compensation. Chinese authorities maintained only 6,000 families were relocated, and that all received proper compensation.

From 1995 to 2005, an average of 86,754 people were evicted annually in connection to the Three Gorges Dam, totaling an estimated 1.4 million people. Recalcitrant residents in the city of Chongqing had their water and electricity turned off in order to force them to move; the residents said they had not yet left because proper resettlement hadn’t been arranged.

Soryn

Let me give you another example of what socialism can mean nowadays.

In Paris you are not allowed to build anything that is not compatible with the esthetic and architectural design of the city. You cannot build buildings higher than a couple of stores, and you cannot build ugly glass and steel skyscrapers nonsense. Amazing isn’t it? That’s called urban planning and design. Or the taste of a community for beauty and living conditions.

JJ

Communities in the United States do the same thing without government involvement. Each community has their privately written covenants and restrictions that people agree to when they move in or build. If they do not like them they can purchase elsewhere.

Well, this is not the simple one piece at a time approach I was talking about. I’ll try to get back in that direction shortly.

More Freedom Dialog

Here’s the question I was trying to steer us toward:

“Some of the ideals of socialism are in a good direction such as relief from hunger, poverty, discrimination etc.

“The question is – how many freedoms are we willing to sell down the river to accomplish these things and can they be accomplished in a state of maximum freedom (which has never existed in modern civilization).”

Okay, time to get more specific. There are some types of force that is accepted by most citizens on both sides of the equation. It is accepted by the vast majority that there should be police power to restrict obvious criminal activity such as murder, rape, theft, etc. A handful of criminals may not agree with this but most would not think the criminals are subject to a tyranny of the majority because of the high degree of agreement of the people.

Taxes, or the increase that a government takes from citizens through the threat of force is the biggest source of disagreement. But even here way over 90% of the population support some sort of taxes for essentials such as defense, roads, police, fire etc. Few would consider taxes collected and spent for purposes on which almost all agree as a tyranny of the majority, or a minority.

The problem enters in when a minority begins demanding an increase in taxes for a social program that is not essential and could be accomplished by citizens through free will.

Notice, that I said, “minority.” That is because these type of movements are always started by a minority and then when they are implemented, and people become dependent on them, a majority often end up supporting such things, even if they lead to ruin.

The point is if the use of force is restricted to things that has a large majority of support (such as keeping criminals off the street) we will stay on the path of safety.

That said, the majority of the taxpayers are reluctant to support government force in taking more money out of their pockets to give to someone else who did not work for it.

Now the people, as a whole, feel it is morally all right to tax the people to support true essentials, so the question is this. What percentage of the people who have to pay should agree to an increase in taxes to support a social program that is for a good cause such as giving the poor some extra support in food stamps and welfare?

Suppose 70% of the taxpayers are against it but the 30% are in power. Are the 30% justified in for forcefully taking money out of the pockets of the 70% for something they do not support and feel is theft?

Reply

Soryn:

Scandinavia is the best example of creating successful models of democratic socialism countries.

According to the following index: The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income indices used to rank countries into four tiers of human …

they all rate higher than US in terms of inequality adjusted indexes. They are on par when it comes to abundance.

JJ

And why is that a good thing? North Korea has the most equal bunch of robotic government controlled people in the world and I certainly would not want to live there. Equality for the sake of equality is meaningless.

Soryn:

Are higher taxes a sure way to disaster? Well check this out:

LINK

Denmark taxes its people with a whooping 46% per revenue, almost half goes to the state! They have abundance and they obviously rate higher than US when it comes to social inequality. And according to that site “Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less”.

JJ

Demark has it good. We pay close to 70% here when all taxes are added up.

In 2006 a family with a median income of $48,201 paid the following to Uncle Sam.

Federal – 19.14%

Payroll – 7.65%

15.3% if self employed in 2008

State & Local – 11%

Corporate taxes which are passed on as higher prices – 6.68%

Excise and other taxes – 3.24%

Cost of compliances to regulations and taxes – 11.33%

Inflation due to government overspending – 3.2% (going up soon)

Total taxes

If self-employed 69.89%.

If working for someone else it would be 62.64% plus another 7.65% your employer pays on payroll tax that he could give to you in a raise if Uncle Sam did not take it.

You can’t really use the United States as an example of results from low taxation.

Soryn

Those countries are also healthier. More social awareness means less commercialization and less food market nonsense competition.

JJ

And that can be due to a number of things. Diabetes has risen dramatically in the past couple decades in the United States because we have switched from regular sugar to fructose?

And why did we do that? Again because of government meddling. Price supports for beet and cane sugar raised its prices and forced business to switch to the cheaper fructose and the switch has caused a plague of diabetes.

Almost every problem we have can be traced to some type of government action aimed at helping the poor unwashed.

May 18, 2014

 

The Molecular Business

Larry Woods and Duke want to know why a molecular business can’t start small and grow big. After all, Apple computer started out with a couple guys working in a garage.

A product or service central to a business is a lot different animal than the business enterprise that manufactures, sells and distributes the products. Apple itself has changed its business model a number of times while seeking the highest profit possible. For instance, they have gone from doing all their manufacturing here in the United States to doing most of it in China.

To think the Molecular Business wouldn’t be viable if it can’t be started successfully with three or four employees is like saying a car is not a good idea if all you have in your possession are the tires. To create a successful car you need all the ingredients, not just part.

If one starts a business with a few dedicated people you’d have to start it the normal way. Why?

Because the key ingredient to the Molecular Business is equality of pay and the guy who starts a business on a shoestring generally has to be motivated by making enough profit to feed his family. In addition to this when you have a handful of people in a small business the labor intensity is so different that similar pay could cause some problems. Also, a small business is often very sales intensive and salespeople, especially in a small business, need to be motivated by some type of commission or bonus for their skill and hard work.

Any business that starts with a handful of people needs to be started pretty much the way people do it now.

I have a small business and there is no way I could make it molecular unless I expanded to the point where I could hire 20-30 employees. We’ve had employees in the past but for now it is just my wife and I and we’ve had to scale it down since we’ve been taking care of her elderly mother.

Larry says: “Many here are perfectly willing and able to act on faith. We can begin with volunteer labor.”

JJ

That’s news to me. You really think that many from the group would be willing to quit their jobs, leave their families and move to a central location to start a business on faith with no guarantee of success?

On the other hand, if I had the funds to set up such a business and offered a reasonable salary I’d have no problem filling it with local people and some keys members may even move here to help.

And, by the way, the Molecular Business is not meant to just be for the enlightened but it would attract a wide variety of people.

Duke:

Is there any reason why a non-molecular business couldn’t choose to transition to a molecular model?

JJ

Yes. In a regular business there are many pay grades and those making the most money, which are also those with the most power, would not want to give up half or more of their salaries. Making the switch with a regular business would be almost impossible at this time. Starting fresh would be quite easy if one had the money because it is easy to hire an unlimited number of people if you offer a reasonable base salary. Then the management could be drawn from the entry-level people.

Duke:

Why 24 people?   I understand where that number comes from (the Molecular Relationship), but why would it also apply to a business?

JJ

I didn’t pick 24 because that is some absolute number for the business. You’d just need a business organization with 20-30, or more people to implement the principles.

I’ve got plenty on my plate now trying to make my publishing business take off while still taking care of old customers from my sign business. If I wanted to expand the sign business from scratch in an attempt to make it molecular then I’d have to take my attention off writing and some other important things I am pursuing and put it all on the business. It takes close to 100% attention and effort to get a business off the ground when you are limited with capital.

I’ve put the Molecular Business ideas out there and anyone who is enterprising can attempt to run with them. Unfortunately, I am limited in what I can do and have to put my attention where I deem it to be most important and at the moment that is getting a book before the public that will catch their attention.

It is interesting that since I first came up with the Molecular Business idea around 30 years ago that many businesses have moved much closer to the model. The most successful grocery store in this area is WINCO, which is employee owned, and workers are treated much more equally than the regular business model.

I do not know of any business following the full molecular model, but the day will come whether by my hand or another, whether this life or another. It is just a matter of time.

 

May 18, 2014

The Question

Dan;

Thought I would point out to future answerers that JJ’s question is NOT “what % of people should agree to an increase in taxes …” but “what % of people THAT HAVE TO PAY should agree to an increase in taxes …” – which is an entirely different animal.

JJ

Good perception Dan – applying the Third Key here.

Dan:

IMO, in the perfect community/society, force would never be used in such a way (take from one to give to another) period.

JJ

In the eventual Zion society that will be established all group financing will be accomplished through free will donations o some type of free market endeavor. Unfortunately, the general consciousness of the people is not there yet. This is one reason there has to be a gathering of the pure in heart who are willing to give what is necessary to make things work. When a significant number prove it can be done then others will follow.

By the way, you gave a good selection of quotes on freedom. I enjoyed reading them even though I wrote them. i forget a lot of what i have written so sometimes my quotes seem new to me, but still familiar and in line with my current thinking.

Duke:

In the hypothetical, I don’t know how dire the need is.

JJ

The need would be what it is now. Note the wording of the question:

“…such as giving the poor some extra support in food stamps and welfare?”

This does not involve a choice as to whether the poor receive any help at all, but “extra” help.

Basically though the principle of force applies to all situations. The point is though that 70% would not resist helping others if they thought they could afford it ad the request was reasonable.

Duke:

But a lot of very good ideas (like abolishing slavery) started out as a minority position. Did their minority status make them any less the “right thing to do” at the time?

JJ

A lot of people think this but it is not quite true. A majority of the states before the civil war were against slavery and did not allow it and the majority of the people in the country were against slavery.

The majority usually make the right decision and the top 70% just about always do.

Duke:

The abolitionist movement began many generations before the Civil War, and it’s unlikely that it was a majority position from the beginning, considering how long it was before the Emancipation Proclamation. I’m talking about those early days, before it was the majority position – was it right?   Or did it not become right until it became the majority position?

JJ

The majority were definitely against slavery in the years leading up to the Civil War. There is no way of knowing if this was true at the founding of this country. I would guess that it was close to fifty-fifty. A lot of the Founders were against slavery but allowed it in the Costitution in order to create the new nation, which would not have happened if they would have opposed it. Some figured they could abolish it later which is what happened.

In ancient times, slavery was so common among all races that the people just accepted it. From my study of history I don’t think a lot of them questioned whether it was right or wrong but was just something that had to be. Most of the slaves didn’t even see slavery as evil unless they were mistreated by their masters. Even Jesus said nothing about it. Hypocrisy was the evil that bothered him the most in that age. Everywhere you see the word “servant’ in the New testament it comes from the Greek word for slave.

The bottom line is consciousness has to change before customs will change.

JJ

The majority usually make the right decision and the top 70% just about always do.

Duke

Then perhaps we should just watch the polls and side with the majority, especially if it’s a large majority. That would be much easier than making up our own minds. Let some outside authority (in this case the majority) make up our minds for us.

JJ

I have never ever given the slightest indication that the majority view should be used to make up our minds as to what is true or right. What I have said is the majority, when presented with the facts, will usually head in a common sense direction and if 70% or more choose a particular side of a debate, it is usually correct. For instance, close to 70% of the people want more investigation to find out the truth about the Benghazi attacks and that certainly sounds like a common sense direction to me. It is difficult to find an area where 70% of the people want to go in a totally illogical direction.

The majority is not that great at seeking subtle truth though and one certainly wants to use his own soul to discern that rather than following the majority. Just over 70% believe that reincarnation is a bunch of mumbo jumbo, for instance, but this does not effect the quality of my life.

Some of the things the majority supported 1000 years ago as being good are seen as evil today and some of the things the majority support today will be seen as evil 1000 years hence. Even so, the teachers of the race must work with majority will to move our spiritual evolution forward and little by little the next correct step is seen.

 

May 19, 2014

The Second Question

Here was the last question:

Now the people, as a whole, feel it is morally all right to tax the people to support true essentials, so the question is this. What percentage of the people who have to pay should agree to an increase in taxes to support a social program that is for a good cause, such as giving the poor some extra support in food stamps and welfare?

We received quite a bit of comment on this but not many specific answers of which there were only three:

Keith 51%

Dan 60%, or what people agree upon.

Johann 75%

Ruth kinda said 100% and Matthew kinda said 51%. Soryn is mysteriously silent on this.

So far the group believes that the taxpayers should not endure a tax increased unless a majority or more agree. And, as Dan noticed, I specified the will of those who are affected. If non taxpayers get a benefit by raising the taxes of those who pay then close to 100% of them will think it is a great idea because they will not be negatively affected. If the majority will of those who actually contribute is considered then the taxes will never reach an unreasonable level.

The figure arrived at here has nothing to do with the cause, whether it be food stamps or defense or research the sex lives of bugs. We must realize that if the cause is really just or important that an informed majority will generally support it no matter what it is. If it is completely unnecessary or frivolous then they will not.

True, the majority is not always right, but it has been coming much closer to the correct path than the President or Congress. No human system will be right all the time so we must seek to implement the highest that the consciousness of the people can accept.

Next question.

Suppose 70% of the taxpayers are against it but the 30% are in power. Are the 30% justified in forcefully taking money out of the pockets of the 70% for something they do not support and feel is theft?

Everyone who answered this agreed that the 30% would not be justified. What many do not realize is this is pretty close to what is happening today. The will of about 30% of the taxpayers are forcing increases on the 70%.

Next Question; Many social programs, such as Obamacare have to be mostly financed, not with taxes, but borrowed money that our children must pay interest on. How urgent must the need be before we borrow more money to help certain citizens? Give examples.

Duke:

Personally, I am much more comfortable with the idea of using good judgment to the best of one’s ability in whatever the circumstances may be, and that may or may not include giving weight to the majority opinion.

JJ

But my good judgement has no weight with Congress or the President. The best we can do is take our good judgment and attempt to educate and change the future direction.

Duke:

Getting back to your first question: “What percentage of the people who have to pay should agree to an increase in taxes to support a social program that is for a good cause, such as giving the poor some extra support in food stamps and welfare?”

In a democracy that does not distinguish between those who pay taxes and those who do not, if the majority will (as expressed through the elected representatives in our case) is to raise taxes, then that is the will of the people.

JJ

It doesn’t matter whether or not taxpayers are distinguished the question can still be answered.

The representatives often do not represent the will of the people just because we elect them. We generally have the choice between two establishment candidates out of touch with the people. When they raise our taxes and then give themselves as much as a 25% pay increase so they will be insulated from their actions this does not represent the will of the people.

Duke:

If you are advocating a democracy that allocates voting power according to taxes paid, then that’s a different form of government, and in that case presumably the consent of a majority of the taxpayers is required. To what extent should voting power be proportional to taxes paid?

JJ

I never said anything about the amount of taxes paid, but about half the people do not pay any federal taxes at all and they are getting more and more power to influence representatives to “tax the rich” which winds up being an increase on all taxpayers. Our representatives should give high consideration to the will of the taxpayer since he is impacted by federal taxes where the non taxpayers are not. The payroll tax would have a much wider net. In a direct democracy (which we do not have) only the taxpayers should be able to vote on a tax increase.

Duke:

However if the 30% came to power in a fair election, then I have little pity on the 70%. They chose to be divided, and so they have been conquered. But hopefully only until the next election.

JJ

Well I certainly have not chosen the current outcomes of legislation. We often have the choice between two people who will take us the same direction so that is no choice at all. That is why I have proposed the system of Molecular Politics outlined in themajorityspeaks.com. This will give much more power to the peopl

“Here was the last question:

Now the people, as a whole, feel it is morally all right to tax the people to support true essentials, so the question is this. What percentage of the people who have to pay should agree to an increase in taxes to support a social program that is for a good cause, such as giving the poor some extra support in food stamps and welfare? Soryn is mysteriously silent on this.”

Sorin

Well, majority means 51%, don’t know what else to comment.

JJ

We know what majority means but you still did not answer the question. I am curious what your answer would be.

 

May 20, 2014

The Swiss System

I made a delightful discovery today. I found that the government of Switzerland operates very close to what I have presented in my treatise Molecular Politics.

I have known for some time that the people there voted on various referendums there, but I always assumed their referendums worked something like our system.

I was wrong.

What kind of piqued my interest was hearing the news story that the Swiss had rejected a $25 minimum wage, and before and after this vote they have had no minimum wage. Actually in U.S. dollars the amount was $17.60, not $25.

In an application of direct democracy 76% of the people voted no on the measure.

I read up on the Swiss form of government and here are several areas where their democracy works better than ours.

Here if Congress passes a bad law or the Supreme Court interprets it in a certain way we are stuck. Changing it is almost impossible.

In Switzerland, if the people think the law is bad they can call for a vote of the people and throw the bill out the window.

We do not have national referendums here but many states have them. The trouble in the U.S. is that even after the will of the people express themselves in a majority vote the legislators will often go to court to overturn it. This happens a large percentage of the time here.

Not in Switzerland. There the will of the people is the ultimate power. This is what our Founders wanted to happen through establishing a jury system that could throw out bad law but it has been corrupted.

Citizens can also initiate measures. All one has to do is collect 100,000 signatures and then it will be presented to the people for a vote.

They still have a representative government that handles all the mundane legislation, but when something comes up that is considered important the people step in and make the decision.

The fact that the people are the final power that can trash bad legislation keeps the legislators in check. It stops them from funding a Bridge to Nowhere.

The fact that they have one of the most vital economies in the world is a testament that their democratic system works. Their GDP is steadily rising, their unemployment rate is around 3%, they export more than they import, they have no national debt, citizens can openly carry arms on buses yet the crime rate is very low, they have strict control over their borders, no minimum wage, fewer regulations, employers are free to fire anyone, but if you want to work you can usually get a job. They have a welfare system that is not needed that often but works on a local rather than national level – a little like charities used to be here.

And they have achieved this high economic standing without the benefit of oil, as is the case in Norway, Sweden and the UK.

One may wonder why such a high minimum wage of $17.60 got on the ballot to begin with – which would have made it the highest in the world. The reason is that 90% of the people make more than that. The average wage there is $37.00 an hour and only 10% of the people would be effected by the minimum wage and of those the effect would have been small because most of that 10% made close to $17.60 an hour already. Even so, 76% of the people thought it was not necessary and rejected it.

I’m going to look deeper into the Swiss system but so far it seems to provide a lot of evidence that a direct democracy where the real ultimate power lies in the hands of the people is indeed workable. I’m mystified that I haven’t heard more about it.

Sorin

This form of direct democracy (which is binding) exists in some other countries, like Croatia, Italy, or Hungary.

See this for a list: 

Also, in some countries the constitution can be modified only by referendum (binding).

In Romania, the president can call for a referendum on any subject, which has binding power. Same in France. Also, in Romania any modification of the constitution is approved through referendum. There is no institution that can cancel the will of the people.

JJ

The referendums in those countries have a lot more restrictions than the Swiss. For instance, of Hungary it says:

The Constitution imposes a number of prohibitions on matters on which a referendum can be held, including amending Constitution, budget, taxing, obligations from international agreements, military operations, etc. Required voter turnout for the referendum to be valid is 50%. The decision made by a referendum is binding on the Parliament.

A Swiss referendum usually gets a little less than 50% turnout so by Hungary’s guidelines it would be negated right there.

Sounds like some of the countries have referendums on the books to give the illusion of participation by the people. The Swiss seem to be the only country that has democratic participation with real teeth.

 

May 20, 2014

Jefferson & Democracy

Good comments on juries lwk. You say:

As to what the Founders wanted, there is considerable documentation of their distrust of direct democracy as practiced in Switzerland.

JJ

They were divided over that. Jefferson, for instance, was a big supporter of the will of the people being supreme.

Here’s some quotes:

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. (Quote from Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809)

“Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals” –Thomas Jefferson to Garret Vanmeter, 1781 ME 4:417, Papers 5:566

“If we are faithful to our country, IF WE ACQUIESCE, WITH GOOD WILL, IN THE DECISIONS OF THE MAJORITY, AND THE NATION MOVES IN MASS IN THE SAME DIRECTION, ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT BE THAT WHICH EVERY INDIVIDUAL THINKS BEST, we have nothing to fear from any quarter” –Thomas Jefferson to Virginia Baptists, 1808 ME 16:321

“THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF REPUBLICANISM IS THAT THE LEX MAJORIS PARTIS (THE LAW OF THE MAJORITY) IS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF EVERY SOCIETY OF INDIVIDUALS OF EQUAL RIGHTS; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt .” –Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817 ME 15:127

“[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 ME 12:18

“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object” –Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801 ME 10:236

“The measures of the fair majority ought always to be respected” –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792 ME 8:397

“I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law” –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793 ME 1:332

“All being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes” –Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809 ME 16:456

“[We acknowledge] the principle that the majority must give the law” –Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788 ME 7:28

“This [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law” –Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786 ME 17:85

“Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia QVIII, 1782 ME 2:120

“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

“The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, etc, where not otherwise expressly provided” –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800 ME 2:420

“It is the multitude which possess force, and wisdom must yield to that” –Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816 ME 14:492

“The Lex majoris partis, founded in common law as well as common right, [is] the natural law of every assembly of men whose numbers are not fixed by any other law” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia QXIII, 1782 ME 2:172

“Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790 ME 3:60

 

May 20, 2014

The Teachings

Sarah:

I have always resonated with www.freeread.com since the day I found it, however no matter who I tell or in which way I convey tid bits of knowledge about JJ’s books to….no one I have shown them to in 4.5 years has grabbed hold of it the way I did. I have run the gamut of approaches and I pretty much now am very non-schalant about it and wait for anyone to ask first….but people never do.

Just seems odd, like why do I clearly see these teachings as being so profound….but others I show do not delve into them?

JJ

Yes, this seems odd even for me. It seems that te majority cannot see the difference between mumbo jumbo and teachings that speak to the soul.

I am in good company for DK’s teachings still are not widely read though he is becoming widely recognized. Here is something interesting he said:

Each generation should produce those able to ascertain subjective fact for themselves; they will utilize that which is exoteric and known as stepping stones on the path to perfect knowledge. They will know, and they will give out, and only the next cycle of fifty years after their work is accomplished will see the recognition by the many of the truth revealed by the few. TCF, Page 707

 

May 20, 2014

What or Who is the 144,000 exactly?

JJ quoting DK

Each generation should produce those able to ascertain subjective fact for themselves; they will utilize that which is exoteric and known as stepping stones on the path to perfect knowledge. They will know, and they will give out, and only the next cycle of fifty years after their work is accomplished will see the recognition by the many of the truth revealed by the few. TCF, Page 707

May 20, 2014

Jefferson on “Republic”

View Source

As for an example of the tyranny of the majority goes – I cannot find one example in history. The best example the quoted author comes up with is:

Great Britain, the state of New York enacted harsh measures against Loyalists and British subjects. These included the Confiscation Act (1779), the Citation Act (1782) and the Trespass Act (1783). All involved the taking of property.

In Hamilton’s view, these Acts illustrated the inherent difference between democracy and the law.

JJ

What he forgets to note is is that those acts were not passed by a democratic vote but by Representative governments. Where there is tyranny it is almost always the tyranny of the minority. A majority may get a little out of hand once in a while. For example right after 9/11 the majority wanted revenge any way they could get it but that didn’t last for long. On the other hand, a minority like Castro will suppress his people as long as he has breath.

 

May 21, 2014

Direct Democracy

Duke:

Regarding the National Referendum system embraced in various forms by Switzerland and several other European nations, would it make any sense to draft a proposed Constitutional Amendment?

JJ

Getting a Constitutional Amendment through is extremely difficult. That is why I created a system that would create even more Democracy than Switzerland has with no changes to the Constitution necessary. Once I get the public’s attention through one of my works I will plan on promoting it.

Those who have not read the plan can check it out here.

 

May 21, 2014

 

The Caterpillar Principle

Soryn:

While I advocate for pressure (international applicable regulations) from the international community to regulate the exchange of natural resources and services between poor and rich countries, I am curious to see what is your position on this?

JJ

The articles you referenced point out that the countries who won the lottery of natural resources generally wind up as much poorer than nations that have to rely heavily on the ingenuity to thrive. This if often blamed on the greed of the corporations that supposedly exploit them which silly.

The principle behind this could be called the Caterpillar Principle. The saying goes that a caterpillar needs the struggle of breaking out of its prison cocoon to gain the strength to survive and if you help it that it will die. The same goes with a chicken breaking out of its egg. You could kill it by helping it too much.

The truth of this principle is illustrated not only by nations who win a lottery by discovering oil or some other commodity, but by lottery winners themselves. I have followed the stories of many lottery winners and almost all of them, after a couple years of winning the lottery, curse the day they won for they wind up broke and alienated from all their friends.

What happens is as soon as friends and family discover they won big money they start hitting them up for a piece of the winnings or for a loan or investment that is never paid back. Then as soon as the winner starts running short and cuts off the funds his friends become angry and start hating his guts.

Now what is the core reason that the lottery winner winds up with such a problem? Do we blame it on his greedy friends and family?

As I said, that is silly. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have also encountered a lot of greedy people and they didn’t lose their wealth because of it?

If free stuff is there for the taking then self-serving people will come out of the woodwork. Bill Gates is just smart enough to know how to handle them.

What is the solution to the lottery problem? Should we establish regulations to control how the winner spends his money and how his friends can approach him for loans?

Of course not. That would be interfering with free will. Even though most winners will use bad judgment with their wealth we must let them learn by their own experiences. Believe me, the lottery winner who has lost everything has learned some important initial lessons about human nature and the misuse of money.

Even so goes it with nations that win the lottery. Some may want to exploit them or even help them by getting them to invest in a good cause but the fact that most such nations wind up poor is not their fault. It is the fault of the nation itself just as it is the fault of the lottery winner if he gives away all his winnings or invests the money in some well-meaning scheme.

Just like it is not a good idea to regulate lottery winners and their friends, it is not a good idea to regulate the wealth of a nation or the greed of the people dealing with it. If some entity attempts to take the resources by force then that is another matter.

Just like there are some lottery winners with enough common sense to use their money wisely even so, some oil rich countries do also. Two examples are Qatar and Kuwait.

Japan is an example of a country with few resources that overcame the handicap through their ingenuity and became prosperous. Sixteenth Century Spain is an example of a prosperous country that became poor by discovering or stealing the riches of gold and silver from the New World. As soon as they started relying on all that gold they became lazy and went dramatically downhill economically and as a world power.

Soryn asks me about charities such as such as the Bill Gates’ foundation.

If anyone wants to start a charity or donate money to help the disadvantaged that is fine with me and is usually about 500% better spent than government money which is generally just thrown at problems.

If we really wanted to help the Third World the first thing we would do for them is make sure all people on the planet have clean drinking water. We now have the technology to take clean water right out of the air.

Check this out:

Ruth W:

I can tell you from experience that child labor was a very good thing for me. After the great depression our family struggled to survive. By the time I was 13 I was delighted to get a job on a farm working 10 hour days and feeling happy about it.

JJ

Yes, child labor not taken to excess is a good thing. I did lots of work for money from the time I was four and it was good for my soul and work ethic.

From the ages of 4-13 I did things such as pick fruit, manage lemonade stands, pick up bottles for recycling, sell seeds and cards door to door, thin apples, various orchard work such as dig around trees fertilize and pick up brush, worked in a packing shed, danced for money in bars, and even sold some beer.

I never felt abused in the least and was thrilled to make some money.

To Soryn:

Can you point to one country where the standards of living were made worse by corporations coming in and hiring people?

Look at the two countries where this does not happen at all: Cuba – where they are now having toilet paper shortages and North Korea where the people eat grass to survive.

JJ wrote:

From the ages of 4-13 I did things such as …. danced for money in bars …

Dan:

You’ll have to forgive me if I just not only CANNOT but WILLNOT picture you as a pole dancer 🙂

JJ

I thought that should get a rise from someone out there. Here’s the story. When I was a kid my parents spent most nights out in bars and if they were not home when they said I took my younger sister, walked uptown, and found them in one of the bars. Once there they usually were not in the mood to come home. The patrons would offer me and my sister money to dance for them so we thought, “What the heck?” and did our best. It earned us some money to buy candy.

 

May 22, 2014

Third Question

The Last Question:

Many social programs, such as Obamacare have to be mostly financed, not with taxes, but borrowed money that our children must pay interest on. How urgent must the need be before we borrow more money to help certain citizens? Give examples.

JJ

Good common sense answers on this.

The government borrowing money and accumulating higher and higher interest payments that must be met is much more serious than the average person realizes. Those who do the math realize that if we do not curtail this borrowing the day will come that the amount of the payment will exceed all other spending and lead to insolvency.

And how do you think the Chinese will respond if we tell them, “Sorry. We just don’t have the money to pay you this month or year?”

We shouldn’t be borrowing a dime to expand any social program. The only thing that would justify more borrowing would be a war for self preservation or some type of disaster where people need relief.

Everyone in the group who commented agreed that 50% or more should agree to spending on a good cause if an increase in taxes would result. They were even stricter when the money would be borrowed.

Question:

Either everyone here is an extreme right-winger or we are just smarter than the average voter. Every year we borrow more money, not for emergencies, but to expand government and social programs. Why do people put up with this? Are they mentally challenged, just not paying attention or what? Why can they not do the simple math that would tell them that we will have a day of reckoning if we continue this borrowing madness?

 

May 22, 2014

Correct Translation

Soryn giving a quote:

“I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever know, I believe in self reliance and individual initiative but I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot” says Obama.

JJ

You have to translate what Obama says to get the truth because he says what people want to hear instead of giving his true intentions – such as “If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance” a total lie.

Translation:

“You’ve had your free enterprise and used initiative and self reliance in the past and this has resulted in an unfair division of the rich and poor which I will correct with a master plan of forced redistribution.”

Soryn:

Forced redistribution is currently a reality. People pay taxes and the money is redistributed by the government.

JJ

If the taxes due are a fair amount that the taxpayers support and those who contribute actually get benefits in return then it is not considered forced redistribution. It is considered forced redistribution when those who have worked hard for their money are ordered to pay more than they consider fair.

This has happened with Obamacare. Here is an example from a letter published in my local paper this morning:

“Liberals lied about Obamacare, saying that we could keep our plans and doctors. Liberals told us our premiums would be $2,500 less. My premiums have risen 400 percent so I can pay for liberal freeloaders.”

You can’t blame this guy for feeling he was not treated fairly.

Soryn:

Not trying to defend Obamacare or anything, we can read the following on the official site:

“ObamaCare’s cost is estimated at up to net cost of $1.36 trillion dollars by 2023.”

“Obamacare is projected to cut the national deficit by over $200 billion during its first 10 years and over $1 trillion over the next two decades. This helps offset the up-front cost of ObamaCare.”

So it seems like in the short-term it creates a great deficit, but in the long run it brings a benefit.

JJ

Wow.. I am amazed at the depth of your self-deception if you believe that propaganda from Obama sites. The costs estimated by those who actually do the math are to be three times as much as this estimate and I’d be willing to bet that is a low figure. If you think Obamacare will reduce the deficit then I have a great bridge I’ll sell you cheap.

Every cost estimate the government gives us on a social program is always way way off. Medicare costs more than ten times the estimated amount.

If you want to know Obama’s thinking look at his past and his actions rather than his words. Take a look.

LINK

 

May 23, 2014

Ratio of Men to Women among spiritual seekers

Larry W

If you go among any Church or spiritual seekers, this is the trend. I mentioned this recently when I attended an esoteric group of seekers in Oklahoma City. 40 women, four men. So tonight I got the idea to go look at pics from Keysters. Every year we pose outside a restaurant or someplace or two for group pics. You don’t always get ALL attendees in such pics, but it gives you a pretty good idea who attended. I looked at several group pics from KOK (Keys of Knowledge) Gatherings. In each one I count equal number of men and of women. Interesting.

What does that imply? I don’t know. But it shows SOMETHING is different about the Keysters compared to most other seeker groups.

JJ

Interesting point Larry. I have heard a number of comments over the years about the fact that we seem to draw an even number of male and females at various meetings whereas other spiritual groups, especially new age and metaphysical ones draw mostly females.

In each gathering we have had we always do something in a circle where we arrange them male/female and in each gsathering they have been very close to even. This also happens in various classes I give.

I think the reason I draw a fairly even number is that I am one of the few spiritual teachers who puts emphasis on logic that appeals to males as well as the mystical which appeals to the female side.

Ruth:

Don’t forget that the Keysters also include all those members who do not attend the mini gathering every year, so the ratio of men and women might be a bit different to just a group picture of a few of the members.

JJ

Good point. It is interesting that even a greater percentage of the Keys are male than happens at the gatherings – at least among those who participate. This is also highly unusual amoung spiritual metaphysical or New Age groups.

LWK

If and when government forces higher wages than are economically justified the end result is always fewer jobs, and/or higher prices for goods.

JJ

Good point Larry. Switzerland is one of the few countries that refuses to pass a minimum wage and the average wage there is $37/hr. and unemployment is about 3%. Few people make less than $20/hr.

The Left does not seem to realize that reality is not what they feel but what actually happens.

Larry W

I find myself extremely tempted right now to come up with The Pole Dancer Principle.

JJ

Actually the pole dancing idea came entirely from Dan’s fertile imagination. When my sister and I danced for the drunken crowd we kind of copied what we had seen in the movies which was a little swing type stuff. We made it up as we went. Sometimes I also got free beer out of the deal. It was a lot different world back then.

 

May 23, 2014

Question Four

It is interesting to contemplate the difference between the political Left and Right. The Right just cannot understand why the Left cannot add 2+2 and support a balanced budget and the Left see the Right as heartless beasts who refuse to help the poor and disadvantaged.

Question: What is the real difference between the two sides and why do they not understand each other – or do they?

 

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE