Finding the Blur

Finding the Blur

Reader Comment: I have been thinking about seniors and their subsidized drug plan. Is this really an example of the Blur Principle?

Now, many governments in the West make these seniors drug plans apart of their platforms before being elected. One could argue that they have a mandate to carry out these subsidized plans because the electorate have given their approval at the ballot box. One could argue that all government programs mentioned in platforms beforehand have been approved by the will of the people. Only those programs initiated without a clear mandate (or prior approval of the people via the ballot box) can be defined as the Blur Principle.

Question? Do we define the Blur Principle as being the permission of each individual in society or the entire body politic?

JJ: Just because our representatives vote on a matter does not mean that the will of the people is represented. If you read my treatise on Molecular Politics you will see that the main point there is that the true will of the people is rarely carried out under the current system because of various external influences.

If the prescription drug program here in the United States were presented for a popular vote I do not think it would have passed. I am not sure about Canada, however.

Beyond this an important point is that the majority rarely see through all the illusions involved. For instance, a recent poll tells us that 61% of the American people believe that the earth was created in just seven days. It is indeed amazing that the majority can be so far removed from reality in view of all the scientific evidence, but in this case they are definitely victims of the blur principle. (Note: by 2020 that figure was down to 40%)

In the past I have taught that the path of safety in government is to work with the will of the majority. Some thought that I was saying that the majority always follows the most correct path, but those who believe such totally misinterpreted what I was saying. The majority are often deceived in some way and the blur principle always works on them to some degree.

For instance, the majority in the Old South accepted slavery as well as the majority living in the Roman Empire. This did not mean the majority was right, but the majority do have an elementary common sense that usually is superior to those in government and must be worked with to create real change.

Even so, you do state a true principle. If the majority of a group do give their voice then the body does have the right to proceed in the direction of that voice, even if that direction is in error.

As I said about this prescription drug thing, the true voice of the people has not been heard. Most polls in the U.S. showed the majority were against it. Unfortunately, as time passes, the majority begin to partake of the free gifts and want them to continue even if done so on borrowed money.

The fact then that the majority support a thing is not a sign that the blur principle has been transcended. Instead, the majority evolve through teachers who see where the blur is and reveal the truth with clarity to the masses. The virtue of the majority is that when they see the truth they will eventually support it in most cases.

All civilization has a major problem facing them which is a new kind of slavery. Those who receive benefits from the governments and give little or nothing back are able to vote and tell those who are paying the bill (the new slaves) how much they have to pay and how the money is to be spent.

Federal taxes emerged in this country in 1913. Before that (excepting a couple national emergencies) we prospered as never before with no income tax. The imposed income tax seemed really harmless for it was sold as a tax only on the wealthy. Only the top 1% of the people paid a small 1% average tax. 99% paid nothing. Even the rich did not complain much for 1% seemed like a harmless amount and the 99% were happy to spend that 1% confiscated from the wealthy.

As time progressed it seemed very harmless to add an additional 1% tax here and 1% there. After all, there were more than enough good causes to go around. They also added additional taxpayers here and there and this done incrementally seemed harmless because the tax burden seemed fair.

The problem is that the tax system is like a cancer which, if allowed to grow without restriction, it will eventually consume and destroy the body.

Now, if we add state, sales, federal, social security taxes, tariffs, media, production, licenses etc. all pay more than was dreamed of 100 years ago, the average pay over 50% of their income.

As far as federal taxes go we are indeed in a precarious situation for the lower earning half pay less than 4% of the taxes, even with Bush’s tax cut for the so-called rich. If we cut the federal burden for the lower 50% then they will be paying nothing at all and could care less about the government raising taxes on the middleclass slaves while the super rich find ways to avoid their share.

Where will it end?

There is no end to good causes. I could think of dozens within minutes that would sound like a good reason to raise taxes even more. Let’s give a couple more billion to cancer and AIDS research. It just requires the rich to pay a few more taxes and anyone that fights this idea is small minded indeed.

The trouble is that there is no end to benevolent projects that will eventually destroy us financially if common sense is not applied.

An example of the problem is the controversy over the school lunch problem a few years ago. The Republicans wanted to raise the school lunch budget by 4.5% according to their figures and 2.5% according to the Democrat’s math. The Democrats wanted to raise it more than the Republicans so they accused the Republicans of wanting to “cut” school lunches and “starve” the children. The truth was that the budget was going to be increased no matter which party prevailed and all children were going to be provided for as well as ever even taking into consideration that there was a 2.9% rate of inflation in that year.

The blur principle went to work in the press and the general public became so alarmed and polarized that Newt Gingrich lost his job as speaker largely over this issue. If the general public were correctly informed that the school lunch program was not going to be cut the whole thing would have been a non issue.

The school lunch program is just another example of the blur principle at work. Who in his right mind wants to be accused of wanting to starve children. Hell, yes, let’s tax the rich and feed those poor children.

But let us look back to when I was a kid and we had no school lunch program at all. If the kid did not buy lunch or bring one from home he starved right?

Wrong. For a number of years I was the poorest kid in my school. We lived in a one room shack that was about ready to fall apart and my Dad left us to mine for gold in Central America and never saw or heard of him again for years leaving us to make money by picking fruit and working in the nearby orchards. Even in this situation I never saw myself as poor and never did without. I always had a lunch to eat in school and so did every other kid. The thought that we needed someone to pay for our lunches would have made us laugh.

My mom got a seasonal job at minimum wage and bought a house. Just as we were getting on our feet I created a set back for us. At age 13 I was making rockets and had one blow up in my left hand. I had an 8 hour surgery requiring 120 stitches and was in the hospital for a month followed up by five more surgeries and two more months in the hospital. The cost of my room there was a whopping $8.00 a day.

Consider this. My mom with making minimum wage in a potato factory and paid off the entire doctor and hospital bill with no help from insurance.

Can you imagine a single mother with no welfare and a minimum wage job doing that today???

Which system would you rather live in? One where the poorest of people can pay off expensive surgery and a month’s stay in a hospital or one where we are taxed to death for hospital benefits and we are still soaked for medical bills?

The illusion we have before us is created because the current situation was created through many small seemingly harmless increments in encroachment on personal financial freedom.

Many complain about big oil but consider this. In 1958, when I had my accident, the cost of my hospital room was $8.00 a day and the cost of a gallon of gas was 40 cents. Today the cost of a hospital room is over $1000 a day (over $3000 in 2021) . If the cost of gas had increased at the same rate as a hospital room what then would we be paying at the pump?

Answer: About $50 a gallon.

Question: Who should we really be grumbling at? Big oil or big hospital?

The answer is neither. It’s the government’s meddling in our medical affairs that has caused the majority of the problem.

Witness the blur principle at work again.

Who is grumbling at the real cause of our problem? Me and about a half dozen others.

There is a lot of blur going on here that is obfuscating the real truth behind the problems of the day and I will be write a book presenting some major solutions on the matter before we reach the point of self destruction.

Questions from reader: I have a few questions, if anyone can assist in answering them for me. You quoted this scripture:

“Let this mind be in you, which was in Christ Jesus: who being in the form of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.” Phil 2:5-6

Shouldn’t that read ……..who being the THOUGHTform of God, thought it not robbery to be equal with God.

One in *thought* with God seems to equal being one with God and on equal par to God.

JJ: The scriptures say what they say. Right or wrong Paul used the Greek word MORPHE here. (Guess what English word comes from this?) In the Greek it literally means “form” or “appearance.”

When the scripture tells us that man was made in the “image” of God (literally “the Gods”) it again has several levels of interpretation. The common metaphysical interpretation is that we have within us the reflection of all the qualities, powers and attributes of the Big Guy. But those who were students of the Old Testament also had an interpretation that dealt with the form. That is Adam’s physical form was also in the image of God who was also seen as being in the form of man.

For instance, in the creation story we are told that God was “walking in the garden in the cool of the day.” Gen 3:8

Later God appeared to Abraham and ate dinner with him. After this God appeared to Jacob and wrestled with him. Then we have the description of God from Moses on the mount who saw his human form except for his face.

The human form is the most perfect of all the physical creations of God and is the form used by the gods themselves when appearing in the lower worlds.

Paul was thus stating the belief that Jesus found himself in human form, but since he was also in the same form the Gods (or Elohiym) use then he thought it not robbery to be equal with God in the other attributes that transcend form.

Comment: You say, “A thought originates from the eternal world of principles, which has no beginning and no end”

Why does a principle have no beginning and no end? Isn’t a principle something that was created in the first place by God or something above Him for us? If we exist as BE CAUSE, then when did the Principles appear? Before or after BE CAUSE? (Did that make sense to anyone? Its hard for me to put this question into coherent words.)

JJ: A principle is not created. A principle is always present and always works without beginning or end.

Take the principle of cause and effect. Was there ever a time that it did not work? Cause and effect has always been here and always will.

Take another principle:

“If there is no beginning there will be no end.”

No one created this, it just exists past present and future.

Take a look at any true principle and you will see it had no creation, but just always is and always works and cannot be destroyed.

Comment: Then you say, “…God will rest and prepare to create again. Then it will again go through cycles of imperfect creation until the final perfection is achieved”

If the final perfection is achieved, then how can that perfection still be eternal? If the eternal quest is for perfection, then when perfection is reached then its the end, but perfection shouldn’t have an end, except that which surpasses perfection? So are you saying that when the final perfection has been achieved, then its time to rest, and start all over again on some other imperfect thoughtform, and change that into another perfected form?

JJ: By final perfection it is meant the final perfection of a round of creation. This is like saying the final destination of my trip is Las Vegas. This does not mean he will not have another destination after the trip is over.

In each round of creation a final relative perfection is achieved. This means that intelligent application to the form can make no further improvement. The atomic world has achieved this. The proton cannot be improved and its evolution has received what we call “relative perfection.”

Feb 29, 2004

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Original Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

 

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.