Teachings – Page 76

The Last Life, Part 3

November 27, 2011November 27, 2011 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 20 of 49 in the series JJ Lectures

A person first begins his series of lifetimes as a human when he reaches self-consciousness. We have not always been self-consciousness beings. There is an eternal part of us that has always had the self-consciousness potential but when we came down here and incarnated into our physical bodies we had a life which was our first life in which we aware where we think, “hey I am me and I am separate from everybody else, I am a distinct person.” This is illustrated in the Bible where Adam all of a sudden wanted to wear clothes. First of all he and his wife were running around the garden naked and did not even think of wearing clothes. Then when they attained the knowledge of good and evil they became aware that they were naked. It says and he wanted to clothe himself. The fact we want to cover ourselves to be distinct from everyone else wearing different clothes is a sign of self-consciousness.

Now you look at an animal and they don’t care if they run around naked at all – they do not care what they do. They will go to the bathroom in the middle of the floor, they will have sex on the table with a thousand people watching and they just do not care. Before we reached self-consciousness we were that way. When we reach self-consciousness all of sudden it dawns on us at one point that we are concerned about what other people are thinking and so this is where self-consciousness began.

Audience: Are you counting the thousand lifetimes in with this period?

JJ: The thousand lifetimes begins when we become self-consciously aware. Does anyone know who the first self-conscious man was? The first Adam is called “The Ancient of Days” and another name for Him is Santa Kumara and he came here 23 million years ago from the planet Venus. He did not come from the physical planet Venus but came from a higher etheric level of Venus where there is life. He came here with approximately two hundred other Kumara’s of very high standing that had evolved through the human kingdom in a past solar system. In other words, look at a time before our sun even existed, way back in a previous round of solar systems.

These beings evolved through the human kingdom and became Masters and now They have come back to do other work to help us lower lives develop. And so came a time to plant, to stimulate life on the earth. They came here 23 million years ago and built the Great Foundations of the city of Shamballa. They stayed here about 5 million years before the preparations were complete and when the preparations were complete all but seven of the Kumara’s left and went back to Venus. Seven of them stayed here which was Sanat Kumara and six of His disciples. The Ancient of Days looked upon the animal man who was not self-conscious and felt sorry for them and he felt that They could stimulate evolution by incarnating into one of their bodies and stimulating the rest of them. So what Sanat Kumara did was He incarnated and was born a regular human being and he became the first self conscious man. As he grew up He was such a high intelligence that even though this was in a lower body which almost looked like an animal body compared to the bodies we have today, He grew up with self-consciousness and began to stimulate the other animal men around Him This happened over 18 million years ago.

Audience: Was His ability to express Himself in His intelligence limited by the size of the brain at that time?

JJ: Yes, even He, as intelligent as He was in that animal man, probably had a real hard time figuring out how to make fire. Actually, He may not have even been intelligent enough to make fire at that time. His main mission was to stimulate self-consciousness. So He was born, He stimulated self-consciousness and we have no record of how many were self-conscious during his life but He stimulated it in a small group and then that small group began to create a chain reaction.

Audience: Are we talking about cave men?

JJ: Yes they were like cave men with all kinds of animals that we do not have now.

Audience: So the cave man of the time did not have consciousness and behaved like a pack of wild animals?

JJ: Yes eighteen million years ago that which became human was more animal than man and as a matter of fact the higher animals ate them for food and they had a heck of a time just surviving. It took all their intelligence just to keep from being eaten by lions, dinosaurs or whatever there was back then. They had all kinds of threats that we can only imagine and their whole attention was put on just surviving. But The Ancient of Days incarnated and began to stimulate their minds and then it tells us that the sons of mind descended and as their consciousness began to evolve they began to tap into what is called the solar angel. The solar angel is a being that has evolved in a previous solar system and many of them have come to the earth to help to stimulate our evolution and sometimes they are called our guardian angel or whatever but our Solar Angel is a Master on Its own plane. Sanat Kumara and the Masters that came from Venus brought with them these Solar Angels to stimulate our evolution.

Audience: I thought my higher angel was my higher self?

JJ: Yes the Solar Angel is called your higher self because it is so connected with you that it comes to nourish you.

Audience: So the Solar Angel could be Robs and mine together and it is my higher self and his higher self?

JJ: We are not told all the details, although it is possible that one Solar Angel could stimulate and assist a number of people but we are not given the number that they work with. But after the Solar Angel has done its job and you have made soul contact then the Solar Angel will leave and return from whence it came. Then you will be on your own and will be a soul infused personality and it will have done its job. Its job is to nurture you. Think of us like a plant and when the plant grows and begins to bear fruit then the farmer’s work is done so to speak. Then the plant can reproduce itself so to speak.

Wayne: In Paleontology as far as I know and in the sciences we have been finding humanoids of one sort or another and attributing them to an earlier and earlier period of existence and according to the scuttlebutt of the science of today I think the oldest human or animal human is only around 6 million years so by the scenario we just went through there should be some sort of skeletal humanoid remains that would be this old.

JJ: Well you would think so but like in the coalmines in Pennsylvania a couple thousand feet below the earth they have actually found residual artifacts that are only a couple thousand years old. Now if something only a couple thousand years old can be buried in a coal mine 200 feet below the surface imagine where the artifacts are that are millions of years old. It is amazing even going back a couple thousand years they figure there were some tremendous upheavals and some beyond that. Some other things that are interesting is that I even read about an artifact that they found that they believe is like a billion years old that is definitely human made, they have not found any bones over like 4 to 6 million years but they have found some artifacts that are human made that goes back in antiquity.

Wayne: They found amphibians and quite a paleontology record of animals according to DK that co-existed with man if man is 15 million years old but although we have a fairly good fossil record of millions and millions of years and we have not recorded anything in them that is definitively human to date.

JJ: Yes we do have it yet but it is amazing when I was a kid I think they figured that we only went back a few thousand years and then it was half a million years and then it was a million and then two million years and now six million years and they are going back farther all the time as far as discovering remnants of man. They have definitely found man made artifacts that go back much farther than the first bones that they found. I heard some guy talking about it on one of the coast-to-coast shows and will have to look it up on one of the web sites there. So it is interesting but figuring if we have been here 18 million years. Many people say how could we possibly live very many lifetimes because we have so many people here and a lot of people figure that we have the most people now living here on the earth than at any other time on our history. But what they do not figure is that there have been upheavals many times and if we have been here for 18 million years that gives us time to live quite a few lifetimes. Take one million years for instance, if you were born every thousand years for one million years that is a thousand lifetimes right there. When I have taken people back by past life regression within the past thousand years the average person has lived two or three lifetimes within the past thousand years and they have not really lived as many lifetimes a thousand years before then because there were not as many people.

The first thing we learn is self-consciousness and what is the second thing that we learn? In self-consciousness what we do is we develop everything around us and start to be aware. Now an animal is in preparation for human consciousness and the main thing that the animal has to learn is to pay attention. This revelation dawned on me one time when I noticed that whenever I was going to eat anything in the kitchen that my dog, no matter where he was in the house, would materialize by my side as soon as I would think about eating. he would be right there with his tongue out wanting some food.

I thought, how in the world does this dog know this. Is he reading my mind; is he physic? How does he know I am thinking about eating? He was just sleeping upstairs and I woke him from his sleep just by thinking about eating. So I started experimenting and I found that whenever I opened the refrigerator or the cupboard door that was signal to him that I was going to eat. He was not reading my mind but he was paying attention and heard the creak of the door. I noticed that all animals are like that. They really pay close attention and put a lot of attention on survival. This paying of attention is very stimulating evolutionary wise and preparing them for the next step into the human kingdom where they attain self-consciousness and then they put attention on developing that self-conscious and developing it. The next thing they learn as we progress along is to develop the instinct.

Now go to the primitive peoples on the planet and they have tremendous instincts and they are in touch with the animals and we hear the stories about the Indian putting his ear to the ground and he can hear the buffalo roaming twenty miles away. They are very sensitive. People in their native condition are very sensitive. This is where we spent our early lives – in the native condition. The native condition is very in tune with the earth and before a native will kill an animal he will give thanks to the animal and the great spirit for giving its life so that he and the group he is a part may continue with life. Then they will shoot it and eat it and they will have these ceremonies around it. They often name their children after animals like running bear or whatever. Animal names are often associated with primitive people and so we develop that instinct where we are very much in tune and in communication with nature. Once we get these instincts perfected then what do we do next?

Wayne: Animals have instincts so where is the transition?

JJ: Because that instinct is registered in the conscious mind. Where animals act like a computer program, their instincts are more like a computer program where ours are more consciously held and we consciously tune into the instincts and are aware of the instincts. The animal is not even aware that they are following instinct but the conscious man is aware. The conscious man develops that power to be consciously aware of the instincts in an instinctive world along with self-consciousness. Then he develops the next step – does anyone have an idea of what that would be? It is above the self- conscious and the instinctual world.

Easy Access to all the Writings

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

The Last Life, Part 2

November 26, 2011October 29, 2016 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 19 of 49 in the series JJ Lectures

Perhaps another question would be, is there such a thing as a last life?power and he will have

Audience: I don’t think so; I think that even if you go through the initiations and reach the Christ initiation, which is what, the fifth initiation?

JJ: Yes to be a Master you have to go through five initiations, but the Christ was working on his seventh.

Audience: So even if you were to reach the fifth initiation you could still have another life so I don’t think you could ever be done.

JJ: Okay there is an interesting scripture that talks about the concept that we will have eternal lives on eternal worlds, worlds without end. In the true reality there is no last life but there is a last life to a particular field of endeavor and activity. Now we are under going a human evolution, to learn everything we need to learn going through our human in our sate. It takes many lifetimes and eventually we will reach a life where we will be like Christ and we will have all the mastery that Christ had and we will reach a point where we will say to ourselves well it looks like there is not too much more for me learn by coming back again except for maybe make a second coming somehow.

Now the second coming of the Christ could mean just being born as babe again and this is entirely possible but something that is not revealed and He does not want this revealed, why? Because when He comes He wants people to recognize Him because of what is inside of Him and not because it is proclaimed, “I am Christ obey me, bow before Zog!” You know the guy in superman movie.

That is the way everybody thinks that Jesus is going to be when He comes, destroy all the those wicked son of guns and then everybody will say, just tell me what to do, I will do whatever you say now lord. And then he starts bossing everybody around saying things like, “We are going to change this, we are going to get rid of President Bush and we are going to install a cabinet of zealous born again members and we are going to do this and that.” That is not the way it is going to be at all. If you want to know what it is going to be like the second time then look and see what He was like when He was here the first time. Did He boss anybody around the first time?

Even when He knew Judas was going to betray Him did He do anything to stop him? No He did not do a thing and just let Judas go ahead and betray Him. Did He try to unseat Caesar? No, did He interfere with anyone’s free will? No, the only thing that made Him cantankerous was one thing and does anybody remember what that one thing that He criticized was?

Audience: The profit for moneymakers in the temple.

JJ: But why did He criticize these guys?

Audience: They were making the profit and not doing…

JJ: It is one word and begins with the letter H.

Audience: Hypocrisy?

JJ: Hypocrisy, hypocrisy was the one thing that really irritated Him and He could not stand hypocrites. They brought a woman that committed adultery before Him and they said that they caught her in the act and we know she is guilty and the law says that she must be stoned – and what did He say? Did He say well she is pretty wicked all right and if you caught her in the act then that pretty much proves it. No He said let him who is without sin cast the first stone. And everybody’s own conscience condemn them so nobody could throw that first stone because everybody felt like they had done things within the boundaries of sin.

But when He had come across the religious leaders of His time His patience wore thin and as you know He cleaned the temple out with a whip and being as perfect as He is, we have the image of Jesus as being so mild and meek but He was normal so to speak. If you read the scriptures you get the image of a very kind loving person except when He was confronted with Hypocrisy and then he spoke very decisively about it and completely honest even at the risk of His life because a couple of times they tried to stone him.

He was completely fearless, which is another thing that if a person is on his last life he will have a certain amount of supernatural power and he will have fear under control. He will speak the truth, and this is one of the key ingredients in overcoming all things is the Truth. Not only finding the truth but being the truth so that everything that you teach, everything that you do and say and every time that you give your word it is true and if you can do that it will move you farther along to overcoming all things to being a master than anything else.

Suppose you meet a Master and the Master tells you, they have an important mission for you and want you to go down to Albertson’s and run around the store naked and draw attention to yourself and then they are going to bring an angel down and overshadow you with light and everybody is going to see a new vision. Then, after you obey this the Master says he was just joking and was just screwing with you.

Audience: Laughing!

JJ: But, in our minds, if we were to meet God, a Master or a Great Being we just assume what they tell us is true. Why do we assume that?

Audience: Because we give them authority.

JJ: That is part of it but we give them the authority because instinctively within ourselves we know that when a person manifests his god self there is truth in it and we instinctively know that within us. That is why if we were to meet such a being and we felt that divine presence we would have a high amount of trust in what that person would have to say. But many people that feel this way, on the other hand, think that I can deceive here and there myself and it is no big deal and nobody got hurt. Now why does he think that he can be on his last life and deceive when others who preceded him can come to him and he can reply on them 100%? It does not work that way.

We have to follow in the steps of the Great Ones so that what we say can be relied upon. When we reach a point where what we say can be relied upon as truth, truth as we know it to be, then that is a giant step in attaining our last life in this cycle. There are many ideas about how many lives that we have. If we went back clear to our beginning we would find that we went through thousands of lives but in this particular round that we are in right now I believe we go through approximately one thousand lives before we achieve liberation and the reason I believe that is because within our selves we have petals in each one of our chakras and these petals unfold as we master certain types of energies.

In the base of the spine there are four petals, in the solar plexus there are ten petals and in the heart center there are twelve petals and then in the center between the eyebrows for instance there are two major petals and in each one of these major petals there are forty eight on each side making ninety six small ones all together. The ninety six petals in the center between the eyebrows and then below the third eye you have forty eight and that makes a 144 petals in that area of the head. Then at the crown chakra you have approximately one thousand. So you have one thousand times the 144 equals the magic number of the 144,000.

Now in this round of existence I believe that each petal on the crown chakra stands for a lesson learned in one lifetime and in each lifetime we unfold a new lesson and learn a new characteristic a new ability a new piece of wisdom a new realization – something new that we learned and we cause one of the petals at the crown chakra to unfold in each lifetime until the last and then all of them are unfolded.

Now lets take our heart chakra, for instance, when it unfolds we have twelve petals. Six petals are connected with wisdom and six petals are connected with compassion and love. So we have these two groups of petals and when a person begins to understand the Christ love then one of the love petals begins to unfold and when it unfolds you have a new energy come and you may see love in an entirely new light, and an entirely new way of looking at it that you have never thought of before. Then when one of the wisdom unfolds all of a sudden you get more common sense than you have had before and common sense would be related to one of the wisdom petals, and then light and understanding is related to another one of the wisdom petals.

It takes about a thousand lifetimes for all these petals to unfold. Now the person goes through a lot of trial and error for hundreds and hundreds lifetimes and does not seem to make a lot of progress. The curve goes about like this, it is almost straight for one hundred lifetimes, two hundred lifetimes, three hundred lifetimes and then about between seven and eight hundred lifetimes you begin to start making some real progress and then as you are approaching the thousand number in your lifetimes you begin to realize that there are two flows. You have always heard the statement, especially in the new age community, just relax and go with the flow, but there are two flows. There is one that goes toward matter and there another flow that moves toward spirit and you do not pick up the second flow, the spiritual flow, until you near the end of your evolution – until you become a seeker and you hunger and thirst for truth (a disciple).

When you are hungering and thirsting after for truth then you pick up the second flow and you have to go with that and then you complete what is called the “The Labors of Hercules”. In the Labors of Hercules what happens is you pick up the second flow and you reverse the direction of your incarnations around the zodiac. We incarnate through the various signs of the zodiac clockwise as we begin our evolution until we reach near the end and when we reach near the end and perform the Labors of Hercules we go with our spiritual flow and it reverses our flow through the zodiac. We incarnate backwards at this point and incarnating backwards and going against the material flow each lifetime will be a tremendous struggle.

For instance I believe Abraham Lincoln performed one of the Labors of Hercules under Aquarius. He was born in Aquarius and in Aquarius Hercules had to clean the Augean stables and the king promised him a portion of his kingdom (10% of his cattle) if he would clean these out. Hercules cleaned the stables out and then when the king refused to pay him Hercules demanded he keep his promise. The king thought the only way to get rid of him was to kill him so Hercules had to flee for his life. So he did all this work and got no reward. Abraham Lincoln was a great example of that, he did all this work in freeing the slaves and his only reward was people wanting him dead.

Abraham Lincoln performed the quintessential Labor of Hercules in Aquarius. He performed a superhuman effort and cleaned up the slave mess so to speak and received no reward for it while he had lived. Of course he took his reward with him but he did not get much reward while he was alive.

He had a really bad wife too. Historians judge her to be the worst first lady in history. They were at a party one time, a big function with dignitaries and Abraham Lincoln said something a little bit off to his wife and she took a pie and threw it right in his face. She was just a terrible person to get along with. She wanted to be called Mrs. President and she really was into the glory of the office. It is amazing that with the distraction of having his wife being so cantankerous that he was able to be so patient with everyone else as well as fight one of the two greatest wars in our history. Djwhal Khul called him a racial avatar, placing him in similar category as a prophet of ancient times.

Easy Access to all the Writings

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 16

November 25, 2011December 11, 2022 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 30 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 27, 2011
Definitions
Blayne and I have about exhausted ourselves going round and round on the first point of our discussion concerning the hit on Awlaki. It is time to ask what the root cause of the disagreement is.

One of the main problems in our communications is that we are using different definitions of core words.

I always use the most standard or obvious meanings of words unless I define them otherwise in my writings. Many people do not do this, especially those who have been immersed in some school of thought with a strong point of view. Such people often use their pet words with unorthodox meanings without explaining they are using non-standard definitions.

There are two words that have been interfering with our communication.

The first is “Right.”

Blayne thinks that the noun or legal “right” is similar in meaning to the word when it is used as an adjective or adverb. In other words you have a right to do a thing if it is right, moral and of good report.

He thus sees himself as having a right to own a gun because it is a good thing that we have the freedom to bear arms.

It is good that we have free speech therefore it is our right, even if it was not granted by the constitution or by any law.

The trouble with using this definition is that following it can get such a believer in trouble.

My friend Wayne went by this definition and thought it was right, moral and good that he should be able to drive without a license. Therefore, he thought he had “the right” to do so and went ahead and did it. This bullheadedness on his part brought him a tremendous amount of grief and expense. He was arrested regularly and several times spent time in jail. Not only me and my wife, but numerous friends tried talking him into getting a license, arguing that it would make his life so much easier. Unfortunately, he thought it was his right to drive without a license because it was immoral for the State to decree otherwise.

Wayne also thought it was his right to not pay income taxes. Because the tax was immoral in his eyes he just did not pay for about 40 years of his life. He would get calls every few years from the IRS but he told them that if they came to his door he would be waiting with a shotgun. Amazingly, that seemed to keep them at bay until he died.

He didn’t have such good luck with the city though. He put up some buildings on his property without building permits and the city fined him on a monthly basis. Again when the city threatened other action he told them he would be waiting with a shotgun and that seemed to physically hold them off but he had so many liens slapped on his property I don’t think his daughter got a penny of inheritance at his death.

I could write a book about Wayne’s unusual ways. I left out a lot of good stuff about him in The Immortal because I didn’t want to offend him or get him in trouble, but now he’s passed that won’t be such a concern.

Anyway, Wayne seemed to look at rights the same way Blayne does and it led to all kinds of trouble and possibly an early death. He wasn’t very happy with his life and didn’t even want a long life.

When I have been speaking of rights I have used he common definition which is, “legal authority.” If I have a legal right to do something then I will not live in fear of being arrested. We have the right to free speech and even have the right to criticize the president legally.

In North Korea they do not have that right and would be arrested if citizens criticize their Dear Leader there.

The second word Blayne and I are having a problem with is “legal.” Again I use the common definition that the dictionary says is something “allowed by law.”

On the other hand, Blayne associates legal with morality and feels that if something is illegal it is immoral. On the other hand, moral things are legal. Therefore, if he is doing good works and seems to be harming no one then he is always legal even if the cops and judges say he is breaking the law.

I think the rest of the group are pretty much in agreement on the Awlaki situation but we’ll proceed anyway and see what happens.

Oct 27, 2011
Definitions 1.1

This idea of there being a “right” definition or meaning to words that have multiple dictionary definitions is entirely on the wrong track for resolving our communication problems here.

Is there a right definition to the word cool? If I call someone a “cool dude” am I wrong because cool means a low temperature and therefore I am really saying that his body is cool?

That’s silly.

A word has the meaning that has been assigned to it in the context of speaking or writing it and that context is normally one of the definitions in the dictionary. If it is not clearly defined in the dictionary or is a minority definition then the communicator should explain what he means in using the word.

For instance I have used the word “purpose” with a different meaning than found in the dictionary but I went to significant lengths to explain what I mean so communication would not be confusing.

When I communicate I generally use the most common dictionary definition. If I do not do this then the context should indicate the definition used. If the context does not make it clear which definition is being used them I attempt to clarify, something that all good writers should do – if they want to be clear.

The word “right” has been defined in a number of different ways. None of them are right or wrong. They are what they are – the meanings that mortal man has assigned to them.

The most common definition of “a right” in connection with law is “legal authority” or authority from someone that has power over our lives. This is the way the word is used probably 90% of the time so if a person uses the word with some other meaning he should make it clear in the beginning that he is using a minority meaning.

Examples of majority use:

A family has a picnic in the park and are enjoying themselves when the governor arrives with a police escort. The police order the family to move because the governor needs their location for a photo op.

The family says, “We have the right to be here and stay here.”

They are not talking about some God-given theoretical right, but a legal right that would prevail in court.

Another family pitches a tent in a city park and decides to live there. A cop appears and chases them off declaring that they have no right to do this. Now a small minority may think that all people have a right to use public land however they please (think Wall Street Protesters) but most would not argue with the cop’s use of right as legal authority as being appropriate.

In common people have no problem with the use of this word as most use the word according to the common definition.

Even the Constitution seems to use the word “right” in connection with legal authority. The sixth Amendment says the accused has:

“the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law.”

Nothing in natural law or God’s law talks about a speedy trial which shall be held in a district which “shall have been previously ascertained BY LAW.”

The words “by law” does not refer to any God established moral law but law created by the legal authority or the Powers-That-Be.

The Constitution talks about the right to vote and the age, sex and race that can vote. These have changed over the years indicating that they were generally using the common definition of rights – not rights as an eternal moral thing that changes not.

So where has this idea of eternal God-given unchangeable rights emerged then?

This confusion over rights is mainly due to Jefferson’s beautiful poetic words in the Declaration of Independence. There he used poetic and creative license with his words to create an inspiring document.

I may have used the same choice of words myself in that situation for I heartily agree with the spirit of his words, but when we look the literal meaning we see that it is not technically correct.

The confusion comes mainly from this phrase:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

“Unalienable” means “that which cannot be given or taken away.” It thus becomes problematic that all three of these, “Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness” can be taken away. A Tyrant, such as Kim Jong Ill has full power (a right in his own mind) to take all three away from his subject at a moment’s notice.

Obviously Jefferson was not saying that all people have the right or full power over their lives liberty and happiness, but it is self evident that we have the moral right. The moral right to these things cannot generally be taken away, but even here there one can throw up exceptions.

Suppose part of your pursuit of happiness is sexually abusing little kids. In this case the pursuit of happiness should be put to a screeching halt.

The spirit of Jefferson’s document is terrific but one could dissect it and find many shades of meaning and flaws.

The biggest problem it has created is that it has lead to Constitutional fundamentalists to use the word “right” in sort of an odd and esoteric sort of way that those outside of their group do not relate to accurately.

Constitutional fundamentalists have a perfect moral and legal right to use their slant of meaning when using the word

right” in connection with legal matters but they need to do two things.

(1) Since many will not fully understand their meaning they should explain their terms when speaking to people not connected with their thought form.

(2) If they do not explain their terms then they should use the common meaning that the person they are talking with will understand.

I have often found myself in a situation where the person I am talking to uses a word meaning in a way that I rarely do. I realize that if I use the word as I normally do that confusion will be created so I do one of two things. I either use the word as he seems to be defining it, or just tell him I attach a different meaning to the word and explain it to him.

Many senseless arguments are created because people do not do one of these two things but just proceed using a minority definition that they expect others to absorb by osmosis.

This reminds of a time way back in 1970 when I was desperate and took a job selling vacuum cleaners. The company presented the idea that their machine was so superior to other vacuum cleaners that we were forbidden to use that obsolete word to even describe it. If we were caught calling our machine a vacuum cleaner we were either disciplined or fired. It was just a “cleaner” and that was it.

On the other hand it was fine that we call any other vacuum cleaner as such but the word was always used despairingly by the staff.

This caused a problem for the salesmen for sometimes we had to take a significant amount of time explain why the machine wasn’t a vacuum cleaner.

Did we expect customers to understand without explanation that our machine was not a vacuum cleaner? Of course not. (Actually, it was a vacuum cleaner)

Even so, when a person uses a minority definition of a word in a conversation he needs to make sure the other person is aware of his meaning. The two need to agree as to the meaning of the various words or their argument will continue ad infinitum.

When an argument descends to being centered over definitions of words then real communication has generally been lost.

Oct 27, 2011

Re: Definitions 1.1

Larry W. I use Jefferson’s definition of the word, rights, and I’m sticking to it.

JJ There is more than one definition and I accept them all. Don’t you? Often his use just doesn’t apply to the term. How do you use it then?

Larry The fact that people watered it down has caused us to lose Jefferson’s high ideals.

JJ I don’t think they are watered down at all but his definition is just not practical in the common vernacular. If a person says, “I have a right to this seat because I was here first,” – that doesn’t have much to do with rights from God, but customs of man and that is naturally how the term “rights” is used most of the time.

Larry His definition teaches us a lot about the ideals of freedom. I would like to encourage everyone to return the high ideal that rights can be defined by who created them.

JJ The problem is that neither Jefferson or the writers of the Constitution defined what they meant by rights in the documents. The declaration gives one slant on their use and the Constitution another – a more orthodox one.

Larry Let me say that again, “…defined by who created them.” Human rights come from God, legal rights come from government.

JJ And whose version of God do we go by – Christians, Mohammeds, Hindus??? Which spokesman for God is there that we can trust to reveal the mind of God on rights.

Jefferson talked about Nature’s God and rights that feel natural to man. These are indeed rights we should pursue, but there are legal rights also which are a different animal.

Again, rights are merely what someone defined them to be and right now there are several dictionary definitions and they are all valid and can be accurately used.

Larry: Besides, I thought this already was the mainstream definition – coming directly from America’s founding document as it does.

JJ Which founding document? The declaration gives one slant on rights and the Constitution another. They both have their place. Maybe one out of 20 times you see term “rights” (apart from right and wrong) is it used as Jefferson did.

Larry Finally, I have found it to be one of the best teaching tools I ever ran across for teaching the respectful and harmless principles of law. Since most everyone already reveres the Declaration, they accept these ideas directly from it quite readily. It’s not only a clear definition, defining rights by who creates them, but it also clearly shows the difference between eternal principles compared to manmade law. Why fight it, JJ? It’s a good thing. Join it.

JJ What gives you the idea I am fighting anything??? I’ve already praised Jefferson’s use of words. This doesn’t mean that “a right” doesn’t have several definitions and the most common use of the term today is not the one Jefferson was using. If I tell my wife that “I have the right to pick which show we see next” I am not in any way thinking of the Declaration of Independence – even though it would be a righteous thing to dwell more upon the document.

Oct 28, 2011
Re: Definitions 1.1

Larry Woods says, of course. Tom (Thomas Jefferson) and I define the word by WHO creates it. This parses the context for us very neatly. As I said and as Tom demonstrated, human rights come from God, who created humans.

JJ The trouble is that God has never spoken to us and told us what he means by rights or what he considers to be a right.

Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness are rights that all intelligent life in the universe seek to secure but there are many times in mortal life where they are not secure. The people in North Korea do not have the right over their own physical life for Kim Jong Ill threatens to take it from them if they step out of line. Nether do they have the right of liberty and to pursue happiness. They should have these things and one day will – if not in this life in a future one.

Now Blayne, and perhaps you, think that these rights exist for the enslaved even though they cannot exercise them (an oxymoron) because they morally should belong to all men, but not all things that should be exist in the present time. This seems like a somewhat convoluted way of defining a word to many. For instance, if we were to tell a North Korean that he has the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness he would probably look at us cross-eyed and say something like: “What are you talking about? I have no liberty and cannot pursue my dreams and if I do I will be put to death.”

On the other hand, if we told him that these are things he should have because it is morally right he would then quit looking at us as if we were out of our minds and agree.

The two ways of looking at Jefferson’s words are quite easy to understand and shouldn’t be the cause of misunderstandings and no matter how you look at the life liberty and the pursuit of happiness all spring from the eternal principle of Decision. Light exists eternally also but we are not always basking in it nor is it always available. Do you have a right to light if you are in the dark with no flashlight? This idea doesn’t make sense even though light is always in existence.

Larry: Legal rights come from the government, who created statutes. The rights that enable and create government come from We the People, who created the government. Didn’t I make that clear?

JJ This was never not clear.

Larry: Can you say that all the “rights” we get from government are really eternal words that don’t pass away?

JJ They are part of the eternal struggle and are all associated with life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. I am happier when the state lets me go 70 MPH rather than just 60 MPH. Larry: Of course not. In the context of government, what is the difference then between a right and a privilege?

JJ I do not care. I’ll go with whatever you pick from the dictionary.

Larry: Imagine this scene, which takes place in our court rooms every single day. The plaintiff talks about rights, thinking of principles and eternal rights from God, while the judge and all the attorneys present are thinking privilege. Do you think they will communicate well? No. Why not? Because the poor guy is ignorant that creators create rights and that the several definitions of rights depend upon their origin. Am I right about this?

JJ Life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness did not have a creator for they are based on eternal principles and have never had a beginning. We can’t say they are defined by their creator for they had no creator. Even God would not exist without them. We are eternally seeking to enhance our lives, our liberty and pursue those things that bring us happiness and joy.

We are endowed by our creator with the impulse to seek to secure the physical right to pursue these things.

This knowledge is helpful in an individual life, but it won’t do you much good in a courtroom and it doesn’t have much to do with the first point as to whether Obama’s action was legal.

Somehow various definitions of rights got injected into the conversation. The question was quite simple. It was supposed to be dealing with the legality of taking out Awlaki and any rights discussed should have dealt with legal ones originating from this country.

We have yet to discuss the morality of the situation as a group – even though some individuals have.

Oct 28, 2011
The Two Definitions

Wow, Larry, instead of clarifying what rights are I think you are covering so many details that the discussion is just making people’s heads spin with little additional light filtering in.

You talk of eternal principles being associated with moral idealistic rights. Well, eternal principles are behind everything we do if we trace then back to the source. If I jump up and down in anger on my TV remote eternal principles are involved. If I go to court and am subject to arbitrary rights and privileges eternal principles are also involved. Eternal principles are involved in everything. Scratching your armpit can be traced back to them.

I do not see this rights conversation as having much conflict between us (some misunderstanding of communication perhaps). Instead we come down to two different basic ways of defining rights.

First there is a right as expressed in the Declaration of independence. I think “Right” was the correct word to use to create an inspiring document but I think the use there has caused some confusion. The confusion would have been minimized if he had said this more accurate statement instead:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable just desires that must be made secure, that among these are the desire for a secure Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

Writing the document this way would have been more technically correct and would have avoided some confusion such as we have had here, but it wouldn’t have had the impact.

As it is there are two basic uses of the word caused by two ways of defining it.

(1) That which one has a moral claim or desire to have or express.

(2) That which one has power to do which is in harmony with the laws of the land in which he lives and those who have any authority over his actions.

Thus according to #1 the North Koreans have the right to free speech, but few would use this definition in relation to them and express it this way.

According to Definition Two they do not have the right to free speech.

Thus in our argument Blayne only used Definition One and claimed the North Koreans have the right to free speech whereas I used Definition Two and claimed they did not.

During our argument I attempted to get Blayne to recognize and use Definition Two so we could be on the same page, as that is what determines the technical legality of Obama’s actions.

I understood Blayne’s use of Definition One but it was not applicable to the discussion. I know he thinks it is, and from an esoteric point of view it may be, but for practically determining legality we must use Definition Two.

Easy Access to all the Writings

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

The Last Life, Part 1

November 22, 2011 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 18 of 49 in the series JJ Lectures

JJ: The class today is on the subject; “Is this your last life?” How many people have you talked to in the new age community that say, oh yea I am on my last life? Have you heard people say that before?

Audience: Yes

JJ: Yes you hear quite a few people say this but who do you think set the example of what a last life is supposed to be?

Audience: Jesus

JJ: Right and has anyone you ever met been able to say walk on water for instance? That might be one of the powers that one might accumulate if you were on your last life, right? Or say, He raised Lazarus from the dead and this was very interesting. Lazarus was a good friend and the Jews had this belief that nobody could be dead for more than three days and come back to life because, just like today, people have near death experiences and die for a short period of time and then return. Well their belief was that people can die for a short period of time and return but it was absolutely impossible for someone to be dead for three days and then come back.

Well Jesus received a communication that His friend Lazarus died and he piddled around three days and everyone said, “Well, how come He is piddling around like this because His good friend died and you would think that He would go to him right away and bring him back to life.” But no. Jesus just hum hawed around for three days. Of course He did this on purpose because He wanted to demonstrate that God could defy the Jewish belief that no one could be brought back to life after three days. So finally after about three and half days had passed and He goes to where Lazarus had died and there were a bunch of mourners around and Mary and Martha greeted Him. They said, “It is too bad you could not have been here earlier because three days have passed and now nobody can bring him back to life.”

Then Jesus turned to Martha and asked her, “Do you believe that I can raise him from the dead? When He asked that question Martha began to think and she says, “if you say you can do this than I will believe it.” Now Lazarus was wrapped in all these burial clothes and put in this tomb and he looked like a mummy in there all wrapped up in these white rags. When He spoke to Martha and she believed that Jesus could do anything that He said He could do Jesus then confidently reached forth His hand and said the words “Lazarus come forth!” It says that he spoke this very loud and when He said the words, all of sudden Lazarus comes forth walking out of the tomb looking like a mummy and you can imagine the shock and surprise of the people there mourning this guy’s death and all of a sudden Lazarus starts to stir and comes walking out of this tomb with all these rags wrapped around him. They then unwound him and as we know he came back to life.

This upset the Jewish leaders more that anything else. When the Jewish leaders heard of this they said if we do not do something about this guy then all the world is going to follow Him, after all, He raised somebody from the dead that was gone for three and half days and broke the three day barrier. This is when the Jewish leaders got really serious about doing something about Jesus.

Even after all his great works that may not have been Jesus’ last life because He said He would come again. So He is going to come again in yet another life still and there are all kinds of interpretations about this and one of those is that He is going to appear one day in the sky. James here is going to be outside mowing his lawn and his neighbor is going to be out mowing his lawn as well, now James is a really nice guy so Jesus is going to save him but all of a sudden James looks up in the sky and there is a blaze of glory up there and descending is this guy in a white robe flanked by angels and it lights up the sky in the entire east and all of a sudden his neighbor out there mowing the lawn catches on fire and burns to a crisp just like the scripture says, (Laughing), and James looks down the street and two thirds of his neighbors houses are on fire because they are non-believers and James says well I guess I do not have to worry about those guys anymore. Now James goes in his house and sees his kid and he is okay because he is a really good kid and he is playing with a neighbor’s kid and he is kind of a rebellious kid and he catches on fire! And he is burning to stubble right in front of James and they have to put a blanket over him to keep their house from burning down!

Audience: Laughing!

JJ: So if you by the orthodox scenario it is kind of funny when you really think about it, is it not? People do not question why they believe what they believe or what it would really be like if things transpired the way they expect. Now others are expecting rapture. There will be this airplane flying and all of a sudden a third of the people on the plane disappear and if the pilot disappears then everybody is going to disappear!

Audience: Laughing!

JJ: So hopefully the pilot is not a born again Christian that gets the raptured!

Audience: Laughing!

JJ: Or you would be driving down the road and the guy in front of you gets rapture and the driverless car causes a terrible car accident.

JJ: So when you think about that, seriously is that really something that might happen?

Audience: I hope not.

JJ: Laughing, for one thing it is not even Biblical and it is amazing that people who read the Bible get such odd stuff out of it. There are people who say that if you have enough faith then you can be bitten by a serpent and it will have no adverse effect on you. There are several cults down in the south that cultivate these snakes and then dance around with them and every once in awhile one gets bit and dies but that does not deter them and they say well he must not have had enough faith, others got bit and nothing happened because they had faith. So it is amazing what people cultivate from their beliefs. Now the Mormons have an interesting belief. They are told to store food because the day will come when there will be a major calamity from God and so we will grow our own food. Everyone must have a year’s supply of food and they have been preaching this for over a hundred years now and so far they have not needed it yet unless they are out of a job and then they need it. But do any of them look into the future and think about what would really happen if there were no food and they had a year’s supply of food, what would happen in real life?

Word would begin to circulate that the Mormons had stored food for each one of them for a year and people would go and knock on the Mormons door and the Mormon would say no I just have enough food for me and they would say like heck you do and they bust in and take their food and pretty soon there are gangs hunting down the Mormons for their food. So the Mormons are in worse shape than the rest of the people because they have a big bull’s eye on them having a year’s supply of food. So the Mormons would be in really bad shape if this happened because only one out of twenty Mormons really has a year’s supply of food because it is one of those things that is preached a lot in the church but hardly anybody does. A really good Mormon may have a month’s supply of food or something like that but not very many of them have an actual year’s supply. So because this word gets around that they have a years supply if a gang did come knocking on their door and find they only had a months supply or none at all then the gang would probably torture them because they would figure they were lying. So it is interesting that if you take various religious beliefs and really project the event really happening and then asks the question; is God really behind this plan or idea?

Now the Jehovah Witness’s had an interesting one. The guy who started the group did a lot of study in the Bible and concluded that Jesus was supposed to come in 1892 and everybody was all prepared and ready to become one of the 144,000 and everything. The year came and no Jesus showed up so the guy went back and studied the Bible and then came back and said I made a mistake in my calculations here and he said it is supposed to be 1904 or something like that, so everybody got prepared again and the new date came and went and still nothing happened. So he goes, mmmm…. something is weird here and I will have go back to the drawing board here. So he went back and studied like crazy and this time he came up with the date 1914. Well they all waited and waited and World War l started and there wars and rumors of war and there was few earthquakes around and they thought, well it is bound to happen this time for the stage is all set.

1914 came and went and still Jesus did Jesus did not show up. Everybody was really down for a while. The guy’s name was Charles T. Russell and he got a bright idea after this third failure so he called the group together and says, I have gone back to the Bible and I have checked and rechecked and it is 1914 and I got the date right this time but what we did not realize is that Jesus did come and he came invisibly. And the Jehovah Witnesses believe that to this day! Jesus came in 1914 but He came invisibly!

Audience: Laughter.

JJ: So anyway, do they take a step back and look at it on a logical basis? No, they have a big contorted explanation of how He came invisibly and why they think that is true. I have listened to it several times and I still don’t understand it and I am pretty good at understanding these types of things but I can’t get a handle on why someone would believe it even after they have explained it to me several times. I mean the guy got it wrong three times so he could not set another date. He had to get creative to keep his flock.

Audience: Laughing!

Audience: Of course being prepared does not really work when you have a flood like a Tsunami or something like Katrina and it would not really matter if you had a years supply of food or not.

JJ: Oh yes, a years supply of food would have been washed away.

Wayne: Or if a kid catches your house on fire it would burn up your supply of food or give a really nice barbecue!

JJ: We have some really great examples in history of people approaching their last life, from Jesus to Buddha to Krishna to even more recent heroes like Abraham Lincoln, George Washington and Winston Churchill. These were great men and the people that I have met that claim that they are on their last life I would not even put them in the same category. So the question is how many lives do we live before we reach our last life?

Audience: As many as it takes.

JJ: Perhaps another question would be, is there such a thing as a last life?

Easy Access to all the Writings

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 15

November 19, 2011 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 29 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 25, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law 1.2

Blayne: If had to sum up the two sides it is this: Your side is that bunch of politically connected attorneys studied the evidence and concluded he was a threat worthy of death and you explicitly trust that decision despite the lack of verification/accountability. And the precedent that government has done this in the past secretly and or illegally etc. makes it ok.

JJ That’s about a million miles from my side. This tells me that you are reading what I write with tremendous filters on wit the purpose of defending your mindset and not even trying to understand what I am saying or trying to do.

Why don’t you read what I actually write and try restating what my side is.

Oct 25, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law 1.2

JJ (Previous Post) That’s about a million miles from my side. This tells me that you are reading what I write with tremendous filters on with the purpose of defending your mindset and not even trying to understand what I am saying or trying to do.

Why don’t you read what I actually write and try restating what my side is.

Blayne: What part of my statements are wrong?

JJ So you can’t more accurately restate the stance I am taking? If you are going to argue with me you first must understand what I am saying and coming from else we will continue to go around in circles.

You seem to think I am coming from a value judgment stance in our discussing as you are. I am not. So far with you I have only attempted to conclude whether the action was legal or not. This is a conclusion dealing with the technicalities of the law – NOT whether Awlaki was “worthy” of death.

Let’s analyze what you think I am saying based on what I have been trying to accomplish with you.

Blayne “Your side is that bunch of politically connected attorneys studied the evidence and concluded he was a threat worthy of death.”

JJ I haven’t taken a side and have not said anything giving a value judgment as to whether Awlaki was worth of death. I have maintained that the evidence gives support to the idea that Obama’s action was legal. That doesn’t mean he was right or wrong or that Awlaki was “worthy’ of death. It means the action is assumed to be legal unless proved and accepted otherwise through the judicial system.

Blayne: “and you explicitly trust that decision.”

JJ I haven’t said whether or not I trust Obama’s decision let alone “explicitly trust.” Trusting or not trusting Obama’s decision has nothing to do with the first point that we are dealing with.

Blayne: despite the lack of verification/accountability.

JJ Again this has nothing to do with the first point – Is it legal? I do not believe I have given any value judgment related to verification or accountability yet.

Blayne: And the precedent that government has done this in the past secretly and or illegally etc. makes it ok.

JJ I didn’t use precedents to establish that anything was okay, but to give evidence of the legality.

Again, for the umpteenth time – if something is legal that doesn’t mean it is right, moral or okay.

Here is my correct position so far:

Evidence and facts indicate that Obama’s action was legal.

Oct 26, 2011
Letter of the Law 1.3

Blayne I agree with you here in fact there are a distinct lack of facts in this case which is one of the main reasons for my stance. So if the facts are not enough to support my conclusion how in the world are they enough to support yours?

JJ I didn’t say there were not enough facts but “facts are not enough to assure a correct decision,” meaning that two people can look at the same facts and come to different conclusions.

There are enough facts to establish the legality. You don’t need many facts for this like you would if we were evaluating how moral tor correct the action was.

Blayne If had to sum up the two sides it is this: Your side is that bunch of politically connected attorneys studied the evidence and concluded he was a threat worthy of death and you explicitly trust that decision despite the lack of verification/accountability. And the precedent that government has done this in the past secretly and or illegally etc. makes it ok.

JJ See previous post.

Blayne My side is this: the only verifiable/accountable evidence is that he has spouted some anti-government rhetoric. That he was a credible threat is nothing more then accusations aired in the media. And that this does not warrant immediate assassination. And that past precedents of illegal actions do not make it ok,

JJ This has nothing to do with the first point we are discussing which is:

Was it legal?

Blayne: I actually agree with you here and this is why I am so astonished. I am definitely attached to the values and ideals of freedom and justice

JJ But that doesn’t have anything to do with the question: Is it legal? Your mind keeps translating this question into; “Was it the right thing to do?

You seem to have a problem in breaking a problem down to its component parts and analyzing them. You keep wanting to deal with the whole shebang at one time and this is one reason no one seems to be able to come to agreement with you in an augment and we keep going in circles.

Blayne and would rather error on the side of freedom then allow any encroachment because I have seen the pain misery and suffering trampled rights cause. My astonishment is that others who are otherwise intelligent would see this as not all that important and see my position as not a good thing

JJ Most people here value the principle of freedom just as much as you do. Judging whether or not a thing is legal has nothing to do with freedom. If I say that slavery was legal 200 years ago that does not mean I do not value freedom.

Blayne So let me make sure I understand you here. You are saying a principle must be like gravity always in operation despite what men do? JJ This could lead us to a diversion that could take us far off the topic and lead to days of going back and forth. I have already written volumes on principles.

A principle is the core thing that explains why something works. Gravity itself is not a principle though it is often called such but some principle explains its operation and why it is always at play. That principle has not yet been discovered but it will be related to the principled of cause and effect. A principle is always true and can be accessed once understood.

The principle of freedom is related to decision. Every decision we make either leads to greater or less freedom. Decisions are always at play.

My point was that if you see this as a principle then I can see why you think there should be no exceptions to it just as cause and effect is never negated.

JJ (Previous Post) You have a black and white view where the Solomon principle does not even apply, no exceptions, a person should be presumed innocent until found innocent or guilty by a jury trial.

Blayne This is an incorrect view of my position I have repeated several times there are some exceptions. Perhaps one of the reasons we can’t agree is because of wrong perception of my view?

JJ If this is incorrect then when can we discard the presumed innocent process of the legal system?

JJ (Previous Post) If a law is declared legal by constitutionally appointed judges and I do not agree with that law then it is still the law and legal and binding in your society. And what do you suggest we do with laws we do not like – break them and go to jail? Complain about them? That doesn’t do much good. If a person is really outraged then he should seek to make changes.

Blayne I have already proven this is not true and quoted A supreme court ruling and 16th volume of American Jurisprudence. Martin Luther King Broke the law and went to jail and it did change the law eventually.

JJ There’s nothing in your quote that disproves anything I have said.

The Constitution trumps all other laws like it says and unconstitutional laws can be discarded, but a law passed through proper channels will be in force until it is proven to be unconstitutional. Just because you think a law is unconstitutional doesn’t mean that others will see it the same way. If the Supreme Court declares a law is constitutional and you disagree then you will still be bound by it, even if you are sure they are wrong.

There are many laws that some argue as being unconstitutional that we are still bound by because judges think they are constitutional.

Just try and drive without a license if you think having one is unconstitutional. You can still go to jail as did my friend Wayne. You can’t just say, I’m ignoring this because it is not Constitutional.

Blayne You seem to feel that there is nothing we can do but then you seem to contradict yourself and say a person should change the law if he doesn’t like it.

JJ I said there is nothing we can do about bad law in THE SHORT TERM! In the long term we can attempt to change the laws. There is no contradiction.

Blayne: Your idea that any law passed is binding is the prevailing mindset and is the very reason why it is so hard to change things and the entire system.

JJ So are you saying that if a law is passed that you deem unconstitutional, but it has not been overturned then you can break it with impunity? I don’t think so. It didn’t work for Wayne. Where do you get such illogical unreasonable ideas?

Blayne: Do you believe government has a right to mandate health care coverage?

JJ I think it is unconstitutional but there are Supreme Court justices that disagree. Law is not subject to belief. If I believe that I should be able to drive without a license I can still go to jail over it no matter what I believe.

We should be getting a Supreme Court decision soon on the mandate and that will determine what is legal with the mandate independent of any belief you have.

Blayne If no then will you obey the law passed despite 70% of Americans opposition?

JJ I obey all current laws with draconian penalties. I think even Ron Paul does also.

Blayne: So by having this mindset that any law passed is binding which goes against all our founding principles and hundreds of years of jurisprudence and historical precedent we have created a society that think government has a right to intervene into every aspect of out lives.

JJ One thing has nothing to do with the other. Bad law, which is binding has been passed or incorporated since the beginning of civilization and will continue far into the future. Why you think that a law passed, but not overturned, is not binding and you can ignore it without penalty is an amazing piece of mental gymnastics to behold.

JJ (Previous Post) Once something is legal there is no line to draw. It is just legal and there is nothing you can do about it in the short term. You can disagree with it but you will still be subject to it until it is changed.

Blayne So if congress ever passes a law that it is ok for them to rape women at will then you would consider that binding and tell folks if they don’t like it then change it but until then they must abide by it? That is the logical conclusion of your view. You are dead wrong here my friend!

JJ I said we must abide by law or suffer the penalties attached. I didn’t say that we could not break the law through civil disobedience. In that case the penalty would still be there. Suppose there was this stupid law that said rape was okay and if you tried to stop one you would suffer the death penalty. You arrive on the scene like John Wayne and attempt a rescue. You are caught in the act of heroism and soon executed.

Was the law binding on you even though it violated all sense of right and wrong?

Yes, you did not escape the penalty.

Why would you think otherwise?

I feel like I am arguing with someone who is just dreaming up things that make no sense to be arguing about for the hell of it. JJ (Previous Post) Where do you get that idea? Of course the Constitution gives us rights. That’s why we have different rights here than people in other countries.

Blayne The constitution purports to protect rights it does not grant them. The right to bear arms in self defense like all rights has always existed just like gravity.

JJ Gravity exists in North Korea, but the right to bear arms does not exist. They do not have that right no matter how many times you shout it from the rooftops. If a Constitution like ours were in force there then they would have the right. And where would it come from? Not osmosis, but the Constitution.

Your confusing “a right” with something that is moral, correct, or right. It would be the right thing to do to give North Koreans the right to bear arms, but presently they do not have the right.

Blayne: So how could it grant rights that it doesn’t even list?

JJ See above.

Rights that were already in existence were merely guaranteed by the Constitution, but rights that were not in existence were created by it as well as protected. Before the Constitution, under the British rule, they did not have a right of protection against unreasonable searches. The Constitution granted that right and protected it.

Blayne: I am amazed at the lack of understanding. North Koreans have the same rights as we do as do all men.

JJ Then why can’t they have guns?

Are you sure you’re just not trying to give me a bad time as a hoot?

Blayne: Just because they are being oppressed and do not have power to overcome their oppressors at the moment does not mean they do not have the right to bear arms rise up and overthrow their oppressors just like we did in the 18th century.

JJ If they try and bear arms now they will be put to death. Obviously the right to bear arms does not exist there. If they overthrew their government they could establish that right in the future, but it does not exist now. I feel kind of silly having to explain this.

Blayne The idea that a piece of paper can grant rights is amazing. It is just an illustration of existing rights…

JJ If the ruling powers accept that piece of paper then the rights written there are granted. Of course, it is not the physical paper itself that grants the rights but the power of the words thereon which were initiated by intelligent effort and have a life of their own.

JJ (Previous Post) And what principle have I abandoned? The answer is none.

Blayne: You have abandon the principle of freedom and justice.

JJ That accusation is completely untrue with absolutely nothing to back it up – and beneath you.

Blayne: Where we disagree is that unsubstantiated accusations constitute an act of war.

JJ I have no idea what you are talking about here.

JJ (Previous Post) Then explain how slavery was both moral and legal if only the moral thing is legal.

Blayne Slavery was immoral and unconstitutional that was the basis for the argument for abolishing it. Slaves were not seen as men they were seen largely as animals which of course was an illusion but this was their reasoning in denying them the same rights as all men.

JJ If slavery was unconstitutional then why did we need a constitutional amendment to make it unconstitutional and illegal???

Legalities concerning slaves were referenced three times in the Constitution

Section 2 of Article I states that apart from free persons “all other persons,” meaning slaves, are each to be counted as three-fifths of a white person for the purpose of apportioning congressional representatives on the basis of population. Section 9 of Article I states that the importation of “such Persons as any of the States now existing shall think proper to admit,” meaning slaves, would be permitted until 1808. And Section 2 of Article IV directs that persons “held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another,” meaning fugitive slaves, were to be returned to their owners.

Obviously the people thought slavery was Constitutional as many thousands of people owned them and were not prosecuted for breaking the law. It was also immoral to relegate them to being considered property.

You’re wrong on this point. Slavery was both immoral and legal in early America. It was also legal and immoral in Ancient Rome and Greece and many other nations.

Blayne LOL tell me what’s the difference between Hitler and the thugs I described except scale? Nothing!

JJ Big difference. The thugs are still subject to government and the law. Hitler was the government and the law.

Blayne They say unconstitutional laws are not binding as you keep claiming they are. Of course you omitted it here it clearly says such laws are not binding confers no authority AS IF IT HAD NEVER BEEN PASSED etc etc. it refutes your argument 110% ! Not it can be thrown out later. It clearly means it is null and void the minute it is passed like it never existed. I could post a dozen more and I am sure you would deny them also. Clearly you are to attached to your belief here to see the truth.

JJ I covered this a while back but let me recap. A law, once passed, has binding penalties are passed upon violators. Even if the law seems to obviously go against the Constitution it will still be in play and enforced until it is overturned. You can’t just wave a piece of paper and say “I’m not paying income tax because it is unconstitutional,” and then think you will be left alone because your proclamation has negated the law.

JJ (Previous Post) Blayne then gives a discourse on parking tickets and does not address the fact that it would be impossible to give every crime a jury trial.

Blayne The point you missed is that you assume everything that ends up in court is a crime based on your belief all legislation is binding.

JJ It’s not a belief. It is a fact that once a law is on the books it is binding until it is overturned. If I am wrong give me one example.

Blayne However if we actually followed the law we would have a minute fraction of cases and they could all be easily tried by jury.

JJ I’m with you on throwing out a lot of bad and unnecessary law but its unlikely to happen any time soon. Meanwhile the laws we have are enforceable unless overturned.

Blayne We have a lot of attorneys making a living off the misery and suffering of society much of which they cause and while contributing nothing to society. Sorry If I did not make that clear.

JJ You’ve always been clear as a bell on that point.

Blayne You can deny it all you want. I have used traditional application not assumptions, corruption does not make a fact an assumption. You are using typical leftist rhetoric saying the 5th and 6th amendments have nothing to do with each other. The left uses the same BS on the second amendment to say it was talking about only the militia not the people when every other amendment clearly denotes the people and the 2nd of no exception. JJ My points concerning two Amendments are nothing like the Left’s interpretation of one Amendment – the Second Amendment. There is no hard evidence that the sixth explains the fifth anymore than the seventh explains the sixth. All the Amendments paint a full picture but are independent entities.

Blayne: Still the 6th guarantees every man accused of a crime a trial by jury so any due process must offer every man that right outlined in the 6th. How you can extrapolate anything other then that is beyond all reason and logic.

JJ It says: “In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial,…”

In Awlaki’s case he was not criminally prosecuted but treated as an enemy combatant so one could argue the speedy trial does not apply. Also the Sixth says one should be tried in the district where the crime was committed. How could we have a jury trial for him in Yemen?

Blayne Yeah heaven forbid anyone should want government to follow the law that binds them down from mischief, why they must be extremists…

JJ I guess I’m an extremist then.

Blayne It is very interesting that you agree with the quote yet try to paint me as a fundamentalist for espousing it as part of my philosophy.

JJ You seem to overlook the fact that we both agree that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land and all other laws are supposed to be subject to it. We also both embrace the Principle of freedom to the best of our abilities. We just interpret things differently.

You think that a law has to be good righteous and moral before it is binding on citizens. You are the only person I have ever come across that thinks this way.

Everyone I know sees that there are some bad laws out there that have little to do with morality that can land us in jail if we violate them. Why you do not see this is very mysterious.

Oct 26, 2011
Re: anti-government movement claptrap

Dan: You said it brother, THEY do that kinda stuff to keep the sovereign man down. My 2nd cousin on my mother’s side had a friend that said his buddy knew someone who … and remember to stay under cover when you see them there chemtrails in the sky.

JJ Chemtrails, Moon landing hoax, false flag 911, secret NASA missions, Ron Paul enthusiast, Confederate supporter, Illuminati conspiracy, literalist view of the Constitution, Planet X, tax protesters… The are all so different subjects but believers are so much the same.

Oct 26, 2011
Re: anti-government movement claptrap

Blayne: Wow so we should not take the constitution literally?..So tell me what is it allegorical for?

And Ron Paul enthusiast? How about JJ Dewey enthusiast? Painting with quite a broad brush there aren’t you…

JJ Yeah, I might have stepped over the line but couldn’t resist… There’s a lot of interlapping in that list though.

People get in trouble when they take anything too literally whether it be the Constitution, the Bible, DK, me, or the voice of God himself. Judgement and discernment must always be in play or the pilgrim will be deceived.

Comet Elenin No More

This may be the last we hear of Comet Elenin. At least Blayne and I agreed on that.

Elenin Link

Easy Access to all the Writings

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Knowing the Truth, Part 5

November 18, 2011 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 17 of 49 in the series JJ Lectures

JJ: Coming up with a new principle is different, if you want to come up with a new word for something it is easy to do and anybody in this room could do that. Say we wanted to create a new word for the soul we could come up with some fanciful sounding word for it but coming up with a new principle is a different matter.

Audience: Creating a new principle.

JJ: You don’t create a new principle; what you do is you discover the new principle. Let’s take the formula for the square feet in a circle which is Pi times the radius squared. It is the principle that arrives at that and we did not always know about it but civilization eventually discovered pi and when we discovered it and the principle of using pi to find the square feet of a circle we could do it from then on. Now that principle has always been around but it was not discovered and there are many principles that have yet to be discovered. We will remain in this sphere until we come back and master all principles but we are just scratching the surface. There are many left to go.

I will just name a couple principles. One is the principle of cycles. History has cycles that repeat themselves. We have a conservative cycle a liberal cycle and we have summer and winter and these are all governed by principles. The principle of Astrology, which is really the principle of relationships, is where one entity has a relationship with another entity. With astrology we have smaller entities, which are us, influenced by greater life forms like the stars and the planets themselves. This circulates around the principle of relationship.

Another principle lies in beginnings and endings The law of correspondences is an important one, as above so below. There is a twist on this one because as above is not exactly like the below but it corresponds with differences. Why are there differences? Because as God creates He always creates differently – the same principle but with differences. That is why the scientists used to look at the atoms like a small solar system and they used to theorize that it was like a small sun and planets but then when they investigated further and found out more about the atom they found out an atom is different from a solar system. They are finding out that the truth is, “as above so below but with differences.”

So it corresponds but with differences, and why? It is actually given in the scriptures in, “Behold I do all things new, I create a new heaven and a new earth, I do all things new.” When you think about it that contradicts the teachings of all religions that God never changes. But what does the voice of God say Himself right in the Bible, “I do everything new, I do a new thing on the earth and who shall know it?” So when God created the microcosmic world of the atoms, molecules and cells and then moved on and made the planets, He thinks why should I make the same thing over and over again? I am going to do it with a twist this time and do it a little bit differently.

Man himself is the creative force in the universe; just like within us we have the creative force of the soul. We human beings are the soul of the universe. We are the soul of the universe and we have within us that energy which is the essence of soul, which is the doorway to the higher spiritual kingdoms. It is the doorway in the universe between spirit and matter itself and we will eventually give form to the entire universe, which is fascinating to think about.

So the law of correspondences is a good one. The law of economy is another good one, which means the line of least resistance is followed until some intelligent force steps in and changes that line of least resistance. There are lots of principles and laws that are always followed and the more of these that we discover the more we will be able to figure out what is true and what is not. We find these things and register them within.

I will end with this teaching concerning another principle. We have heard this one extreme that everything is within to go within and find the truth. On the other hand, the religions of the world say God is out there on a throne somewhere and go to God out there to find the truth. The fact is that we need both within and without to find the truth. You go without to be stimulated and when you are stimulated you go within to verify what was true and what was not true and what works and what does not work. So it is interesting that neither extreme works but both of them must work together to find the truth. You have heard stories about evil parents locking their kid in the room until they are 20 years old and feeding them through door and stuff like that and then the authorities break in and finally save the kid. Let’s say they locked him away when he was eight and now he is 20, has everybody heard stories like this?

Audience: Yes.

JJ: When they talk to the kid how old do you think the kid thinks he is?

Audience: Eight.

JJ: Right if they put him in the room and isolated him he still thinks he is eight. When they take away the outer stimulation the growth ceases. So we don’t want to go completely within as evidenced by that child going completely within and the growth ceased So we want stimulated without and then we go to verify within and we grow from this process.

Audience: What is that principle called, the stimulation principle?

JJ: I never put a name to it, perhaps the wholeness principle or something like that.

Audience: At Some point in time we would like you to teach about the invisible Christ is more powerful than the visible Christ.

JJ: There is a principle there and when you start meditating and contemplating on principles then they start to come tom you. There are two types of people in the world. Those that understand principles and have a degree of independence, and those that want to be told exactly what to do in black and white. Those that understand principles become their own masters but those that do not have to have everything spelled out for them by an outer authority.

Bryan: When you were talking about earlier about the astral and the Mormons and Seventh Day Adventists had created these thought forms when you go to the next world, are those thought forms created here in this world taken with us to the next?

JJ: Yes.

Bryan: So can we help to liberate them by changing the physical thought form here so that it would change the thought form in the astral world and free them from this?

JJ: Yes it would and another interesting thing is that we not only have this group thought form but for every great teacher there is a thought form for him. There are several thought forms of Jesus roaming around. Have you ever talked with someone who said they woke up in the middle of the night and say they saw Jesus at their bedside or whatever? What they usually see is a thought form of Jesus. Jesus has more thought forms than any other person in history so depending on which religion you are in you will be in touch with a thought form of Jesus.

When somebody says they talked to Jesus and you ask what did Jesus say, they just repeat what he has already said like, spread the love, love thy neighbor, things that Jesus has already said because that thought form is fed with the current knowledge about Jesus and all the knowledge that comes out is what is already circulating about Him. The person will not give out any new principles but will just give out all of the old stuff. There is a thought form going around about Joseph Smith too and a lot of people see this thought form and think they have encountered him. The same with Mohammed and Buddha. Also a lot of people claim they have talked with DK as well.

Audience: DK said he had a few thought forms going around.

JJ: If I get enough material out there and people buy lots of my books they will be seeing me in their bedroom someday and it might scare them to death too!

Audience: Roaring with laughter!

JJ: I would like to say that it has been very nice to meet everybody and welcome to the new faces and I look forward to seeing you all in the future. Be well my friends, we will talk again.

Easy Access to all the Writings

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 14

November 17, 2011December 11, 2022 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 28 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 21, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law 1.1

I don’t believe the Constitution differentiates between criminal and commercial law. You can go to jail over a traffic violation just as you can burglary. My friend Wayne went to jail several times over traffic violations without a jury trial. I didn’t see any reason to break the law down to its various parts when the Constitution did not.

Oct 21, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law

Eke: “The constitution is made for man and not man made for constitution.”

JJ Great statement Eke.

Oct 21, 2011
Re: Muammar Gaddafi Killed

Have you ever seen a worse job of taking a video than the one associated with Gaddafi’s killing? You’d think for such a historical event someone would have made sure the camera was steady and focused. As it is it looks like it was filmed by someone wacked out on LSD dancing around a fire pit.

Oct 22, 2011
Re: Letter of the Law

I’ve been checking into what you said Larry and found a few things. I couldn’t find any evidence though that something like a speeding ticket would fall under commercial law. Do you have a reference on that? Most are in a different category than felonies or misdemeanors, I know that.

You are right that normal traffic tickets are called infractions. Others though can lead to misdemeanors or felonies such as DUIs, reckless driving, refusing to sign or pay a ticket, driving without auto insurance and failure to stop at the scene of an accident.

The next time I get my driver’s license I’ll have to see what I actually signed on for.

Now there are those who drive with no license and they didn’t sign up or agree to anything yet they can be charged with a number of crimes while driving and sent to jail like my friend Wayne. Speeding without a license has nothing to do with morality but it can certainly get you in trouble.

The Fifth Amendment says:

No person shall be … deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

When one is fined for speeding he is indeed deprived of property (his money) without due process as some define it.

When I was talking about due process of law I was talking about all laws that can lead to loss of life liberty or property. That does lump the various categories together. I see nothing wrong with this as it has nothing to do with saying all law is the same or currently dealt with the same way. Why you thought I was saying such a thing is a mystery and such technicality has nothing to do with a ring-pass-not.

That said, thanks for your information on the various kinds of law. I learned several things.

Oct 22, 2011
Molecular Difficulties

A short time ago it was suggested that a molecule could be created through online communications. One of the things that will have to be dealt with in a molecule will be various disagreements. Since we had one here I thought it may be a good opportunity to illustrate two things. One is how difficult and slow it is to solve any problem online. We could have probably hashed out this Awlaki problem in person within an hour or so but here we have spent many days and intensive hours in writing and still we have not gotten beyond the first simple point of whether Obama’s action was legal.

The second problem that is illustrated is how difficult it is to solve personality disagreements when they come up. What seems simple and clear to some is very complex to others.

Another problem is that many tune out when a round of disagreements materialize whereas in person most people are willing to wade through a couple hours of arbitration.

I tried to break down the various elements of the problem in an attempt to make it solvable. If we started out talking about what is right or wrong then emotions will run high. I thought I would begin by examining whether or not the action was legal – which should have had nothing to do with good or bad, but still we did not escape confronting that from the beginning.

I think that seeing the futility here of bringing harmony between two good people illustrates the difficulty we will face in creating a united Molecule. Obviously, we will need to draw from a large pool of seekers to create the first unified molecule.

After the first one is created the second will be easier, however.

This arguing process is becoming very time consuming and not doing anything to convince our holdout – Blayne. What do you think? Should we continue on this subject or not?

Oct 23, 2011
The First Point 101
My Friends,

Thanks for your feedback. It sounds like the group would like us to see this subject through to see where it goes. Okay.. I’ll cooperate.

As you know, I’ve tried to simplify the discussion by breaking the conflict down to its simplest parts. This sometimes can be quite beneficial. Suppose person A is arguing with person B about Topic C. Perhaps Topic C is composed of five different parts and the two actually agree on four of those parts. This means the path to union is found in a correct understanding of the fifth part.

On the other hand, if they disagree on four out of five of the parts then the division is pretty wide and agreement will be difficult to negotiate.

The funny part about point one is that both Blayne and Duke thought the assassination of Awlaki was illegal, as well as myself. It turns out that looking into it changed my mind and caused strong disagreement from Blayne. I do not recall Duke even weighing in on the legality since the analysis began – so maybe they both disagree with my thoughts so far.

Let us first summarize where we are on point one.

Arguments can be made either way on this and both sides have their points.

One side claims it is illegal because Awlaki is an American citizen. As such before he can be punished he needs to be arrested, read his rights and then given a jury trial. Only then can we punish him. This they say is mandated under the Constitution.

The other side claims the Constitution is not so black and white and during a time of war we can attack those who are working to destroy this country whether they are citizens or not.

I found one scientific poll on this and 73% of the population agree with the second side.

Poll Link

The New York Times cites reasoning that Obama’s attorneys give for the action being legal. Among them are:

“The legal analysis, in essence, concluded that Mr. Awlaki could be legally killed, if it was not feasible to capture him, because intelligence agencies said he was taking part in the war between the United States and Al Qaeda and posed a significant threat to Americans, as well as because Yemeni authorities were unable or unwilling to stop him.

“Based on those premises, the Justice Department concluded that Mr. Awlaki was covered by the authorization to use military force against Al Qaeda that Congress enacted shortly after the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001 — meaning that he was a lawful target in the armed conflict unless some other legal prohibition trumped that authority.

“The memo concluded that what was reasonable, and the process that was due, was different for Mr. Awlaki than for an ordinary criminal. It cited court cases allowing American citizens who had joined an enemy’s forces to be detained or prosecuted in a military court just like noncitizen enemies.”

NYT Link

In my opinion the second side makes the strongest case. Suppose an American citizen had an atomic bomb pointed at New York and we had the chance to take him out before he pressed the button. Would we allow millions of people to die just so we can adhere to a black and white surface interpretation of the Constitution?

No. This does not make sense.

So far all judges and attorneys involved in decision-making have deemed the action legal and its legality thus stands unless the some action through the legal system proves otherwise. If this were to happen then I would agree that the action is illegal, even though I wouldn’t agree with that assessment.

Question: Is there anyone besides Blayne that disagrees with my conclusion? If so, why?

Oct 23, 2011
Re: Cyclopean vision

Good points, John. I’m sure that advanced beings with one eye do not suffer from the limitations of seeing that one of us have with one eye. Evolution always goes forward, not backwards. It is quite possible they can see more with the eye closed than we can see with both eyes open and that eye works in combination with other sight centers they use creating not only three dimensional seeing but dimensions we cannot even see. There are reasons the masonic symbol is called the “all-seeing eye.”

Oct 23, 2011
Re: Molecular Difficulties

Larry W JJ quote, “…we see that the Molecule is basically a representative government, but with maximum authority (which can be removed at any time) in the hands of the leaders. It follows the Middle Way principle and uses the best of the democratic system combined with the efficient elements of the authoritarian system.”

I think if you look at the context where you got that quote, Dan, you will see JJ was talking about the business molecular relationship there.

JJ This principle basically applies to the spiritual molecule as well.

Oct 23, 2011
Re: Molecular Difficulties

Good point Rick. If there is a principle involved you are on to it. Creation involves going from the disorganized to an almost perfect organization. In between there will be broken eggs. Perhaps we can call this “the broken eggs principle.” Without the broken eggs you will not have that great tasting omelet.

Oct 24, 2011
New Principle
Steve:
What springs to mind is the ‘Push the Boundary’ Principle. Children do it all the time, and it seems a natural aspect to growth.

The flip side is that those in power under glamour and illusion will also use it to their own gain, more often than not to the detriment of others. Once a precedent is set, it can be like opening a new door of opportunity for them.

JJ Glad to see you guys thinking about principles.

There is indeed a principle involved and “Push the Boundary” is a great name to describe one of its effects. But this is a branch of the real principle which gives us an opportunity to do some discovery:

Question: What is the real principle behind this Push the Boundary force and how it works?

Oct 24, 2011 Re: Moving Onward

Duke: Lincoln suspended civil liberties during an undeclared war, but so far we have not elected someone so evil as to twist that into justification for imprisoning political opponents.

Good point.

Oct 25, 2011
Letter of the Law 1.2

Blayne: I admit I could have a blind spot. However I go to great lengths to try and re-examine things when told that or several I respect disagree with me. Could I still be missing it? Sure but after going over the facts several times there is nothing to suggest to me that I am missing something here.

JJ Unfortunately, facts are not enough to assure a correct decision. A number of us here are familiar with the same facts yet come to different conclusions. You have come to one conclusion and everyone else with the same facts has come to another.

And why is this?

It isn’t because you are honing in on some fact the rest is missing. Instead, it is that you have a strong attachment to certain values or ideals that are not that all-important to the rest of us. This causes you to take the same facts we use and come to an entirely different conclusion.

And what is that difference in values? You give a hint in your next statement.

Blayne: I hear yours and others reasoning and it is contrary to the principle of innocent until proven guilty.

JJ This is not the core reason for most of our disagreements but a branch reason. We’ll deal with this for now.

First, innocent until proven guilty, is not a principle, but a procedure and not all nations practice it or believe in using it. In reality a person is guilty the instant he commits a crime. Instead of being a principle it is a procedure that has a place in our legal system.

If you believe it to be a principle then I can see why you would be fairly black and white that it must always transpire just as gravity always works.

So, here seems to be the reason we cannot agree on the first point.

You have a black and white view where the Solomon principle does not even apply, no exceptions, a person should be presumed innocent until found innocent or guilty by a jury trial.

I do not think anyone else here thinks that way. Here is my view that most here seem to support.

Innocent until proven guilty is a procedure and all procedures are subject to exceptions. In other words, there are times when the procedure does much more harm than good and in such cases they should be abandoned and replaced by something more efficient.

For instance, if we had evidence that a certain citizen was going to detonate a nuclear bomb in New York and there was not time to follow standard procedure then to hell with procedure – let us instead save millions of lives and neutralize the situation anyway possible. The people, as the final arbitrators of the law, would support such an action.

This is where the Second Key of judgment comes in.

Wise judgment always trumps procedure from a higher point of view.

Does this mean that the legal procedure of innocent until proven guilty is meaningless? No, of course not. All of our laws and legal procedures stand as written unless sound judgment and the will of the people decrees they should be overridden.

Does this mean that we should make a list of 10,000 exceptions to our legal procedures?

No. This again goes against the key of judgment. The people will have a feel for when a wise judgment is made that overrides procedure and if the judgment is in a gray area they will be forgiving.

Obama taking out Awlaki was in a gray area, but 73% of the people support it which gives evidence that good judgment was used.

Blayne I can’t do much more then that if all the arguments don’t make logical sense to me, and I am not going to concede until they do.

JJ The arguments do not make sense because they do not harmonize with that to which you give great value. If your values were the same as the rest of the group then the arguments would start to make sense.

Blayne Your excuse that I am just being a fundamentalist here does not apply because we are dealing with foundation principles of justice here; innocent until proven guilty.

JJ Justice and “innocent until proven guilty in a court of law” are two very different things. True justice is only created by good judgment. “Innocent until proven guilty” requires no judgment but is a black and white procedure that usually helps insure justice, but not always. We should always seek justice, but we should not always seek the same black and white procedure.

And since we are dealing with black and white things the idea of “innocent until proven guilty” rarely happens even in a jury trial. Sometimes a person is proven guilty, as was O J Simpson. He was judged innocent because of bias. Other times there is not solid evidence of guilt but the guy is still found guilty. Rarely is a person proven guilty beyond any doubt.

You want “innocent until proven guilty by a jury trial” for every crime which is a different animal than a mere “innocent until proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.” Those who judged the Awlaki situation most likely presumed he was innocent until the evidence convinced them beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty of treason and more. So the procedure was most likely applied there, but without a jury trial. You do not have to have a jury trial to be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt. On the other hand, a jury trial does not always establish a judgment beyond a reasonable doubt as in O J Simpson.

Blayne Basically what you are saying is because judges and government have perverted the foundations of law through precedent we have to just go with it.

JJ Perverted is your choice of wording not mine. What perversion are you talking about?

If a law is declared legal by constitutionally appointed judges and I do not agree with that law then it is still the law and legal and binding in your society. And what do you suggest we do with laws we do not like – break them and go to jail? Complain about them? That doesn’t do much good. If a person is really outraged then he should seek to make changes.

Blayne So where do we draw the line?

JJ Once something is legal there is no line to draw. It is just legal and there is nothing you can do about it in the short term. You can disagree with it but you will still be subject to it until it is changed.

Blayne: Do we just abandon the principles of justice and allow ourselves to devolve until all the principles are no longer adhered to in any meaningful way because generations of corruption are the precedent?

JJ I’m certainly not abandoning any of my principles.

Blayne First of all the constitution does not give any rights at all.

JJ Where do you get that idea? Of course the Constitution gives us rights. That’s why we have different rights here than people in other countries.

We have the right to bear arms here but in North Korea they do not. What gives us that right where the North Koreans do not have it?

The Constitution and the will to uphold it.

We have many rights because of the Constitution that many in other countries just do not have.

There is a difference between something being right (correct) and “a right.”

Blayne Just because all branches approve does not mean it is lawful.

JJ Wow. If all branches of government cannot make a law which is legal then who can? By your reasoning then it would seem that nothing legal exists anywhere if legality cannot be decided by anyone living.

Blayne: So according to you since that is the reality we might as well abandon its principles.

JJ And what principle have I abandoned? The answer is none.

Blayne In light of this (the power of juries) why is it so hard for you to understand that a star chamber of attorneys approving hits is wrong and un-American?

JJ Not all legal decisions in the universe are made by juries. In Awlaki’s case the attorneys advised but did not make the decision. I understand it was the military in connection with Obama giving final approval. If you try and apply one solution to all legal problems this will create more problems than it solves.

Blayne: The Jury is the the forth branch and government and the most important.

JJ Yes juries are extremely important and need to be restored to their rightful place. They even have power to negate Constitutional law. But in times of war many things do not go through juries. One size does not fit all.

Blayne What is not logical about law needing to be foundationally moral? It is perfectly logical.

JJ You are not hearing me. I said nothing even close to this conclusion you have conjured. Whenever possible a law should be moral. I have NEVER said anything contrary to this.

BUT I have said that a law does not have to be moral to be legal. If those who have power to make law pass a law that says slavery is legal then it would be legal, but that wouldn’t make it moral. Oh, wait, we’ve already had a law like that which was Constitutional.

Blayne What is not logical is putting the stamp of some legislative and judicial process on something immoral and calling it legal.

JJ It happens now and then but it’s still legal just as immoral slavery once was.

Blayne: You still haven’t addressed the rape law scenario. Calling that legal would be absurd that is what is called “color of law” meaning it has the color of law but is not really law as it is immoral or harmful.

JJ Just as slavery was legal when declared legal by the authorities even so would rape be legal if it was passed as a law. In some countries rape is pretty much legal and one can legally rape his wife or even beat her. Not much morality there in what is legal – but it is still legal.

JJ (Previous Post) I keep telling you this first point has nothing to do with right and wrong, but legal and illegal. They are two different things.

Blayne And you are wrong here it is in our jurisprudence. I have studied this stuff in depth.

JJ Then explain how slavery was both moral and legal if only the moral thing is legal.

Blayne: Basically what you are saying is if some group of thugs comes and takes over your neighborhood or town and starts abusing everyone and there is no one to stop them since that is the reality then that makes it legal as they are the new law.

JJ That’s crazy talk. We have a legal system set up and those who operate outside of the system cannot decide what is legal within that system.

On the other hand, if a group of thugs overthrew our government and instituted their own then they would have power to decide what was legal, just as Hitler did when he took over Germany.

You do not seem to be able to get it in your head that legal is not always moral. It was legal to abuse Jews in Hitler’s Germany but that was not right or moral.

You have a very strange ephemeral idea of what legal is and that is making this discussion a thousand times more complicated than in talking with anyone else here about this subject.

Blayne What you are saying in essence is might makes right or legal in this case.

JJ No. I’m not saying anything close to that. Legal is not always right. Might has not produced bad law here but it is the result of legal representatives we have chosen through election.

Blayne When in fact everyone knows it is not legal because it is not right. Sure everyone knows that is the reality but that does not make it legal. Well what the heck here is a couple references the second one a US supreme court ruling that bad laws are not law at all:

(Wordy legal quotations omitted)

JJ Your quotations say nothing about laws being moral only that they need to be in harmony with the Constitution or they can be thrown out. Both sides of the argument already believe that so why spend so much time on this?

The problem is that you think it is your sense of morality that determines Constitutional law rather than constitutionally appointed judges. Everyone thinks their interpretation of the Constitution is the right one and to avoid bedlam certain judges must be appointed to interpret law.

Blayne (Previous Post) So far each point that you have tried to say was open to interpretation in the constitution I have easily refuted and pointed out the plain meaning.

JJ (Previous Post) I don’t recall you refuting even one that I have not demolished. Care to refresh my memory one even one thing.

Blayne Sure you said that due process of law in the 5th Amendment has no clear meaning leaving the door open to interpretation to allow star chambers of politically connected attorneys to order hits on American citizens. The sixth amendment defines due process as trial by jury by saying all are entitled to it. It could not be much more clear then that.

JJ I didn’t say “no clear meaning” I said “It can indeed be argued.” The President, his attorneys and military chiefs in a time of war are hardly a star chamber. The sixth amendment is a separate entity from the fifth and doesn’t even contain the phrase “due process.” How can it be defining something it does not even reference??? Due process merely means a legal process.

I don’ think you’ve refuted anything here.

JJ (Previous Post) So you maintain then that EVERY single crime needs a jury trial. You are really in a minuscule minority here. Even applying this to one crime, parking tickets for example, would be crazy talk.

JJ Blayne then gives a discourse on parking tickets and does not address the fact that it would be impossible to give every crime a jury trial.

Blayne What part of the Constitution being the law of the land do you not understand? I have showed you twice now how it DOES define due process and has been used in that definition.

JJ No you have not. You keep referencing the Sixth Amendment that does not even contain the words “due process” neither does it define the term. It is not clearly defined anywhere in the Constitution.

You are using traditional assumptions.

Blayne So you refuse to acknowledge the clear language of the 6th amendment that all men are guaranteed trial by jury. If all men accused of a crime are guaranteed such how is it that due process could be anything else? It is illogical to think otherwise.

JJ The sixth amendment does not even use the term “due process” is but speaks of some legalities which can be part (but not the whole) of due process.

The 14th Amendment says: “nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law;”

This gives the only other hint as to what due process is. Note the term “due process of law.”

Due process is merely considered to be following that which is legal. Most of the legal minds agree that Obama’s action was legal along with 73% of the people and, after all, the people are the final judge of the law.

Blayne: “I consider trial by jury as the only anchor ever yet imagined by man, by which a government can be held to the principles of its constitution.” – Thomas Jefferson

JJ Good quote. He is in harmony with my thinking.

Blayne: We know what the Founders meant when they wrote it we have plenty of their writings of them telling us what they meant, as if the language of it was not plain enough.

JJ Not all the founders were in agreement on the contents of the Constitution. What they said may have influence on a judge’s interpretation but what is written in the actual Constitution is paramount and many of the lines are subject to interpretation. If you do not think so then you are in a very tiny minority.

You seem to think that a dozen people can read any line in the document and the wording is so clear that all will come to the same conclusion. This is La La Land thinking and history proves you absolutely incorrect. You and I who are both libertarians and we cannot even agree on many lines and you and I would both unitedly disagree with many Leftist interpretations.

Blayne: Tell me what is the spirit of the words of “In ALL criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury” It says “all” not some.

JJ Awlaki was notified a year before his execution that that he was a wanted man and if he could not be captured and tried by jury he would be taken out. He had a year to exercise his right to a jury trial, but refused. So the word ALL did include Awlaki. He was then turned over to the due process of a military action.

What is and is not a criminal prosecution is also subject to interpretation.

Your thinking that everything in the document is crystal clear and no interpretation is needed is strange indeed and none of the Founders support you in this thinking. If there were not numerous ways of looking at the words and interpreting the words then we wouldn’t even need judges for this purpose. The Founders would not have created the Supreme Court if no interpretation of the Constitution was needed..

Blayne: I in fact would like to abolish the constitution.

JJ Wow. Who would have thought? What would you have in its place?

Blayne: So you can stop trying to associate me with the fundamentalist moniker.

JJ Pick six people here and ask them whether or not you sound very fundamentalist in your interpretation of the Constitution.

Blayne’s quote: “In questions of power, then, let no more be heard of confidence in man, but bind him down from mischief with the chains of the Constitution.” Thomas Jefferson.

JJ Again – a good quote.

JJ (Previous Post) This is like listening to the extreme religious fundamentalist say something like:

“Jesus says I should pluck out my eye if it offends and my eyes caused me to lust after a woman so I guess I’ll pluck them out.”

Just like that scripture has shades of meaning even so are there differing ways to interpret the Constitution.

Blayne And this is like listening to a liberal leftist saying oh the constitution is a living document and it means what ever some judge Attorney or the president says it means as long as he agrees with my liberal belief’s.

JJ This is the first time in my life I have been compared to a liberal leftist.

When leftists speak of the Constitution being a living document they are NOT referring to the fact that intelligent people can have differing interpretations. They are saying that they should be able to negate what is written as immoral and create law true their version of what is right and moral rather than by what is written or by adding amendments. I am totally against the leftist view of the “living document” as they understand it.

JJ (Previous Post) And how do you know that the decision of a jury is true. You don’t. There is not 100% surety in any decision made. Without some element of trust nothing can get done. With too much everything falls apart. This is why the Key of Judgment is so important.

Blayne This is getting ridiculous. Nothing is perfect the point is all the evidence is heard by an impartial jury not a bunch of politically connected attorneys who are biased to an agenda. The attorneys are supposed to be making the case to a jury not ordering deaths.

JJ The question under consideration is – was the action legal? If it was then there was probably no more bias involved than would occur in the regular jury process. It looks like our main difference in thinking.

You think that a law has to fit in with your version of what is Constitutional, right and moral to be legal.

I think that laws are legal, whether I think they are right or not, if they have been created through our Constitutional process.

I’d say that over 90% of the people would agree with me on this and when 90% of the people support what is deemed to be legal then that legality will indeed be upheld until it is changed by new law.

I’m talking about legalities here, not whether Obama made the best possible choice in dealing with Awlaki. That comes later.

Easy Access to all the Writings

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Knowing the Truth, Part 4

November 16, 2011 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 16 of 49 in the series JJ Lectures

Now I was asked a question about aliens and hybrids, we see all these shows about aliens and so I will give you my thoughts on aliens and if you want to believe it or not believe that is fine. Almost all the encounters with aliens are illusionary. You will notice that in most of the encounters that they are woken up at night and have you ever noticed that when you are between awake and asleep that is when you often see and hear things. I am not saying that what you are hearing or seeing is not real but it is usually not in the physical plane. Another thing about many of the space ships that people see is they are zipping along and then stop on a dime or often they say the ship will turn at a right angle. These claims seem to break the laws of physical reality – so one wonders how this could happen.

There are UFO sightings that have a natural explanation such as seeing the planet Venus or a hot air balloon or something like that. There are some that they have not be able to explain and a lot of the ones that they have not been able to explain are the ones that do these fantastic maneuvers that is pretty much impossible in our physical reality. This is because what they are seeing are ships made of etheric matter and etheric matter is capable of performance that we can’t do here on the physical plane.

Audience: According to DK and some of your teachings as well we can develop our vision to see these etheric vehicles and doesn’t this indicate an evolutionary step in the etheric?

JJ: Yes many of the people that do see these things in the etheric matter are sensitive people and are often people that have psychic abilities and a lot of these guys are not only UFO buffs but also will admit they have psychic abilities. If you come across something in the etheric or astral planes it is because your vision has crossed over into a higher plane. I don’t know if I ever shown you guys but it is really easy to see etheric matter, I will put my forehead right here and everybody stare at me for about a minute. Then I will tell you what to do. (A few seconds pass) I am going to pull away now but keep staring where I was at. Do you see it?

Audience: Yes.

JJ: Okay just about everybody saw it and it is like looking at a light and then closing your eyes and still seeing the light.

Audience: I have seen that all the time and I just thought it was a function of my normal vision.

JJ: Well it is your normal vision and you see a bit more than just your normal seeing in the fact that the etheric light burns a little stronger and you will also notice that when you see this you will see different shades that are not in the physical plane. Often times in the throat area you will see a little dark area when you have a cold and that is not visible on the physical plane. It is because of the etheric light that you are able to see that. You get someone that is really vibrant and in good physical shape and their light will be a lot brighter. Somebody that just got out of the hospital or is in bad physical shape – their light will not be as bright.

Now if it was just the physical light that was causing this then it would be the same with both people because physically they look the same but the brightness of the light you see will vary with each individual and that is because there is an etheric light. Place the end of your thumbs together and put them up against the light and then pull them apart slowly until they are about a quarter inch apart and look at the empty space between your thumbs and as you look at the empty space between your thumbs look at the right and left and you will see your etheric body it is extended about a millimeter from the skin and kind of a bluish hue. It is best to do this on a white background because you can see it more clearly. Go home and do this on a white background and you will be able to see your etheric image and like I say it is kind of bluish hue usually. For somebody that is not very healthy it will extend just a small space away from their skin and for somebody that is very healthy it will be a couple millimeters away.

Audience: Why is it important that we develop our vision to see the etheric vehicle?

JJ: It is not that important. Laughing! It is just the fact that we are getting a little more sensitive in seeing a little more. What is much more important is developing the intuition where you can pick up things that are true, pick up principles and pick up what is correct and what is not and pick up who represents the outward god and the God within.

Now going back to aliens I believe that the only ones that have developed the power to travel in the physical with interplanetary flight is the Brotherhood of Light and the dark brothers are not capable of interstellar flight. This is why the star systems are so far away. The nearest star system to us is 4 ½ light years away and is probably not even inhabited but most of the ones where there is a strong possibility of life like ours are 20 or so light years away and that is long, long ways. Light travels at 186,000 miles per second and if you were to shine a flashlight in that direction it would take 20 years for the light to reach them. That is a very long period of time. The only way to go faster than the speed of light is to fold up the physical body and incorporate it into the higher vehicles. Then, when the brotherhood in doing such traveling and reaches a destination they unfold again into the physical.

The dark brotherhood is incapable of doing this. They can travel in the etheric and they can contact people in the etheric body but they cannot travel from one star system to another and then materialize in the physical. The brotherhood of light can and I believe the only time that they come here is at end of one age and the beginning of another like after the destruction of Atlantis I think we had visitors and there is a scripture that talks about Adam which is many and I believe that we have had many Adams and each Adam is a new beginning after there has been great destruction on the earth – and that this has happened many times.

As a matter of fact Jesus was called the second Adam in the Bible. He was called this because He was the beginning of a new spiritual life. The first Adam, the physical Adam, was the beginning of a new type of physical life. And so we have the various changes that occur and when these changes occur I believe we are visited by beings from other star systems, often without the use of space ships. They just come in their spiritual bodies. They are capable of visiting other planes and capable of exchanging bodies. For instance, if you are an advanced being you can be contacted and you can go visit his planet in his body and he goes and visits the earth in yours.

My best estimate that over 99% of UFO contacts are not physical contacts. There is a handful I read about that make me wonder the possibilities but I think most of them have a lot of illusion in the accounts. I also believe that there are people on other planets. I believe that physical people on physical planets like the earth are few in number in the universe – that our universe is quite young and this planet is like a seed planet and one of our purposes is to develop interstellar flight and populate other planets. We will seed sections of our galaxy starting with our solar system. We just had a probe that went to Titan, the largest moon of Saturn and the only known natural satellite to have a dense atmosphere – the only body other that the earth for which clear evidence of stable bodies of surface liquid have been found. It is interesting that it still has an atmosphere and if it was warmer it may be able to harbor life like the earth. We will eventually do some interesting things like remove a moon like Titan from around its orbit around Saturn and move it closer to the sun and eventually populate it. We will be like gods creating a garden of Eden so to speak. This is possibly how the earth was started by other beings similar to us and maybe the earth was in a different orbit far back in our past. As a matter of fact ancient Biblical times has a year being 360 days rather than 365 days and if that were really true then that would mean the earth was in a different orbit way back in Biblical times which is very interesting.

What you want to look for in any new inspired teaching is this; is there any new principle being taught or any new elaboration on an old principle that sheds more light that was not there before. All kinds of people often ask me what I think of this book or that book and what I will often say is that I read it and I did not find any new principle or I read it and there are some new principles and I think it is good. They will often be disappointed if I am not impressed and tell me how good it was. I tell them yes but there are not any new principles or teachings there and they say well yes but it is so good. I say, I will tell you the reason you thought it was good, it is because this particular writer developed a new fancy vocabulary and he uses all these fanciful words but if you substitute an ordinary word that means what the author is really saying and then you read it you will find no new principle there. He is just saying the same thing over with a fancy vocabulary. Many of the writers think that if they create a new vocabulary with fanciful sounding words that they are actually bringing forth new knowledge.

Instead of the Christ principal if I were to use say “the force” then it does not change anything does it? That is one thing Star Wars did was they used the word “force” that captured the imagination of kids and it did not really teach anything new but it captured their imagination with a new word that everybody liked. Sometimes a new word is helpful like that where it does stimulate the imagination and make them examine something a little closer and in that way Star Wars was helpful. But we all have the force within us and it is called by many different names from the Holy Ghost to the Christ Principle to the solar energies – lots of things that may be the force that he was talking about. At least the Star Wars trilogy had a purpose with using a word like that and that was to create an interesting story. What many writers do when they use fanciful words is they use them to take us farther into illusion and make us think that they have more to offer than they really have. They are just giving an old philosophy a new coat so to speak and it is really the same old philosophy.

Easy Access to all the Writings

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 13

November 15, 2011November 15, 2011 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 27 of 34 in the series 2011C

Oct 19, 2011
Message to Blayne

I hope you don’t think I’m coming down too hard on you. Perhaps a few positive words are in order.

Overall you have one of the finest minds that I have come across and when battling ignorance I am always overjoyed to have you on my side. I think that if you and I had been attorneys together we could have become famous for winning cases.

You remind me somewhat of Paul who was independent, operated out of the box and fiercely went his own way whether Peter and the others agreed or not.

You also remind me of my beloved friend Wayne (whose thinking was a lot like yours) with whom I also had many strong disagreements. Like you he was a person that I could have passionate arguments with yet still keep as a great friend who would do most anything for me and I for him.

Oct 19, 2011
Re: Conclusion for Consideration

“DaJudge”wrote:

Your God says to kill Americans who have not been given their due process rights under the 5th Amendment? The following is Ron Paul’s thoughts on the matter:

JJ Moses had many of his enemies taken out without any due process and many of them were not an imminent threat.

Oct 20, 2011
Question Three
Question Three: The next natural question is would such an action be the right thing to do? This question has already been tossed around like crazy and no agreement has been reached. Instead of asking that question now let us ask this? If such an action were legal under what circumstances would it be the right thing to do?

Let us expand this question a bit. Here are some yes or no questions. Would it be alright to assassinate Awlaki if evidence indicated there was a 50% chance he was involved in plotting terrorist acts against.

A 75% chance?

A 90% chance?

A 99% chance?

A 99.9% chance?

Why not 100%? Because there is never 100% surety in any judgment of guilt or innocent.

Now let us suppose that we had firm intelligence that Awlaki was heading up a group that gained possession of a nuclear weapon and they had plans to detonate it in Washington DC. We receive intelligence that the group is gathered in a certain location in Yemen. We could send a cruise missile that would destroy the entire group as well as put the bomb out of commission. Should we act now?

Should we have lots of discussion and legal research first, miss the opportunity and take our chances

Should we take him out even if we are violating the a number of laws in doing so?

Oct 20, 2011
Re: Conclusion for Consideration

This is a consideration indeed but I doubt if they expected that 80% of murders would escape the jury process. I think the point to take in consideration is that no matter how intelligent the initiators are that they cannot foresee all the results of their work and cannot include all the safeguards necessary. You’d think the wording of the Second Amendment would be plain enough but if the Founders could have seen into the future they would have just left off the reference to militias.

Oct 21, 2011
Letter of the Law 1.1
JJ quoting Blayne Nowhere have I said this sort of thing is new.

JJ (from last post) You had me fooled. Here is what you said in post # 54101

“This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.”

You have also talked about this setting a bad precedent many times as if such a precedent had not been set before.

Blayne: You have taken this out of context you do this a lot when we disagree and it clouds the issue. I went on to explain when questioned earlier on this very thing that it is unprecedented for the president to order a hit on an American citizen and then announce it publicly as if it is no big deal.

JJ It was in context for that post and there was nothing in post #541012 that indicated otherwise. Sure you have said other things in your dozens of posts on this subject. Am I supposed to piece them all together, read your mind and come up with an acceptable conclusion???

Even taking into consideration that you said (in another post) that “it is unprecedented for the president to order a hit on an American citizen and then announce it publicly” does not change the meaning of this statement in question you made:

“This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history and is the act of a dictator pure and simple. This is not supposed to happen in America.”

Both of your statements could be your true meaning as they do not contradict. It could be the first such hit ordered by an American President and apart from that it could be an unprecedented act.

This is an example of why others do not think you see the other side or yield a point.

You clearly said that “”This sort of thing is unprecedented in American history..” and nothing in that post or any other says otherwise.

When I read that I didn’t think you were referring exclusively to the president’s actions but seemed to be speaking generally.

You do not seem to be able to put yourself in the readers shoes to the point that you can see how your words were interpreted to mean what they seemed to say in the context of that post.

This causes you to project an image of being so determined to be right that you cannot concede a little and say something like:

“Yeah I can see how that statement could come across that way. Sorry about the confusion. Here’s what I really meant to say.”

JJ (Previous post) Just because you give your reasoning (which is in this case unconvincing) does not mean you have considered the opposing views. It sounds more like your mind was just set in stone and you found what you were looking for – for you anyway, but not for anyone else here.

Blayne: You’re entitled to your opinion. However basically you have just called me a liar. Just because you are unconvinced of my reasoning is no reason to assume I have not considered others opinions.

JJ I’ll practice what I preach and yield here as I just suggested you do. I can see how you might read my statement that way, but it is certainly not what I meant. I believe you are a very honest individual and that you are a big believer in telling the truth.

I know that you always think you give the other side of an argument fair consideration, but that doesn’t mean you actually do.

For instance, I remember a lifetime ago when I was a strong believer in the Mormon church. I thought I gave full consideration to arguments against my beliefs in church doctrine. For instance, I didn’t accept reincarnation even though I had taken people back into past lives as heard them speak in different accents and reveal things they couldn’t have known in this life. When I rejected this as evidence I really believed I was giving both sides of the argument full consideration.

Now, on hindsight I can see that I was not. I was not lying when I thought I was seeing both sides fairly. I just had a blind spot due to my strong fixation on my belief system at the time.

Even so I think you believe yourself to be truthful when you say you’re seeing both sides, but in my opinion you are caught in an illusion that needs dispelled.

This is why I have tried to break this argument down into pieces so we can look at them one at a time and discover where the real problem lies in reaching reasonable conclusions all rational minds here can accept.;

JJ (Previous Post) Like many laws there is more than one way to interpret this…

Blayne: The legal system is already bogged down and there is no justice and we are facing disaster precisely because we do not follow the law here.

JJ Law is not based on how fundamentalists interpret original documents but how it has been applied and interpreted by judges as well as altered by new clarifying law over the years. This is the reality that makes laws that are now legal. You do not seem to accept this reality which I and most people do.

That doesn’t mean I agree with all the laws, but unlike you I accept their reality. I don’t have to agree with a law to accept that it is the law. You seem to think you have to agree.

A fundamentalist could probably argue that most speed limit laws are unconstitutional and refuse to recognize them. Now I do not like speed limit laws and would be happy to see most of them eliminated, but I recognize their reality that they are indeed legal within our system, even though permission to create them was not spelled out by the Founders.

So, overall the system has evolved legally with Congress adding to and constitutionally appointed judges interpreting the law we are governed by. We thus follow law – some good and some not so good, but laws nevertheless.

Blayne It’s pretty clear that all crimes should be tried by jury in Law and historical precedent.

JJ The jury system doesn’t have time to judge more than 20% of the murders let alone traffic tickets and thousands of other infractions. I think you are being unreasonable here.

Blayne: Your saying only a certain percentage are actually tried by a jury is a red herring to say the least.

JJ It’s not a red herring at all but makes the point that many points of the Constitution cannot be applied in black and white literal mindset. That’s why we have judges as well as Congress to pass clarifying laws.

Blayne Most these people WAVED THEIR RIGHT to a trial by jury.

JJ And where in the Constitution does it give them that right? Even you are using wiggle room here.

Blayne: Using this to try and justify assassination of an American citizen does not apply.

JJ I was using it to show that a hard-core fundamentalist black and white interpretation is often not practical.

Blayne: The few exceptions are self defense when one must kill or harm someone in self defense and war which is basically self defense on a massive scale.

JJ But we are in a war with terrorists which has been approved by all branches of government making it Constitutional. Therefore the president as Commander in chief can do what is necessary to carry out the war unless stopped by the legal system, Congress or the people themselves.

Blayne: The Jury is supposed to judge the case not the Judge he is supposed to be impartial and only keep order during the trial period.

JJ This is a good point. The Founders realized that no law was perfect, not even Constitutional law. Therefore they created juries to be the final arbitrators. They have the final say on law and can even legally throw it out or disregard it – even if it is constitutional. The legal system tries to hide this power from juries and unfortunately, sometimes a jurist can be held in contempt for using this power.

Blayne: Judges have no authority to make law…

JJ They do have Constitutional power to interpret law which often does create new applications of the law. Some could argue that this makes new law.

Other times they do actually make new law from something not even written and this is a wrong use of power that the system has no effective way to correct. This needs to be addressed, but it has little to do with the subject at hand.

Blayne Also this idea that we can separate legal from moral or right is not correct. Laws are supposed to be based on basic morality.

JJ Where do you get this idea? There are many laws that have nothing to do with morality such as speed limits, eminent domain, licensing, the qualifying age of our representatives, taxes, immigration, and many other laws are based on common sense – not morality.

I think that is one of the main reasons you cannot agree that the action on Awlaki was legal because in your mind it was not right. You seem to think that if a thing offends your sense of morality then it is not legal.

This is not logical and it is not true in the real world. Some laws offend my sense of morality also, but that does not make them illegal. If I break them I will suffer the consequences whether I agree or not.

Blayne If it is immoral and wrong to kill someone without a fair trial and hearing of all the evidence (except in self defense) then any law passed that allows it is no law at all.

JJ You’re not being logical here. If a law is passed and approved within our system then it is the law whether we like it or not.

I keep telling you this first point has nothing to do with right and wrong, but legal and illegal. They are two different things.

Blayne: I have to wonder why you left out my example of Churchill defying the group pressure when he thought it was wrong?

JJ I didn’t. You even quoted it in your post. Here it is again:

“There was only a couple times where Churchill had to stand against the many. More often than not his logic was strong enough that the many stood with him.”

I have no problem with you going against the majority. It is your right, which I support. It is my right to disagree with you though and attempt to show you the error of your reasoning.

Blayne You are telling me because 4 or 5 disagrees with me I must be wrong and haven’t considered their side.

JJ It’s not that others disagree but I see little evidence that you see opposing arguments through the others eyes.

Blayne: And I am telling you I have looked at the known evidence and found their side wanting.

JJ I’m sure that is true in your eyes.

Blayne: By the way. I have refuted all the arguments several times.

JJ I know you’ve argued all over the map on this with a number of members and you made some good points and this is why I jumped in to use this like a Molecular exercise and attempted to break the argument down to its parts.

The first hurdle is simply agreeing on the legality of the action – not the morality, or all the other points discussed.

Blayne: Sorry I will not just rubber stamp anything you or anyone says or Even God George Washington or Thomas Jefferson If it doesn’t make sense and is refuted by facts… 😉 Some people don’t like that and perhaps that is one of the sources of negativity..

JJ I felt a little disturbance in the force. That was my motivation in posting something more positive about you.

It’s fine with me that you don’t follow the crowd.

Blayne: I am adhering to the principles of freedom and liberty that a man is innocent until proven guilty…

JJ Awlaki was presumed innocent until those with legal power to judge judged otherwise. Whether they judged correctly has nothing to do with the first point. The point is they had the legal power to judge.

Blayne: What principle are you arguing from?

JJ Man made law is not directly based on a principle but determined by the will of the people who are involved. It is [probably loosely associated with the principle of intelligent organization under the Law of Economy. Sometimes what is legal is a million miles away from a principle. The Principle of freedom has nothing to do with whether a thing is legal or not. It used to be legal to own slaves, but that had nothing to do with the Principle of Freedom.

Blayne: Who are these legal minds that you think are so great?

JJ It doesn’t take a “great” legal mind to determine the legality of most things. It’s a fairly simple procedure that you seem to be making extremely complicated.

Blayne This is nothing more then an appeal to authority.

JJ Authorities have their place. What is legal is often determined by authorities, like it or not. Just because you do not like what is legal does not alter reality.

Blayne: Because some lawyer says something is one way or another does not make it so. Assuming these guys are the greatest legal minds because they are politically connected to get into these positions is naive at best. Attorneys are among the most ignorant of law of any group! These guys know how the corrupt non article 3 courts work and how to manipulate them for their own gain but they know little about the actual law. Being officers of said courts the courts also favor them despite their ignorance. The judge the defense attorney and the prosecutor all belong to the same club and their first duty is to protect the court and not their client yet few people see the huge conflict of interest here.

JJ Wow.. You are really negative on the legal system. If some alien came here and only listened to you he’d think we have no justice whatsoever and thugs are everywhere. Our system is not perfect but sometimes it gets things right.

But the point we are discussing has nothing to do with this red herring. We are not discussing right and wrong, but legal and illegal. Two very different things.

Blayne: My reasoning is sound that allowing this type of Assassination sets a precedent that could impact millions and future generations.

JJ This has nothing to do with whether the action was legal.

Blayne Instead of trying to minimize it to bolster your argument here you should be admonishing the opposing group they could ALL be wrong and it could impact millions but since you are part of that group it appears you could not bring yourself to jeopardize winning the argument by doing that.

JJ For the umpteenth time this part of the argument has nothing to do with right and wrong. The first point is to establish whether the action was legal or illegal.

Blayne: The varied interpretations of the constitution are just people trying to twist the meanings to their own agendas and or illusions.

JJ Several here have different interpretations of the Constitution. Are those who disagree with you just twisting things? I don’t think so. I think we are all interpreting it the best we can.

Blayne So far each point that you have tried to say was open to interpretation in the constitution I have easily refuted and pointed out the plain meaning.

JJ I don’t recall you refuting even one that I have not demolished. Care to refresh my memory one even one thing.

Blayne: Sounds to me like you prefer a bunch of people shouting he’s guilty he’s guilty kill him kill him and then trying to rubber stamp it with a bunch of lying attorneys, ignoring the principle of innocent until proven guilty…

JJ I think most people reading this will agree that you have an imagination going wild here concerning me.

Blayne: Your argument is based on your belief that due process means a bunch of politically connected attorneys with agendas said its ok. When I have pointed out the constitution clearly defines due process as trial by Jury

JJ And, using your reasoning, I could say that your argument of a jury trial for all is shows you rely on corrupt judges and attorneys in trials with hand picked biased juries. Nothing we set up is perfect.

Blayne: Wow you have this completely backwards. Justice has been destroyed precisely because we do not adhere to it (jury process).

JJ So you maintain then that EVERY single crime needs a jury trial. You are really in a minuscule minority here. Even applying this to one crime, parking tickets for example, would be crazy talk.

Blayne: The basis of all law is no harm no crime. The Idea we don’t have time to give every accused a fair trial is a construct created by attorneys so the can run people through a corrupt system…

JJ I don’t think so. If we gave every law breaker a jury trial we would need ten times as many attorneys and judges.

Blayne: If we had stuck to the maxim of law no harm no crime there would be a lot less cases and a lot less theft by attorneys and judges.

JJ Again, I’m sure your idea of harm differs from many and you are sure yours is the only right one. All the laws we have follow someone’s idea of preventing harm.

Blayne: This just illustrates you do not understand the maxim of law and you are in illusion on this. The 5th Amendment precisely says NO MAN shall be deprived of life liberty and property without due process. Pretty sure that means it INCLUDES EVERYONE.

JJ That’s right, but it doesn’t define due process. A due process was applied to Awlaki but that’s not good enough for you because it doesn’t fit the meaning of due process that you have defined in your belief system.

Blayne The 6th then defines it as trial by jury. They are not mutually exclusive.

JJ That’s your conjecture. The Constitution doesn’t say anything one way or another about exclusiveness.

Blayne: The maxim of law has always been that the federal government can do nothing that is not specifically granted in its charter the constitution. Not; that if it is not spelled out they have free reign to do what ever they want. In other words if it is not in there they can’t do it PERIOD!

JJ You look at the Constitution the way fundamental literalists look at the Bible. This attitude causes them to get many things wrong because they do not look at the Spirit of the word.

There are many things the Federal Government has to do that is not literally spelled out. Adjusting the salaries of Federal workers to inflation is one thing, or should we just pay them $300 a year? (Actually that might be a good idea for a lot of bureaucrats)

Authority to create national highway system was not spelled out but maybe one out of 10,000 thinks the government overstepped its bounds there.

The creation of NASA was not spelled out there but this has been a great benefit for the world.

Many things not specifically spelled out have been fined tuned by judges and new legislation. None of us agree with all the fine-tuning but some has been a stabilizing force. And if some of this offends the people enough public opinion can always force positive change.

Blayne The constitution also settles how we deal with war and lesser threats to the nation.

JJ Yeah, The Constitution does this followed by constitutionally authorized judges and legislation which does not rely on your interpretation. Your opinion does not make law or determine how the Constitution is interpreted.

Blayne: By declarations of war and for lesser actions letters of marque and reprisal period. So there is nothing grey about it…

JJ Nothing grey about it??? Yeah, right. If its so clear then why cannot you and I agree??? It’s so clear that all intelligent people can just give it a quick look and agree with what it says – right? Give me a break.

This is like listening to the extreme religious fundamentalist say something like:

“Jesus says I should pluck out my eye if it offends and my eyes caused me to lust after a woman so I guess I’ll pluck them out.”

Just like that scripture has shades of meaning even so are there differing ways to interpret the Constitution.

The human language is so imperfect that one cannot wrote more than one paragraph that a dozen people will interpret the same way. You even complain that your own words are misunderstood, so what makes you think the Founding Fathers found the magical method of creating a document that is so clear that all who can read will see the meaning the same way and only see differently if they are corrupt?

Do you even read and analyze some of the things you are saying here?

Blayne: IOW I am saying in order for any action to be legal it has to be moral on a basic level.

JJ I’ve already responded to this. See above.

Blayne: And of course there is no accountability here to what they claim. How does anyone know if any of their accusations are true?

JJ And how do you know that the decision of a jury is true. You don’t. There is not 100% surety in any decision made. Without some element of trust nothing can get done. With too much everything falls apart. This is why the Key of Judgment is so important.

Blayne: If they knew where he was to hit him with a drone strike it seems to me they could have captured him fairly easily. There is no proof he was an eminent threat to us.

JJ And how many times has this been done in history with a notorious bad guy? I can’t think of any. And why? Because it takes time and planning to accomplish such a thing and by the time the execution is ready he is likely to be in hiding at another location.

Blayne:

This is all I have time for at the moment….

JJ Probably a good thing you didn’t have two moments.

Easy Access to all the Writings

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

The Molecular Business

November 14, 2011 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 26 of 34 in the series 2011C

TEACHER: Today we are going to talk about a dynamic new business idea. It is, perhaps, the first really original business concept since the establishment of free enterprise. It is called the MOLECULAR BUSINESS and is designed to benefit the many instead of the few.

In the beginning of civilization men and women worked instinctively together for the benefit of the tribe or group. Each person had his job, but generally the assets of the group were shared equally according to need, except in cases where the strong took from the weak. There were jobs but no business as we now know it.

As the tribes gathered together and formed kingdoms private business began to be created and people found that by their superior intelligence, hard work, and cunning that they could gain an advantage over their neighbors as long as they found favor in the sight of the king. Thus men began to be divided into two general classes: The rich and the poor. In those days financial security was almost impossible even for the rich for all their wealth could be confiscated by a displeased ruler. The poor generally had no private business or job at all, but were often slaves with no hope for financial abundance.

The third stage of business evolution appeared after the establishment of the democratic society and the freeing of the slaves. At this point we see the establishment of big business and the emergence of the entrepreneur. In this age we find that competition has reached a high point. Everyone in our world today is either directly competing or working for someone who is competing for their share of the market place.

We are now reaching a point in history where there will emerge the next great evolutionary step in business, and we already see foreshadowings of it in the business world. Can you guess what is replacing the competitive business?

STUDENT: I’m not sure.

TEACHER: Have you heard of cooperatives?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Can you tell me how they work?

STUDENT: Basically, there is no one owner, but employees and stockholders all own and operate the business cooperatively.

TEACHER: I’m sure you have also heard of profit sharing haven’t you?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Tell me how you understand this principle.

STUDENT: I understand that the employees are paid in addition to their wages a percentage of the net profits of the business.

TEACHER: Why do you suppose that cooperatives and profit sharing programs have been so successful?

STUDENT: I suppose that they help keep the employees involved.

TEACHER: Even the corporation that sells stock requires a high degree of cooperation and group effort. Such a company has many owners and many people directly benefit from its profits. The corporation, profit sharing, and the cooperative all foreshadow the next great stage of business evolution that will replace the competitive society. Can you guess what that is?

STUDENT: It looks like we are moving towards greater cooperation. (The student may not give this exact answer so the teacher may have to guide him toward it.)

TEACHER: We will soon leave the competitive society and enter a cooperative one. The New Testament gives us an ideal to which the cooperative society will strive. Turn to Acts 4:33 “And the multitude of them that believed were of one heart and one soul: neither said any of them that ought of the things which he possessed was his own; but they had all things common.”

Would you say here that it would take a great deal of cooperation to have all things in common as did the early Christians?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: It gives us the basic reason as to why they could cooperate to this extent. Can you find it?

STUDENT: It says that they were of one heart and soul.

TEACHER: If everyone is of one heart and soul then competition automatically ceases and cooperation is the natural course. Cooperative efforts if forced will never excel over a competitive effort, but if cooperation happens naturally then the results will exceed a competitive group.

The key to making a cooperative effort work is to have one mind and heart toward the task at hand whether it is converting the world to Christianity, making a marriage work, or running a business. Let’s talk about this principle in the creating of a successful business. Would you say that most of the people working for the various companies have one heart and mind directed to the benefit of the business or is it that there are generally only a few dedicated toward the good of the whole and the majority are dedicated to getting the most money with the least effort?

STUDENT: I would say that the latter is true.

TEACHER: But if everyone were of one mind and heart this would not be the case. Therefore, we must discover those principles which cause separation in business and correct them. Can you name some of the divisions or classifications of people involved in a typical company?

STUDENT: There are the owners and non owners; management and labor; those who make a lot of money and those who do not.

TEACHER: Would you agree that as a general rule that the owners are much more concerned about the health of the company whereas the non-owners are more concerned about their paycheck?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Would you also agree that there is generally distance between labor and management because labor is at the mercy of management and has little input as to how the company is run, and management often has little sensitivity toward the concerns of labor?

STUDENT: That sounds correct.

TEACHER: And would you further agree that those who are low on the pay scale often feel jealous and separative from those who make a lot of money?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: The old saying decrees that “The taste of the pudding is in the pie”. We can see in real life that there is little social intercourse between owners and non owners; management and labor; the rich and the poor. Have you noticed this?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: All three of these problems keep the people from being of one heart and mind, but the Molecular Business will correct them all.
First, the division between owners and non-owners will be eliminated because in the Molecular Business all will be owners. Each payday the worker is paid not only with money but a portion of his recompense is in the form of increasing Company ownership, generally in the form of stock. The division of owners and non-owners thus comes to an end as all are owners to some degree. Do you think this would make people feel more involved with their company?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Solving the division between management and labor is a little more complex, but still relatively simple. The Molecular Business management is somewhat comparable to our democratic government whereas existing business government is comparable to totalitarian governments such as Cuba where all authority is invested from the top down instead of from the bottom up. Do you understand the difference of authority placement between the US and a totalitarian state?

STUDENT: I think so. In Cuba the leaders have supreme authority, but in the United States the people do – at least in theory.

TEACHER: Let us describe it this way. The authority in Cuba is from the top down. That means that those in high positions have complete power over those below them. The higher can criticize the lower, but the lower cannot criticize or even suggest that the higher may be wrong.

In the United States the lower can criticize the higher and has power to remove the governing authority from power. The higher can also criticize the lower but is very hesitant to do so for he does not want to offend those who elected him. Thus he only makes a criticism when he is sure he is accurate. Have you heard the President or any other elected official criticize the common man lately?

STUDENT: Only at their peril.

TEACHER: On the other hand, did you notice that the first thing a totalitarian leader does when he gets in office is blame all the troubles of the nation on the common slothful worker?

STUDENT: I do seem to recall that.

TEACHER: Which system do you think works the best: government authority from the top down as in totalitarian states or from the bottom up as is supposed to be in the United States?

STUDENT: The US, of course.

TEACHER: Doesn’t it seem logical that if the bottom up governing system works so much better with a nation that it would also work better with a business?

STUDENT: I suppose.

TEACHER: Doesn’t it also seem strange that the business world has held on to the top down government that belongs to the dark ages and has never in history switched completely to bottom up management?

STUDENT: I suppose it does.

TEACHER: The Molecular Business has a democratic government with control from the bottom up. This concept will revolutionize the business world and dramatically increase the economic stability of the individual.

Let us examine exactly how the bottom up approach in the Molecular Business works as compared with the status quo:

If you work for a regular company today you often begin as a common worker and over you will be a foreman, supervisor, or some type of “boss.” This boss is always right and if you see a better way you normally remain silent. He has complete power over your job and can terminate you on a whim. In essence, for eight hours a day you are his slave. If you have a good master your job will be tolerable, but if your boss is a tyrant you can loose all sense of freedom and you experience for eight hours a day what those in a dictatorship experience all their waking hours.

By contrast, the supervisor in the Molecular Business does not have any such totalitarian power over your job. He can only suggest that you be terminated. And who do you think he has to suggest it to?

STUDENT: His Boss.

TEACHER: His boss would have nothing to do with it, but the supervisor could only suggest termination to your local group of fellow employees. After that they will vote and the manager has to have a two-thirds majority before he can fire you. One of your fellow employees can challenge the boss for his job and call for a vote. If he succeeds they will change positions. Can you see how this will have the effect of taking away your fear of the boss, but making him work harder to get along with your fellow employees?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: In a regular company if you want to get a promotion you have to catch the attention of your manager and somehow convince him you are the one for the next promotion. Have you noticed that those who are often promoted are those who are best at making a show when the manager is around?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Who are the ones who really know whether or not you are doing a good job?

STUDENT: The fellow workers.

TEACHER: Your fellow workers are usually with you much more than the manager and they tend to be less biased then the manager. Thus in the Molecular Business any promotion you attain has to be voted on by them. Who do you think decides whether or not you should be nominated for the position of a new supervisor, for instance?

STUDENT: The follow employees.

TEACHER: This may surprise you, but neither your boss nor the employees decide this, but you do. Isn’t the first qualification of a good manager the fact that one must believe that he can do the job, and, above all, want the job?

STUDENT: I guess so.

TEACHER: Therefore, if you believe you can do a better job than your current supervisor all you have to do if you want the job is to challenge the person for his position. Unless two thirds of the employees object the group will have an election and after the votes are tabulated you will be the new manager if you receive the most votes.

Now you are the new supervisor and you are aware that you can be replaced at any time by one of your subordinates are you going to have an incentive to do a good job?

STUDENT: I would think so.

TEACHER: Do you think you will try hard to treat those under you with consideration and kindness?

STUDENT: I would imagine so.

TEACHER: Now you are a supervisor and have learned the ropes you begin to study the position of the area supervisor and realize that you could do a much better job than the person currently there. If you desire you can challenge that person for his job just as you previously did with your supervisor. If all your fellow supervisors vote for you instead of the current position holder you will move up again. You can continue to challenge and replace superiors until you reach your highest level of competence.

In a regular business a person of talent is often viewed as a threat by his superiors and is suppressed in a low position for many years, but in the Molecular Business he will be able to advance very quickly. Why will this be good for the Company?

STUDENT: Key positions will always be held by people of talent who will be better able to help the Company.

TEACHER: Even people who have a good rapport with management will have to work many years to reach their highest level, but can you see how in the Molecular Business any person can reach his highest level of competency in a short fraction of the time?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: This also corrects a problem that has been called THE PETER PRINCIPLE which states that in a large company each person raises to his highest level of incompetence. In other words, a person is promoted until he reaches a position he cannot do well then he is promoted no more. Neither is he placed back in a position where he is competent. Instead he is locked into a position where he is incompetent, unhappy, and able to make the working lives of others miserable.

In the Molecular Business this would never happen for when a person reaches a position wherein he does not perform well then it will not be long before he is challenged and replaced. It is obvious that this will be benefit the company, but do you also think it will benefit the individual replaced in the long run to be in a position he can do well rather than one where he can not?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Can you see how the Molecular Business will create a situation here where the individual has more freedom and can express ideas without fear of getting fired?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Can you see how this concept in the Molecular Business will end the division between management and labor and help them come closer to the goal of one heart and one mind?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: The third area that creates division among employees in a regular company is the great differences we find in the pay scale. Those who make a lot of money rarely are seen socially with those who do not. This third cause of division is also eliminated in the Molecular Business. This solution may sound radical at first until the whole picture is presented, but all employees in the Molecular Business receive the same take home wage whether he be president of the company or a new worker on the assembly line. Now we realize that common workers would be easy to hire at any reasonable wage, but I’ll bet you are wondering how we can hire and keep management level employees that could make $100,000 or more with another company than with us. Is that right?

STUDENT: Yes. I am curious about that.

TEACHER: Let us say that the pay scale established by the Molecular Business (and these could vary with different businesses) is $40,000 a year. Very few people who are currently making from $100,000 and up will be attracted to us. But remember this that most of them started at a much lower pay scale. Don’t you think that there is a lot of very talented people out there that would start with us for $40,000 and would stay with us if they saw enough benefits?

STUDENT: Possibly.

TEACHER: They will stay with us because they receive payment with more than money. Remember that we told you that all workers are also owners?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: The employees (more appropriately called co-owners) are paid with stock or ownership in the company in addition to their take home wage. With every paycheck they receive an increasing ownership in the company as well as cash. Now we told you that all receive the same take home wage. Nevertheless, superior performance or responsibility still needs some kind of reward or bonus doesn’t it?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: In other words, people need incentive, don’t they?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: In the Molecular Business incentive is created in two ways. First there will be a high degree of involvement and employee satisfaction. Secondly, instead of using money, stock is used as the physical incentive

As we stated all employees from the greatest to the least receive some payment in stock, but this payment varies according to the importance of the person’s position. The entree level worker, for instance, may receive something like two hundred dollars worth of stock a month whereas higher management or workers with essential skills may receive $5,000 to $10,000. That amount of value ought to give some incentive, shouldn’t it?

STUDENT: One would think so.

TEACHER: This principle creates an extension of the most motivated worker in the world. That is the small business owner. Have you noticed how some business owners will work as many as 14 hours a day sometimes seven days a week just to get his business going?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: In addition to sacrificing family and pleasures the successful small businessperson, when he is starting a company, will pay himself only what he needs to live on and put the rest back in the company. Why is he willing to do this?

STUDENT: So he can have working capital.

TEACHER: He sacrifices now to obtain working capital in the hopes that his business will be successful. And if it is then he can draw out all the money he needs for pleasures later. He will also be financially independent and not have to work so hard. That’s pretty good incentive isn’t it?

STUDENT: It seems to be.

TEACHER: It is an incentive that has been proven to work. Now the Molecular Business will operate on this principle. Visualize all the workers in a large company as one entity that owns a business. The many people cooperating as if they were one take from the company what they need to live on now and receive the rest of their payment in the form of stock so working capital remains available for expansion. If the company is successful the stock will multiply in value and the workers can eventually cash this in and obtain all the pleasures they want in life as well as financial independence. That sounds like a good idea doesn’t it?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: To make this principle work the employees are not actually issued the stock on their payday, but it is credited to them. They can receive the stock and cash it in on three occasions. The first is if they are terminated or quit the company. The second is if they retire. It would make a nice retirement income wouldn’t it?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: The third reason for cashing it in is very interesting. The desire of many enterprising individuals is to be financially independent and have a business of their own. If they wish to create another business that is an extension of the mother Molecular Business then they can cash in their stock, and possibly even get a loan from the company, and create a business of their own. A lot of people would really like to own their own business wouldn’t they?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: On the other hand, workers do not have quit or wait for retirement to receive greater financial benefits. As the company makes greater profits where do you think the extra money will go?

STUDENT: The employees.

TEACHER: That’s right. As profits increase the take home salary of all the workers increase. If the company is successful eventually all the workers will receive a substantial wage. That would create one happy family of employees wouldn’t it?

STUDENT: It surely would.

TEACHER: When the principle of the Molecular Business proves that it can create more success than anything now existing then many other businesses having financial troubles will want to come under the umbrella of the mother company. The beauty of this is that all businesses under the Molecular Principle will not compete, but cooperate with each other because if one benefits they all benefit. The mother company corresponds to the Constitution and the branch companies are liken to the independent states. Can you see that if the Molecular Business really is superior that many other companies will join it?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: And if it does far outperform the orthodox business then it is only a matter of time before all businesses are molecular isn’t it?

STUDENT: I would suppose

TEACHER: That would really change the world for the better wouldn’t it?

STUDENT: It would seem so.

TEACHER: We stated at the beginning that there are three things that keep workers in a state of separateness: income differences, management-labor relations, and the fact that some are owners and others are not. Can you see how the Molecular Business ends these differences?

STUDENT: I believe so.

TEACHER: Can you see how, when these principles are implemented that the people involved in the Molecular Business will really be of one heart and one mind?

STUDENT: Yes.

TEACHER: Is this something you would like to participate in?

STUDENT: I really would.

Easy Access to all the Writings

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here