11/21/99
Sending Goodwill
Speaking of oneness, we will be covering this idea some time in the future in reasonable detail when the time is right.
I appreciate the compliments I have been getting lately and hope I can live up to your high expectations.
The impression most people get when they meet me is that I am pretty much a regular guy and that is fine with me.
Question:
The question to consider is what can a nation and its people do to befriend the people of a potentially dangerous nation such as Russia or China? How can we make friends with the people themselves and eventually generate a feeling among the general populace that war with us should not happen because we are friends?
Is the Internet likely to play an important role? How?
I remember that we received some, but not a lot of response on this.
One huge mistake we have made with unstable nations is that we have given large sums of money to their bureaucracies and much of this went to corrupt politicians and worked its way to the criminal element there. As it is, the common people are not very friendly toward the United States and other nations who have tried to help because they have seen no benefit.
What we have to remember is that the greatest power in any nation is its people. Therefore any aid given to tyrannies or any nation should be directed to the people rather than leaders which may be greedy and corrupt.
What we should have done with aid money to various countries in need is make direct loans to the people. Find enterprising entrepreneurs to submit business plans and make loans to the best of them.
When we just give the money to bureaucrats it is never seen again and does very little good. But when we make loans directly to the people the money is used much more wisely for the good of the country and if only half of them pay the loans back then the foreign aid winds up costing us only half as much for over twice the good with the bonus of creating much greater goodwill among the people.
Another thing the people of the nations can do is to make a point when they travel abroad to go out of their way to be extra friendly and leave the foreign country having made a friend or two. It is true that we tend to get aggravated at leaders of various nations, but the common people who are the tourists may actually create as much or more friction and aggravation.
Concerning my own country (the United States) I realize that many other nations, even our allies, have a bad taste in their mouth from our tourists. Many foreigners think American tourists are loud, demanding and obnoxious. What may seem kind of normal here (and other countries) may not seem so acceptable abroad.
Therefore, when we travel abroad we must pay attention to the temperament of the country and adjust to the best of our ability. If they feel it is rude to not eat their food then eat their food if at all possible.
Even in England, which has the same language as the United States one must be careful. Picking up a baby here and calling him a “cute little bugger” is a sign of affection, but in the UK it is the same as calling him a “cute little bastard.” If the American says “please pass the napkins” in England at the dinner table it is the same there as saying please pass the Kotex (feminine hygiene napkins).
A new way of establishing good relations among the nations has now opened up and this is, of course, the Internet. The problem right now is that common people are censored on the net in totalitarian regimes, but fortunately some are finding avenues of free expression. As their numbers do increase people of goodwill should seek to make individual and collective contact with these people and correct misconceptions and let them know that we the people only have the best wishes at heart for them.
Translation features on the Internet allow us to be as if the world was one language. This can only be a helpful tool for people of goodwill.
A reader asked me to reference my sources so they can be looked up
I do attempt to give credit to Alice A. Bailey and others when I quote their material. A certain amount of overlap will occur from one teacher to the next and it would interrupt the flow of the teachings to reference every statement that has occurred in teachings past.
About 80-90% of what I write is either a new slant in principles and teachings or entirely fresh material that has not been presented before to the best of my knowledge.
There have been numerous instances where my teachings have referenced Alice A. Bailey and others when it seemed appropriate.
Then there are other times that part of a paragraph I present has some material that has been taught in the past but mixed in with original material. When this mixture occurs I find it is sometimes distracting to give a reference.
Alice A. Bailey had the same problem. When she was using an obvious parallel to past writings she gave a reference, but there are many of her writings where she could have given a reference, but did not either because it would have been distracting or because the past teaching was being restated in a new and unique way.
I am most likely to recite a teaching from the past when I am asked a question. The answers to many questions already have been given out there somewhere. When I steer the group back toward the course we are on that is when I will be presenting the highest percentage of new material.
I have been asked a number of times about my sources of material. Some feel that I must be taking it out of some already published book, but I assure you that much of what I have presented and will present is not in any book yet published.
There is one more thing to mention in this line of thought. Sometimes I receive light through the Oneness Principle or other means and then I may be reading the Bible, Bailey or some other inspired writings and I find hints of that teaching is hidden in there.
Take the Molecular Relationship for example. I had not read about such a thing anywhere, but after I received it I found many hints of it in the Bible as well as DK’s writings. These hints have been available for 2000 years as far as the Bible is concerned, but humanity (especially the religions) just never registered them.
A future subject we will be covering will be the Gathering of Lights. This subject is talked about more in the Bible that any other, much more than love and peace, yet none that I know of understand the principle as we will be laying it out. Even though many references have been made in the Bible to the gathering principle it was never clearly explained there or in any metaphysical book I know of. As I said before the people in the days of Columbus knew what earth-circle-ship was but when these items were combined into the idea that the earth was a sphere the thinking of the world was changed forever.
As long as we are talking of references there is one in particular that I must not leave out and that is the Holy Spirit which stimulates the Oneness Principle and brings all knowledge, especially from principles, to the mind of the seeker.
Copyright by J J Dewey
Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating
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