Keys Writings, Part 7

Welcome
Aug 23, 2011

Let me welcome Lori as a new poster. She is not new to the teachings though for she is Duke’s (socioheresy) wife and I have met her several times. They are both very nice people.

Kris points out that that the posts here seem to lean to the right and wants to know if there is room for a liberal.

My answer is, yes, of course. In my first couple years of teaching on the Keys I pretty much stuck to metaphysics and members did not know what my political views were. I would guess at that time that the majority of the members were liberal. Eventually we did discuss politics and it turned out the majority posting anything political seemed to have more conservative views. At present we have a mixture of many political views here, but the most popular is probably libertarian.

When discussing pure metaphysical truth it doesn’t matter much what your political views are. People from all belief systems are looking for higher truth and answers to their many questions, There are not many places where the right and left can merge in a group and calmly talk politics together without insulting each other. We try and do that here.

The strongest arguments in political discussions though have come between me and several here that are not liberal by any means, but in many ways close to my libertarian thinking.

If a liberal here sees an error in thinking or disagrees with something said he or she is surely free to speak up. All we ask is that members stay on the plane of the mind as much as possible.

To insure that things stay fairly civil we do have moderation here. When a person joins he is automatically placed on moderation until we see he is a responsible poster. Then if a member gets out of control or quits and rejoins, he may be placed on moderation again.

You should have been here in the last days of the unmoderated group. The conflict really got to a point of tension and we had to make a change and overall moderation has helped, for the main thing it does is keep the troublemakers away. When they realize they can’t insult people they move on.

Anyway, I hope you feel welcome here.

Dream Book
Aug 23, 2011

I don’t think I ever told the group why I chose red as the dominate color for my books. I first started playing with writing around the age of 16 and I gave a couple things to a good friend to read. Then one day he comes to my place all excited and told me he had a dream about me that seemed very real and significant. He said that in the dream I had written a book that became a blockbuster seller and everyone was talking about it.

I asked him if he saw the title or what it was about.

He said he couldn’t recall the title but did remember it had a bright red cover.

I don’t know if there is anything to his dream but have used the idea of a red cover and plan to keep red prominent in future books.

Re: Book Cover2
Aug 24, 2011

Not only do most of the Keys members like your cover, but so does my wife so that just about seals it up.

JJ

Re: Book Cover2
Aug 24, 2011

Steve writes: Concerning your friend’s dream about a red book of yours becoming a bestseller, perhaps The Immortal is the one but has yet to make its mark. You can’t get much ‘redder’ than that.

Maybe the foundations are still being laid behind the scenes (spiritually speaking). There is something very special about that book.

JJ Yes, I still think that The Immortal could become a best seller if it got the right publicity. That could still be the book in my friend’s dream.

Molecular Art
Aug 24, 2011

Good to hear from you again Viggi.

This must be the artwork you created:

http://www.synthesisnet.com/Art/Triads.jpg

I had forgotten that it was you that designed it.

Mental Plane
Aug 25, 2011

Speaking of Ann Coulter and the mental plane – here is a great example of her intelligent writing on Darwinism. http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?id=45747

While checking out this subject I discovered the best article yet on intelligent design. It is lengthy but worth the time to read it. http://spectator.org/archives/2005/08/05/the-little-engine-that-couldun/

It starts out stating:

“IMAGINE A NANOTECHNOLOGY MACHINE far beyond the state of the art: a microminiaturized rotary motor and propeller system that drives a tiny vessel through liquid. The engine and drive mechanism are composed of 40 parts, including a rotor, stator, driveshaft, bushings, universal joint, and flexible propeller. The engine is powered by a flow of ions, can rotate at up to 100,000 rpm (ten times faster than a NASCAR racing engine), and can reverse direction in a quarter of a rotation. The system comes with an automatic feedback control mechanism. The engine itself is about 1/100,000th of an inch wide — far smaller than can be seen by the human eye.

“Most of us would be pleasantly surprised to learn that some genius had designed such an engineering triumph. What might come as a greater surprise is that there is a dominant faction in the scientific community that is prepared to defend, at all costs, the assertion that this marvelous device could not possibly have been designed, must have been produced blindly by unintelligent material forces, and only gives the appearance — we said appearance! — of being designed.”

Then I had to laugh at the author’s description of non believers stereotype of believers in intelligent design:

“Among certain sectors of the media, for example, it’s an article of faith that those who believe in God, or advocate principles supporting that belief, are just a mob of Bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, Scripture-spouting, hellfire and brimstone-preaching, rightwing, gun-toting, bigoted, homophobic, moralistic, paternalistic, polyester-wearing, mascara-smeared, false-eyelashed, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart shopping, big hair, big gut, fat butt, holy-rolling, snake-handling, Limbaugh-listening, Bambi-shooting, trailer-park-dwelling, uneducated, ignorant, backwater, hayseed, hick, inbred, pinhead rubes — mostly from the South, or places no better than the South — who voted for Bush.”

That sentence is a masterpiece in description.

Re: Sharón prophecies from 26 June 2011
Aug 25, 2011

Ruth writes: JJ I have not read anywhere in your teachings about this point about Judas that Sharón mentioned:

“Northern India will produce proof that Judas Iscariot did not betray Jesus but a guy with a similar name… Authorities attempted to change the story by rewriting that one of Jesus’ own disciples betrayed him in an attempt to discredit Christ. The new books will expose their illusion.”

Any clarification on that?

Judas was like the one chosen to betray Jesus, from my understanding.

JJ Variations on the idea that the disciple Judas did not betray Christ has been around since the days of early Christianity.

I believe the betrayal as portrayed in the gospels is fairly accurate. This is also supported in the Gospel of the Nazirenes, believed to be the earliest gospel, and the Aquarian Gospel.

I am not infallible so there is nothing wrong with members having another opinion.

Re: Mental Plane
Aug 25, 2011

JJ posted: Among certain sectors of the media, for example, it’s an article of faith that those who believe in God, or advocate principles supporting that belief, are just a mob of Bible-thumping, knuckle-dragging, Scripture-spouting, hellfire and brimstone-preaching, rightwing, gun-toting, bigoted, homophobic, moralistic, paternalistic, polyester-wearing, mascara-smeared, false-eyelashed, SUV-driving, Wal-Mart shopping, big hair, big gut, fat butt, holy-rolling, snake-handling, Limbaugh-listening, Bambi-shooting, trailer-park-dwelling, uneducated, ignorant, backwater, hayseed, hick, inbred, pinhead rubes — mostly from the South, or places no better than the South — who voted for Bush.”

That sentence is a masterpiece in description.

The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

Larry Woods passed through Boise a couple weeks ago and he, Lorraine and I had breakfast together. He was excited about starting a chapter of The Majority Speaks in his area and he asked me what project we should pick to push. He was thinking of something like, “No taxes on the internet.”

We didn’t have much time and I wasn’t able to give him a complete answer so I thought I would add a few details here.

The first problem Larry or others have to deal with is that I have not yet started the central organization here in Boise. I plan on doing this after the book is published and not before. I’ll have a lot more clout with influencing people when I can present myself as the author of a unique political book.

When I begin the organization the first goal will not be to implement one of the 95 points, but to gather and organize groups in order to garner sufficient power to create change. If we only have a handful of members and attempt to change national policy and attitudes then we are doomed to failure.

The first step is to gather enough laborers so we have a chance to become a center of influence.

Now, if Larry or someone else wants to get started early I would suggest that he seek to gather people around him that are interested in some of the 95 theses or points I made as well as participating in a more direct democracy. He could organize this like a study class and invite in guest political speakers. There are many in the political arena who like to speak and many looking for interesting speakers.

Larry reminded me of my teaching that we need to concentrate on one thing at a time rather than scattering our energies and wanted me to name one of the 95 points in which to begin.

I don’t plan on pushing any one of the 95 points at the beginning (except to group members) but will concentrate on teaching the groups the basic idea that people can create change and have a strong influence on how our politicians vote.

As the group grows we will use our influence to encourage members to create activists groups centered around the 95 points. Ideally a group created around this idea would pick only one of the points so their energy can be concentrated. I see the main purpose of the initiating group would be to promote direct democracy and encourage the adaptation of the 95 points.

If this project becomes successful it is bound to draw attention to my other writings. This is likely to lead to some controversy, which may turn out to be a good thing.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

I haven’t changed my mind on the one thing at a time approach but to influence an issue takes a lot of money and manpower. Since we will not have that on start-up the one thing we will be teaching group members is about their own power and motivating them to use it. Group members may go several different directions with their own “one thing” which we will support if it makes sense.

Once we have the manpower to influence legislation then we’ll examine the field to see what the next best one thing will be – probably implementing Molecular Politics.

JJ

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

Blayne: Sorry I couldn’t help but chuckle at the irony of a central organization promoting direct democracy 😉

JJ I don’t see the irony. There are central organizations in any endeavor. Not much can happen without them.

Blayne It sort of speaks to where we are as a people. I see the free market as the ultimate direct democracy

JJ I am a big promoter of the free market but don’t see it as having much to do with democracy, but a result of democracy. The free market does not elect a President or Congress, but a democracy can.

Blayne: if you will but the majority of people still need some central authority and refuse to claim their full rights to individual self determination and self government as long as they are harming no one.

JJ It sounds like you want to throw out the Constitution and have no president or Congress, or even state legislators. Perhaps you could clarify as I have a hard time thinking you believe this.

Even in an entirely free market you have strong central authorities created. If you start a business and hire twelve people you are then their central authority and have life and death power over their jobs, which can put the fear of God in them.

Blayne One of the main problems is the majority of people accept the idea the government or central authority has a right to intervene in almost every aspect of the individuals or groups lives. I doubt direct democracy will cure this wrong belief.

JJ It wouldn’t cure the problem, but the majority believe the government is too intrusive and that is a starting point.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 26, 2011

The issues I see us dealing with are those that naturally evolve which is normally one main issue at a time. The last main issue was raising the debt ceiling. The one before that was the Health Care Bill. As these issues come to the forefront we can take majority opinion beliefs that make sense and offer solutions.

To take an issue and force it on the public consciousness as happened with the Health Care bill would cost billions of dollars. By taking something already in the public’s concern we save a giant costly step.

When the organization becomes large and powerful it can then introduce ideas for change that are not already in the front pages.

One thing that is coming before the public more is the changing of the Constitution by either adding amendments or a Constitutional Convention. We’ll have to watch this and see where it goes. JJ

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

Blayne The free market is the purist form of democracy WITH NO CENTRAL AUTHORITY! Just people voting with their feet or wallets deciding market trends demand etc. period.

JJ I’ve never heard the free market where people vote with their feet called a democracy before. Everyone I have ever seen write about it just calls it a free market or capitalism for there are no ballots and you elect no people to represent you. It appears you have an unusual personal definition of democracy.

The terms, democracy, republic, monarchy etc usually have to do with government rather than business.

Quoting JJ I don’t see the irony. There are central organizations in any endeavor. Not much can happen without them.

Blayne Really? Seriously? Read my explanation to Dan above…

JJ I still don’t get it.

Blayne Wow… So you don’t see people VOTING with their feet and wallets in a free market as having anything to do with democracy?

JJ People are voting with their feet in China as far as business goes but they do not have a democracy or close to it. Business is business and politics is politics – two different animals.

Blayne: The free market does not need to elect a congress it allows people to decide for themselves.

JJ No one said they needed to elect a Congress.

Quoting JJ Even in an entirely free market you have strong central authorities created. If you start a business and hire twelve people you are then their central authority and have life and death power over their jobs, which can put the fear of God in them.

Blayne You certainly have a strange view of a free market. There are no central authorities in an entirely free market.

JJ So are you saying that your version of the free market will have no bosses or owners who are the central authorities in their business??? It sounds like you think a free market will not create any business larger than one person.

As long as you allow the freedom for people to own their business and hire people you will have central authorities created. The central authority is called the “boss” or maybe just “the owner,” or “president.”

I am really curious about clarification here as I cannot imagine the existence of any substantial business without a central authority whether in or out of a free society.

The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

The problem that the debate has evolved into (as it often does) is that we have veered away from the original argument and Blayne and Larry are arguing against something I never said – something with which I agree.

Yes a free market where people vote with their feet loosely uses the democratic principle. That is not part of any argument. On this we agree.

However in order to communicate it is good to use words as they are currently defined and rarely would anyone call Walmart a democracy. They call it a business. Yes, people do make it successful by voting with their feet.

Here are three popular definitions of the word Democracy and a business doesn’t fit any of them:

▸ noun: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives ▸ noun: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them ▸ noun: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

That said let us get back to the real disagreement rather than arguing that with which we agree.

The problem started with Blayne quoting me as follows:

“The first problem Larry or others have to deal with is that I have not yet started the central organization here in Boise… I see the main purpose of the initiating group would be to promote direct democracy…”

It appeared to me that Blayne thought that any central organization or central authority was completely unnecessary for he responded:

“I see the free market as the ultimate direct democracy if you will but the majority of people still need some central authority and refuse to claim their full rights to individual self determination and self government as long as they are harming no one. Many people see this as chaos however it really does not preclude group work it just makes it all voluntary instead of coerced and forced by government or central authority.”

JJ This sounded like you disagreed with my plan to create a central authority in the planned political organization and I responded as follows:

“Even in an entirely free market you have strong central authorities created. If you start a business and hire twelve people you are then their central authority and have life and death power over their jobs, which can put the fear of God in them.”

Then in your responses following you seemed to disagree with this, bringing in the idea of businesses voting with their feet which had nothing to do with the disagreement.

So, here seems to be the point of disagreement.

I believe that it is unavoidable to have a central authority in almost any successful enterprise.

If you have a successful business with 30 employees that is participating in the free market then that business will have an owner/president that will be a central authority. If you have a crew of twelve then a manager will be a central authority to the twelve.

If you have a Masonic lodge, a church, a charity or anything organized you will have some presiding central authority giving it structure and purpose. It is as DK says – “All is hierarchy.”

You seem to disagree with me on this and think that if we just have a free-for-all then churches will not need pastors, business will not need managers or owners, lodges will not need presidents but everything will just move ahead with no organization necessary or central authorities at all.

I think the Second Key of Judgment is the key to understanding here. Strong central government governmental authority that strictly governs lives and does now allow any freedom to make decisions on levels below it are indeed terrible and tyrannical. This is one extreme. But the other extreme is also destructive where no central authority would exist in the various organizations.

Central authorities in organizations that people are free to reject by leaving or voting the guy out are essential and no civilization in the history of earth has been without them.

I am amazed that my stand on this obvious point has caused such disagreement.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011
I made a typo or two that needed correction. Disregard my previous post and read this.

The problem that the debate has evolved into (as it often does) is that we have veered away from the original argument and Blayne and Larry are arguing against something I never said – something with which I agree.

Yes a free market where people vote with their feet loosely uses the democratic principle. That is not part of any argument. On this we agree.

However in order to communicate it is good to use words as they are currently defined and rarely would anyone call Walmart a democracy. They call it a business. Yes, people do make it successful by voting with their feet.

Here are three popular definitions of the word Democracy and a business doesn’t fit any of them:

▸ noun: the political orientation of those who favor government by the people or by their elected representatives ▸ noun: a political system in which the supreme power lies in a body of citizens who can elect people to represent them ▸ noun: the doctrine that the numerical majority of an organized group can make decisions binding on the whole group

That said let us get back to the real disagreement rather than arguing that with which we agree.

The problem started with Blayne quoting me as follows:

“The first problem Larry or others have to deal with is that I have not yet started the central organization here in Boise… I see the main purpose of the initiating group would be to promote direct democracy…”

It appeared to me that Blayne thought that any central organization or central authority was completely unnecessary for he responded:

“I see the free market as the ultimate direct democracy if you will but the majority of people still need some central authority and refuse to claim their full rights to individual self determination and self government as long as they are harming no one. Many people see this as chaos however it really does not preclude group work it just makes it all voluntary instead of coerced and forced by government or central authority.”

JJ This sounded like you disagreed with my plan to create a central authority in the planned political organization and I responded as follows:

“Even in an entirely free market you have strong central authorities created. If you start a business and hire twelve people you are then their central authority and have life and death power over their jobs, which can put the fear of God in them.”

Then in your responses following you seemed to disagree with this, bringing in the idea of businesses voting with their feet which had nothing to do with the disagreement.

So, here seems to be the point of disagreement.

I believe that it is unavoidable to not have a central authority in almost any successful enterprise.

If you have a successful business with 30 employees that is participating in the free market then that business will have an owner/president that will be a central authority. If you have a crew of twelve then a manager will be a central authority to the twelve.

If you have a Masonic lodge, a church, a charity or anything organized you will have some presiding central authority giving it structure and purpose. It is as DK says – “All is hierarchy.”

You seem to disagree with me on this and think that if we just have a free-for-all then churches will not need pastors, business will not need managers or owners, lodges will not need presidents but everything will just move ahead with no organization necessary or central authorities at all.

I think the Second Key of Judgment is the key to understanding here. Strong central government governmental authority that strictly governs lives from which there is no escape and does now allow any freedom to make decisions on levels below it are indeed terrible and tyrannical. This is one extreme. But the other extreme is also destructive where no central authority would exist in the various organizations and you have a free-for-all instead.

Central authorities in organizations that people are free to reject by leaving that organization or voting the guy out are essential and no civilization in the history of earth has been without them.

I am amazed that my stand on this obvious point has caused such disagreement.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

Wow, Blayne, you have my head spinning. At first I thought you disagreed with me that a central authority was necessary for groups and organizations – now I am not sure so I do not know where to approach or clarify.

If you can point to any disagreement so I can understand then I will seek to clarify my position. If we agree then we can move on.

There is one specific thing you said to which I take issue. You say: “The definition of central authority is the anti-thesis to direct democracy.”

Now in a democracy as defined by the dictionary (not speaking of a loosely used principle) a leader is elected and then that leader becomes a central authority to the group. I see no irony here.

Even in a business where people vote with their feet a central authority exists within that business. This is something that just always happens so I do not see the irony if you’re thinking irony-odd. If you’re thinking irony because two opposites are involved in creation then I can see your point, but then a marriage would also be ironic.

Re: The Majority Speaks
Aug 27, 2011

I don’t personally see the irony between democracy of any kind and central authority that develops in organizations that spring up in a free society because it makes sense to me but I see where you are coming from.

The irony thing alone would not have been enough to make me respond to your post. The reason I responded is because you said, “The definition of central authority is the anti-thesis to direct democracy.

My point was no matter whether you have a direct democracy, a representative democracy or any other type of government you will have various central authorities spring up. They will be created in business, groups, clubs churches – anything with an organization.

Even in the direct democracy I advocate there will be various central authorities spring up – “ironically” as you say, even in the group promoting such an endeavor. A Senator or Representative, even though he shares the vote, will be somewhat of a central authority as the manager to his co-legislators. He decides how to handle the committees he is in, what legislation he wants to introduce, what materials and information to make available and doesn’t have to take counsel as to how to do his job in mixing with the senate – except when it comes to voting on essential issues. He’s the central figure co-legislators look to for assistance and direction and has powers given to him by his office that voters do not have.

Blayne: Their (businesses) central authority is limited to their business and has nothing to do with the democracy of the free market.

JJ But these central authorities in business will spring from a free market and be stronger than in a dictatorship. In a dictatorship the power of the business owner is diminished or even shared by the state. In a free market the business has one strong central authority – the owner/president etc.

I don’t see how we can possibly disagree on something so basic. I think when I say “central, authority” you must visualize an omnipotent Big Brother controlling all things in the country and that was far from my mind.

I agree with what you said about business being little dictatorships and pointed that out in my treatise on the Molecular Business, which seeks to incorporate more democratic principles into business giving the employees more participation and to diminish the dictatorial powers of the bosses.

 

Copyright 2011 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here