Series: 2010

Money Masters

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 21 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 7-9, 2010

Blayne:
The links I posted on mining in my last post before this one show otherwise However lets look at the idea this conveys.

JJ
The link mention adds about 2 billion dollars worth of gold. $2 billion is peanuts in today’s economy.

Blayne
When it is said “$300 worth of gold” I am assuming you mean at the current exchange rate to FRN’s? If so then at around $1200 an ounce your looking at about a quarter ounce of gold. Little bit more then a grain of sand.

JJ
If the whole world went on the gold standard the price would skyrocket and a piece of gold about the size of a grain of sand would be worth about $20 making it impractical as exchange without some type of fiat or fractional money.

Blayne
Second this evokes the idea that everyone would be poor.

JJ
I didn’t say anything to indicate that.

Blayne
Again based on the myth of credit expansion being necessary for a healthy economy. This is based on the current Keynesian model which is failing miserably.

JJ
I didn’t say anything about this, but expansion of production as well as the money supply is essential for a growing economy.

Blayne:
It also does not take into account silver and other monetary metals that could
and would be used and appears to be coming from a strict gold standard
standpoint of government fixing the amount. . When you say not very practical
certainly not in an “inflated” economy such as ours where $300 is a pittance in
terms of purchasing power and trade where all prices are based on this massive
inflation.

JJ
If gold is practical then whether it works should not depend on whether the economy is inflated or not.

Blayne
If we look at it from a different angle where gold is currently at about $1200
on ounce then 300 ounces of gold or 15 $20 gold pieces (what fiat money tries to
mimic) would be equal to $3,600,000 current FRN’s.

JJ
No argument there, but I don’t see this fact making a case for the gold standard.

Blayne
Indeed economy expansion would be much slower but would be stable and there
would be less poor as people would be more likely to have sufficient for their. needs. More on this later.

JJ
Yes, it would be slower, but a stifling of the economy and production is not a necessary thing.

It doesn’t matter what standard we use for corrupt people will try to take advantage of it of it. The gold standard was abused just as the fiat one is. The new financial system needs to be transparent as well as understood by the people for it to operate successfully.

Did you check out that video series that Susan posted? Did you find anything you disagreed with?

***

Blayne:
The links I posted on mining in my last post before this one show otherwise However lets look at the idea this conveys.

JJ
The link mention adds about 2 billion dollars worth of gold. $2 billion is peanuts in today’s economy.

Blayne
When it is said “$300 worth of gold” I am assuming you mean at the current exchange rate to FRN’s? If so then at around $1200 an ounce your looking at about a quarter ounce of gold. Little bit more then a grain of sand.

JJ
If the whole world went on the gold standard the price would skyrocket and a piece of gold about the size of a grain of sand would be worth about $20 making it impractical as exchange without some type of fiat or fractional money.

Blayne
Second this evokes the idea that everyone would be poor.

JJ
I didn’t say anything to indicate that.

Blayne
Again based on the myth of credit expansion being necessary for a healthy economy. This is based on the current Keynesian model which is failing miserably.

JJ
I didn’t say anything about this, but expansion of production as well as the money supply is essential for a growing economy.

Blayne:
It also does not take into account silver and other monetary metals that could
and would be used and appears to be coming from a strict gold standard
standpoint of government fixing the amount. . When you say not very practical
certainly not in an “inflated” economy such as ours where $300 is a pittance in
terms of purchasing power and trade where all prices are based on this massive
inflation.

JJ
If gold is practical then whether it works should not depend on whether the economy is inflated or not.

Blayne
If we look at it from a different angle where gold is currently at about $1200
on ounce then 300 ounces of gold or 15 $20 gold pieces (what fiat money tries to
mimic) would be equal to $3,600,000 current FRN’s.

JJ
No argument there, but I don’t see this fact making a case for the gold standard.

Blayne
Indeed economy expansion would be much slower but would be stable and there
would be less poor as people would be more likely to have sufficient for their. needs. More on this later.

JJ
Yes, it would be slower, but a stifling of the economy and production is not a necessary thing.

It doesn’t matter what standard we use for corrupt people will try to take advantage of it of it. The gold standard was abused just as the fiat one is. The new financial system needs to be transparent as well as understood by the people for it to operate successfully.

Did you check out that video series that Susan posted? Did you find anything you disagreed with?Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Good comments on money from both sides. There is a lot I could say on the subject, but we tackled this once before through general posting and nothing got resolved. What i’ve decided to do is to write a treatise on the subject giving a step by step approach to substantiate my views. I may make this a section in my book since it is an important subject.

I figure that those who provide criticism can only help to make the final treatise more sound.

***
Larry W writes:
I questioned whether JJ actually did use the spiritual connection he claims. But, again, as I got into it the gravity of
that program it confirmed JJ’s process validity and probably confirms his spiritual Internet access.

JJ
Thanks for your faith in my Larry but I want to make it clear that no one should have faith in my writings because they see me as having a connection beyond that which they have themselves. The most I expect is to be respected as an earned authority. This means that if they disagree they will look twice at my reasoning and ask themselves if they missed something – that perhaps i knew what I was talking about. If, after doing this the person cannot accept what i say then they can either reject it or put it on the shelf. It matters not to me.
***

Larry Woods says, Blayne, let me spell it out very simple. The total amount of monetary gold today in the whole world is about 3.4 trillion dollars worth in today’s inflated dollars. Compared to annual world economy of about 60 trillion dollars (inflated exaclty the same) there is NO POSSIBLE WAY 3.4T can directly cover 60T. That is 17 to 1 even if China had not already horded 80% of the world’s monetary gold supply. GET REAL!

Blayne Why would it have to cover 60 trillion? This has been explained several times. Perhaps you can explain why it must cover the inflationary bubble of credit in light of the fact and fundamental law of economics that prices are relative to the amount of currency in circulation regardless of production? Prices would simply adjust to the amount of currency in circulation.

JJ
You’re overlooking something important here that is not even disputed by the Austrian school as far as I know.

We have 3.4 trillion dollars worth of gold. This value is by the standard of dollars as they exist today. In other words, all the gold available can buy 3.4 trillion dollars worth of real estate, oil or whatever.

On the other hand, the amount of money in dollars can buy $60 trillion worth of assets.

If we went on the pure gold standard tomorrow then the people would only have the purchasing power of 3.4 trillion or about 6% of what we have today. This means that if you are making $40,000 a year now in purchasing power that you would only be making $2400 if we suddenly switched to a pure gold standard. Just imagine if the average person had to live on $2400 a year in purchasing power. Not too desirable.

Then if China corned the market on gold, things could be even worse than this.

Let me add one more thing. For there to be a adjustment in prices that you mention then the whole world would have to go on the gold standard. If just the United States did then there would be little adjustment except to lower purchasing power.

If a true adjustment was made then the price of gold would be so high that a $20 gold piece might be as small as a grain of sand like I said.

If we somehow decreed that a $20 gold piece would be equal to one ounce of gold then in the adjusted world you could buy a car for $20. How would you go about buying an ice cream cone in such a system?
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Democracy

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 22 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 8, 2010

Larry W:
Also, many of your quotes are wrong. JJ will be correcting you on
this, I’ve seen him do it before.

JJ
Looks like you’re a prophet. Here goes.

Blayne:
Might want to review what the founders had to say about democracy. there is a reason why it is not mentioned in the constitution. The founders deplored it.

JJ
Not so fast. First let us look at your quotes from Thomas Jefferson

First quote: “A democracy is nothing more than mob rule, where 51% of the people may take away the rights of the other 49%.”

JJ
This is a fabricated quote, evidently made up by someone who didn’t like what Jefferson really had to say about Democracy.

Check this out:
Click Here

Let us look at your second Jefferson quote:
“The democracy will cease to exist when you take away from those who are willing to work and give to those who would not.”

Again this is a fabricated quote.
Click Here

It seems to be a true statement though that says nothing negative about democracy itself.

Here are a few of many examples of what Jefferson really thought about democracy.

“The fundamental principle of [a common government of associated States] is that the will of the majority is to prevail.” Thomas
Jefferson to William Eustis, 1809.

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

“Where the law of the majority ceases to be acknowledged, there government ends; the law of the strongest takes its place, and life and property are his who can take them.” Thomas Jefferson to Annapolis Citizens, 1809.

“[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law.” Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa., 1808.

“Absolute acquiescence in the decision of the majority, the vital principle of republics, from which is no appeal but to force, the vital principle and immediate parent of despotism, ” Thomas
Jefferson: 1st Inaugural, 1801.

There are more in my book The Lost Key of the Buddha

Now let us look at the rest of the quotes.
Benjamin Franklin: When the people find that they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.

JJ
This is also most probably a false quote and the closest thing to it was originated by Alexander Fraser Tytler, a contemporary with Franklin. No one seems to find this quote being attributed to Franklin before 1988
More information here

That said, let us see if this applies to democracy in our age. It doesn’t, but it does apply to our Republic for this is happening in the here and now before our eyes. We have a small minority having power to vote themselves money and benefits and this, not the majority, is causing our financial ruin. The majority of the people are very concerned over this abuse.

Benjamin Franklin:
“Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to have for lunch. Liberty is a well-armed lamb contesting the vote.”

Another false quote. There is no record of Franklin saying this.
Click Here

There are a lot of flaws in this quote that Franklin would have seen. For example what we have now is a dozen wolves voting what to have for dinner with none of the lambs being able to vote at all. Since lambs outnumber wolves then a democracy would wind up protecting the lambs.

I’ll assume the rest of these quotes are accurate, as I do not have time to check each one. So far it looks like anti democracy people just make up quotes to fit their need.

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Papers: We are a Republican Government, Real liberty is never found in despotism or in the extremes of democracy…it has been observed that a pure democracy if it were practicable would be the most perfect government. Experience has proved that no position is more false than this. The ancient democracies in which the people themselves deliberated never possessed one good feature of government. Their very character was tyranny; their figure deformity.

JJ
Hamilton is dead wrong on this. Where has there ever been a democracy that was a tyranny? Never. Mainly because there has never been a democracy in the history of the world. The closest thing to one was Athens, but even this was a representative government with each potential voter representing at least a dozen people who could not vote.

Even so Athens created the greatest example of freedom and enlightenment the world had seen up to that time. Nearby Sparta was a dictatorship and very little light came from there compared to the more democratic Athens.

John Adams: “Democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide.”

JJ
Adams didn’t know what he was talking about. There has never been a democracy.

James Madison: “Democracies have ever been spectacles of turbulence and contention; have ever been found incompatible with personal security or the rights of property; and have in general been as short in their lives as they have been violent in their death.”

JJ
Yeah, right and the opposite of democracy like North Korea, Cuba and the old Soviet Union are really compatible with personal security and property rights.

John Quincy Adams: The experience of all former ages had shown that of all human governments, democracy was the most unstable, fluctuating and short-lived.

JJ
The same could be said of freedom. Wherever freedom surfaced in our world history it only lasted for a short while because all the powers of the beast fought against it. The one great example of a group seeking freedom during the Roman Empire was led by Spartacus. It was short lived and failed. Did this make it wrong?

No. never.

The human spirit will pursue freedom and true workable democracy until they are achieved.

James Madison: Democracy was the right of the people to choose their own tyrant.

JJ
Tyranny is always a possibility in any system, however without the right of the people to vote they will have a tyrant by default. The more democratic the government the less likely is tyranny for what people will vote to elect or re-elect a known tyrant?

John Adams: That the desires of the majority of the people are often for injustice and inhumanity against the minority, is demonstrated by every page of the history of the world.

JJ
And where is there a great injustice that the majority of the people of the United States desire?

I can’t think of any.

I can, however think of many that minorities desire. Here are a few.

Murder, rape, racism, slavery, dictatorship, more stimulus, forced socialism and communism, no free speech, no guns and lots of others.

I’ll pick the will of the majority any time over the present will that the minority in our government is attempting to force upon us.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Golden Thoughts

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 23 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 9, 2010
Blayne:
Which is also why I do not advocate a gold standard. I advocate a free market on currency. This is also not what is being advocated even by those who want a pure gold standard.

JJ
If I recall on our last discussion on this you were for a strict gold standard so it appears your views have changed somewhat.

Actually then we seem to be close to the system you advocate as one can now turn his fiat money into gold silver, copper or whatever and then exchange that for what he wants. There are many merchants on the internet now that accept gold and silver for merchandise.

I support your competing money idea to a degree, but think we need a universal money system that is accepted by all. Without this we could have a thousand currencies all having different exchange rates making normal transactions a nightmare. This was one of the problems we had with early currencies that would be exacerbated in this age.

Today we have a general currency and still have the freedom to exchange in gold and silver. This is good. To his we could allow people to experiment with other paper currencies, which are now illegal. These currencies could be backed by a number of different commodities or services and if one or two prove successful it would force the government to adjust its own currency to make it more desirable and stable.

Blayne
As I have said the safest IMO to simply repeal legal tender laws, end the monopoly, and let the market decide if it wants sound money or fiat currency.

JJ
I think we need to keep the law making the main currency legal but loosen the laws to allow citizens to print their own money to compete with it.

Blayne:
If the US did go on a gold standard and the rest of the world did not, we would soon be the economic powerhouse and more we once were as all the nations of earth would store their wealth with us and invest with us because they know the stability it would bring.

JJ
It looks to me that the opposite would happen. If China, Japan, Saudi Arabia, Taiwan etc could redeem their dollars for gold then all our gold would be gone in about two days and then there would be no gold standard for us because there would be no gold.

Blayne;
what is that scripture where all the nations of the earth would bring their gold and silver up to Zion or something to that effect?

JJ
But we want the nations to bring us their gold, not cart all our gold away. This can only happen when prosperity and unlimited expansion is produced. Just as the universe itself expands in nature even so must our creations have the power to expand with an expanding money supply, not a contracting one. This statement does not support the current system of excessive debt, however.

JJ Quote If a true adjustment was made then the price of gold would be so high that a $20 gold piece might be as small as a grain of sand like I said.

Blayne Only in terms of the current astronomically inflated currency but not necessarily.

JJ
The current inflation has no bearing on this whatsoever. $20 worth of goods and services is what it is. If you buy a watch for $20 then it is worth what it is. If we switched to gold, all things being equal the watch still maintains it’s value and if gold coinage were adjusted to the demand of goods and services you could then buy the watch for a very small piece of gold. This would happen because a universal gold standard would make the price of gold artificially high.

JJ If we somehow agreed that a $20 gold piece would be equal to one ounce of gold then in the adjusted world you could buy a car for $20. How would you go about buying an ice cream cone in such a system?

Blayne That is what you have silver, copper, and nickel etc for.

JJ
Then we’d have the problem of taking valuable metals out of the manufacturing system creating shortages and causing metal prices to artificially skyrocket.. Carrying around tiny metal coins to use in all exchanges does not sound practical to me.

Blayne:
I forgot to address this part. It is still apples and oranges, why does the current fiat bubble have to be the measuring rod?

JJ
That is the only one available. There is no other. We have to deal with reality and use what is, not what is not. Despite its flaws the value of the current monetary system still depends on goods and services which does have intrinsic value.

Blayne
The answer is it doesn’t it is irrelevant to what gold is worth today in terms of inflated fiat currency.

JJ
Why??? I see no reasoning here, just a declaration of belief..

Blayne
The real price is probably 5-10 thousand an ounce due to manipulation of the metals markets.

JJ
If we had a crash this could happen but I see no evidence that your statement applies in today’s market. The value of gold is determined by supply and demand. There is always some manipulation in all money throughout all history.

Blayne:
If we wanted to use puca shells for a currency we could and they would be more stable then fiat money because they can’t be printed, then how would you measure the value in terms of current fiat money? You can’t because there is no value assigned to in current fiat currency. Point is the idea we have to adhere to the current illusions of price and wealth and equal it even scaled down somehow is not necessarily so.

JJ
And how would you assign a value to the puca shells? If you did this and then the production suddenly doubled that value would go out the window.

lwk
A person could live very well on $2400 a year if that currency was a “hard currency” and had sufficient purchasing power.

JJ
But I was talking about $2400 in the value today’s dollars so your point is moot.

lwk
Again purchasing power is not some magical number but the objective result of supply and demand. The “supply” of currency represents the total demand and if somehow we could wipe out 90% of the currency the demand would not change – rather the purchasing power of every dollar would increase to balance the supply/demand equation.

JJ
Agreed. This supports my point that switching to a 100% gold standard, (or several metals) would change the value of gold so $20 of current purchasing power may only require a piece of gold the size of a grain of sand making it impractical to use as gold coins and causing technology that uses gold, silver and copper to rise to obscene prices.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Majority Will vs Representative

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 24 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 13, 2010

Blayne writes:
I finished reading Eternal Words yesterday again. Yes I said again, interestingly I didn’t remember having read it until I began reading it again. Or at least I think I read parts of it online that JJ posted while writing it. Excellent and exciting read well done JJ!

I have a question/comment… I noticed the BOL would not support the books with their spiritual power and influence unless they were in unanimous agreement and not majority rules unless I am interpreting this wrong somehow? I do see that they allowed them to go forward but withheld their spiritual endorsement so to speak. So in that sense there is majority rule on that part but on the weightier matter of throwing their spiritual endorsement behind it they would not unless it was unanimous. Do I have this right?

This actually appealed to me, as I have mentioned I have experimented with some groups where we used this approach and it actually worked out quite well to my surprise. However our caveat was that if you raised an objection you had to bring a remedy along with it. This really cut the objections down quite a bit as lots of folks like to complain but few have a solution to their complaint. This was in a group of about 30 people. When someone raised an objection and brought a remedy the focus was on; will the remedy work and be better, also on modifying the remedy, or why it wouldn’t work. This kept the focus more on constructively trying to solve the problem instead of just bitching and moaning.

JJ
Glad you enjoyed the book.

You are seeing correctly here. The masters do not use the majority rule and the Molecular Relationship does not teach it or practice it. I have outlined in some detail how this works in my book The Molecular Relationship.

So why do I teach majority rule as a current political solution but not for the molecules? Here is the reason.

The Molecular Relationship is basically representative government with the right to vote the leaders in and out. The main way it differs from our Constitution is that a vote can be called for at any time.

Unfortunately, this type of government only works efficiently when there is little or no corruption and the most enlightened gravitate to the top with the power to replace them at any time a mistake is seen. In the current situation the most corrupt rise to the top and become little tyrants.

Among the Masters, representative government works well because the enlightened rise to the top. One important ingredient that causes this is in the Molecular Relationship the leader can be voted out at any time. This puts constant pressure on the leader to respect majority will except in the exceptional times he sees a controversial move that the others do not.

Because of corruption and power grabs of the unenlightened the representative system is not working for us and the majority of the people see with much more clarity than do our elected officials. Therefore, working with majority will makes sense at this time. The great part about it is that if you work with majority will you can eventually get to a greater place of power than any of those representing minority will as is the case today.

It is interesting that even though the Molecular Relationship is representative that it almost always represents majority will.

But…

In our system minority will is represented much more than the majority.

If the representative system is working properly then the majority will be represented around 90% of the time. If it is represented only half the time or less then it needs to be replaced by direct majority rule.

Finally, here is the danger if corruption goes to the limit. When this happens both the majority of the representatives and the majority of the people desire the wrong thing. At this point the nation is doomed to collapse. We are not there yet as the majority still have a little sense. How much longer they can be usable to turn things around I know not. Not that long. – so we must act.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Voting in the Molecule

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 25 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 14, 2010
Blayne writes:
So if I am understanding you correctly (It’s been a while since I read the Molecular Relationship) anyone can call for a vote anytime but the vote has to be unanimous?

JJ
No. The vote happens pretty much the way it does in our republic except it can be called at any time. With our representatives we have to wait 2-6 years before we can vote.

Let me give an example of how it would work. Let us suppose that Jim is not happy with his molecular leader and thinks he can do a better job. He challenges his leader and calls for a vote. After a period of discussion a vote is called. Jim gets 10 votes and the leader gets 14 out of the 24. The leader stays in.

Example two:

Jim calls for a vote and challenges the leader. Ross also thinks he can be a good leader and throws in his hat. A vote is taken. Ross gets 10 votes, the leader 8 and Jim only 6. Ross becomes the new leader.

Let us suppose Jim gets an idea for a group project and presents it to the group. Ross is now the group leader and has the final yes or no decision making power for he group. He doesn’t like Jim’s idea at all and could just veto it if he desires but he senses that if he dismisses it out of hand that the group may think he is unjust and someone may challenge his leadership.

Instead of projecting unjust authority he presents what he considers to be a better plan and calls for a vote. The majority vote for his plan and he not only gets his way, but maintains good relations with his group.

Jim, however, is very frustrated at this point. He thinks he should be the leader but can’t get voted in. He thinks he has good ideas and can’t get them accepted. What can he do? He can go seek other like-minded individuals and form a molecule of his own and become a leader of that as long as the new people will support him. If he is unable to do this then he should stay where he is and support the work being done. If he cannot do this without forming a grievance then he should leave the Molecular order.

Blayne:
The constitution is law for the Federal Government not the people.

JJ
The final arbitrator of law is the people. Jury is supposed to be an example of this. Majority will can ne implemented within the framework of the Constitution and no changes are needed. There is nothing that prohibits majority will.

“The authority of [the] people [is] a necessary foundation for a constitution.” –Thomas Jefferson to John Hampden Pleasants, 1824. ME 16:28

“That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”
Declaration of Independence

Blayne
I am a little confused now. You said: “/The masters do not use the majority rule and the Molecular Relationship does not teach it or practice it/”. So how are they working with majority will at all if the vote has to be unanimous? Unless of course you mean being unanimous then of course that is obviously the majority…. What am I missing?

JJ
The only place majority vote has full play is in electing a leader or if the leader calls for or approves a vote. The leader represents the group and can either make the decision or call for a majority vote from the group. The vote does not have to be unanimous unless for some reason this is what the group and the leader want.

There will be many cases where small decisions will need to be made where the leader can save much time by just making them himself. The important ones he will want to discuss with the group and put them to a vote if necessary.

A vote is only mandatory when there is an election for leadership.

One of the ways to see how a molecule works is to watch how I manage the Keys. I have pretty much power here to just decree anything I want for the forum, but I use my authority very sparingly as I could easily chase the whole group away. Instead, I support a maximum freedom of expression and participation and have called for a vote several times when it seemed appropriate.

***

Blayne:
Again clearly majority will here at play, hence my confusion at your statement
the MR does not teach or practice majority will.

JJ
It doesn’t except in elections. As far as the operations of the molecule it operates on the the representative principle similar to our representatives in Congress, except the system will produce more enlightened leaders. How you can see this as majority rule is a mystery to me. The molecular representative has full power of decision over the group and that is not majority rule even though he will be in touch with majority will and work with it as seems appropriate. The majority have to be satisfied in any organization or it will fall apart unless you have a dictatorship ruled by fear. That doesn’t mean you have majority rule.

Because our political representatives are not representing the majority, the majority are dissatisfied the people are demanding real change. That doesn’t mean we have majority rule in this country, but we do have majority influence. That is why they have town halls and read letters and emails.

If you are the leader of a molecule you can run it without taking any vote if you want or not even get any input but if the majority feel they are not being represented or respected your position would soon be challenged.

Blayne:
The majority elect a leader to express their will. How can that be anything but majority will?

JJ
I guess it is a matter of semantics. In this country the majority elect a representative to express their will but I haven’t seen you call this majority will, but representative government, which constitutes a Republican form of government rather than a democracy.

The Molecular Relationship is similar but safer because the leaders will be less subject to corruption. It can’t be called pure majority will because the leader can go against the majority at any time his inner guidance reveals it is necessary. Our government representatives can also go against the majority and often do – not because of inner guidance, but because of outside influences.

Blayne:
I understand the concept that everything does not need to be voted on and the leader can run with it, (I assume the leader is also limited in what he can do too) that is not my confusion, the point is if he ignores the will of the majority then he will be removed (in the MR) again how is that anything but majority will?

JJ
I have said many times the voting for leaders is majority will just as is the case in the U.S. It is the running of business that has the leader and not the majority as the deciding point. This is not governed by majority will, but by a leader accepting or rejecting majority views – or presenting something that has not occurred to the majority to get their response.

Blayne:
This seems also to differ entirely from the BOL in the scenario in your book where they had to have unanimous approval to move forward with the books. So if Christ is the leader he can’t just pull rank and say were doing it anyway..

JJ
I don’t believe that is written in the books. John said he wanted to get unanimous approval, but that doesn’t mean it was required. However, if the leader deems it wise he can require unanimous approval on a direction, or he can go by a mere majority – or just make the decision. If the group sees eye to eye through the soul they should all see the same. On an item that does not involve a principle at play then there is likely to be more disagreement.

I believe I required unanimous approval on one project we did years ago, but most of the time that I have called for a vote we went with the majority. Other times I have just decided and presented a plan. It just depends on the circumstance.

Now the fasting plan originated within the group and fit in with the purpose of the group so the best thing to do was to let it happen. On the other hand, if someone wanted to create a cheerleading section on the Keys for more stimulus spending I would use my authority as leader of the Keys to send the illusionary fool toward greener pastures.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Questions

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 26 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 16, 2010

Ruth:
JJ, you know how you started a list of Principles in the Archives, was there
ever a “Principle of Fasting”?

Or is there one you can write up?

Does this principle circle around Magnetism and Radiance?

JJ
Neither fasting, not eating, or running, or anything else we do is a principle in itself but involve principles. A principle is the concept that brings to the understanding as to why something works. Why do we eat and then refrain from eating? This can be traced back to the principles of interdependence and of cycles. In addition we fast for two additional reasons involving which are cyclic cleansing or rest and communion.

to find the principle you do not look at an action or a piece of data, but you look at the reason for the happening or the cause of the data.

***

Nadell asked, “Well, isn’t freedom simply the absence of selfishness?

Larry Woods says,
That is a very good question.

JJ
Let us know any response you get from your answer.

Actually the unselfish who are in illusion are the first to freely march toward slavery. Freedom from illusion is the key to freedom, not unselfishness.

Hitler was fairly unselfish as he sacrificed all he had for his goals, which he thought was for the good of all.

He was, however, in great illusion as well as his unselfish followers.

It is great illusion to think a forced good will have a good end. Socialism and equality have good ingredients, but when they are forced upon people by leaders who are in great illusion, scarcity and depression are the final result.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Response on Daheshism

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 27 of 62 in the series 2010

Response on Daheshism
Posted Aug 17, 2010
JJ
Mario, it was good to hear from a real Daheshist, especially one who personally knew the founder. I’m glad to see that you are concerned about your image and good name and can certainly understand that feeling.

You say:
However and not unless I am mistaken, while FreeRead.com is a public disseminator of knowledge with unrestricted access, it is not balanced by an equally public discussion forum — one that is able to be viewed by all without restrictions, similarly to its content.

JJ
Actually, it is balanced off by a public discussion group which is this one. All the archive writings appeared here on the keys first.

The Daheshist follower concerned never identified himself but his comments were sent to me through a third party. So we do not know for sure who he was, only that he was a self-proclaimed follower. Now it may be true that he had a screw loose (which we assumed) but it is true that he was a self-proclaimed follower just as portrayed in the posts.

We have had self proclaimed followers from a number of movements post some strange stuff here and in each case we do not blindly accept that he is accurately reflecting the core beliefs of the mother organization.

In fact, Christians sometimes go so far as to post that Christ preached violence, but most realize that this was a distortion.

There is some good material in the concerned posts that took some thought for me to put in works so I do not want to pull it. However, the next time we update freeread I will be willing to put in a disclaimer in the posts as follows:

NOTE: We have been notified by an authorized agent of Daheshism informing us that the above character identified as “Dahesh Follower” was not an authorized agent of the organization and has in fact present a distorted view of Dahesh teachings.

That said, I would be interested in your response to a couple unanswered questions I asked the alleged Daheshist:

(1) To become a Daheshist one must “to live by The Book of Daheshism,” and also to promote it. I understand this book has not even been translated into English (and it is still not available on Amazon) so how is it possible that you are even a Daheshist if you cannot fulfill the promise?

(2) Is the Ramz ritual available for all to learned or do you have to be involved in some inner circle? Have you used it yourself and what has been your results?

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Vegetarian Diet

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 28 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 18, 2010
Since the vegetarian diet has been discussed lately I thought I would say a few words about it. Someone quoted DK talking about the necessity of a strict vegetarian diet if the disciple wants to obtain certain results, such as reading the Akashic records. This is basically true though there are some exceptions. On the other hand, for the majority of endeavors tackled by disciples, especially in this age, the vegetarian diet is not essential.

In the rules for aspiring disciples DK admonished a vegetarian diet but when talking about the higher corresponding rule for disciples and initiates he said: “All the lesser rules are rules in time and space and cannot hold the group.”

The vegetarian diet is a lesser rule, but such a lesser rule can be bypassed if the purpose is right when one becomes a disciple.

Here are a couple other comments he made about the vegetarian diet.

No set diet could be entirely correct for a group of people on differing rays, of different temperaments and equipment and at various ages. Individuals are every one of them unlike on some points; they require to find out what it is that they, as individuals, need, in what manner their bodily requirements can best be met, and what type of substances can enable them best to serve. Each person must find this out for himself. There is no group diet. No enforced elimination of meat is required or strict vegetarian diet compulsory. There are phases of life and sometimes entire incarnations wherein an aspirant subjects himself to a discipline of food, just as there may be other phases or an entire life wherein a strict celibacy is temporarily enforced. But there are other life cycles and incarnations wherein the disciple’s interest and his service lie in other directions. There are later incarnations where there is no constant thought about the physical body, and a man works free of the diet complex and lives without concentration upon the form life, eating that food which is available and upon which he can best sustain his life efficiency. In preparation for certain initiations, a vegetable diet has in the past been deemed essential. But this may not always be the case, and many disciples prematurely regard themselves as in preparation for initiation.
Esoteric Healing, Page 334

These drastic physical disciplines are often attempted today by well-intentioned aspirants; they practice celibacy, strict vegetarianism, relaxation exercises and many kinds of physical exercises, in the hope of bringing the body under control. These forms of discipline would be very good for the undeveloped and the lowest type of human being, but they are not the methods which should be employed by the average man or the practising aspirant. Concentration upon the physical body only serves to enhance its potency and to feed its appetites and bring to the surface of consciousness that which should be securely secluded below the threshold of consciousness. The true aspirant should be occupied with emotional, not physical, control and ‘with the effort to focus himself upon the mental plane prior to achieving a stabilised contact with the soul.
Esoteric Healing, Page 578

The vegetarian diet is very important for aspirants and seekers working on the first and second initiations. It is also helpful to higher initiates if it is practical for them to be on it. Like he said the vegetarian diet is essential to all who want to work on the astral plane or read he akashic records.

The diet is important to the seeker working on the first initiation because it helps to demonstrate control over his physical body. It is important when working on the second initiation because the animal nature get less vitality and it helps him assume more control over the emotional body. The vegetarian diet doesn’t help a lot with the higher initiations.

I have been on a vegetarian diet several times in my life but for the past 20 years or so I have been impressed to be on a healthy diet but eat and drink what I please as long as it doesn’t hurt my health.

Then a few months ago, my soul told me that it was time to go not just on a vegetarian diet, but a raw foods diet. I think that the reason I am so guided is to extend my life the necessary years to accomplish all I have to do.

Now my diet basically consists of a fruit salad for lunch and a fresh vegetable salad for dinner. Then I eat a few nuts on the side and sometimes splurge on sesame blue corn chips with Artie’s healthy sesame dip. I do allow myself to go off my diet a little when we go out to eat and there is nothing on the menu that fits the diet. I also still drink wine, but have cut back some. If I want to study the akashic records I may have to give that up.

Ruth said she saw me at a future gathering and I was a lot thinner. Looks like this will be the case.

I think a lot of the weight I have gained over the past 20 years has not been due to overeating but to my strange sleeping schedule. I read somewhere that people who keep hours like me usually gain a couple pounds a year and that was what happened to me. I still keep a similar sleeping schedule but am losing weight because of the drastic change in my diet. I’m not losing it as fast as I thought I would. The last time I was on this diet my weight settled in to around 135 pounds. This time I started out at 216 pounds and am now down to 192. I doubt if I’ll get anywhere near 135 this time but should get below 180 – maybe down to 160 eventually. It’ll be interesting to see where I wind up as my metabolism has also changed.

(Note: as of Dec 28, 2010 my weight is still around 190 – a far cry from the 135 pounds the last time I was on this diet. It’s amazing what a change in metabolism over the years can do.)

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Principles – Fasting

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 29 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 19, 2010
Dan wrote:
What I want to know is – Does physically fasting from food have effect upon prayer or “communion with higher beings” in any way other than as a symbolic ritual to focus the attention and if so, why and how – by what mechanism does it act? Same question in regard to fasting from water.

…my ability to concentrate has generally seemed to DECREASE while fasting rather than increase. For instance reading for retention/learning – actually even for entertainment – is almost out of the question.

JJ
Good questions and comments.  Yes, I have had the same experience.  When fasting my ability to concentrate has decreased and any higher contact has been no more than normal.

So, what is the advantage of fasting?

From my experience it is this.  Fasting with a specific purpose in mind that involves petitioning spiritual assistance seems to get the attention of the soul.  It is as if the soul notices the sacrifice being made and if the upward focus is strong enough then it will respond and help the seeker.

It also has a physical benefit in that many of the powers of the digestive system switch from digesting food to cleansing he body. This is why many have a headache at the beginning of a fast – because the body has released toxins and they make the head ache. They also interfere with concentration.  When the fast is over there is often an increase in the sense of well being and then powers of concentration will increase.

Ruth wanted to know the principle involved with fasting.  There is a principle that gets results and that is the principle of sacrifice which is a corollary to cause and effect.

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Examining Dr. Dahesh

Joseph Dewey
This entry is part 30 of 62 in the series 2010

Posted Aug 20, 2010
Mario,
Thank you for your gracious response.  We have had a number of people come here from various belief systems and often they are either very antagonistic or preach to us about how deluded or evil we are.

It is therefore an honor to be politely visited by someone who has had contact with a historical figure who is likely to grow in stature as time moves onward.

Of all the figures purporting to be a Christ figure Dr. Dahesh comes closest in my book to being able to logically lay hold to this claim. The most impressive thing I have read of him is that he was raised from the dead and performed many miracles.  If he was truly raised from the dead then he at least deserves our attention.

This does not mean that I accept that he is a reincarnation of the Christ but it does appear that he was either an advanced disciple or he had unseen beings assisting him.

Any person coming before us with claims of being a true teacher must present two witnesses.  They are

(1) His words
(2) And his works.

Apparently Dr. Dahesh has many words for us for if I recall he wrote around 150 works, though a number of then are fiction.

Unfortunately none of us can read them so we can check out his teachings for no books are available in English and not sure if they are available in any language.

The handful of teachings I have read sound interesting and most are not out of harmony with what we teach here.

Concerning the second witness of his works we have his many miracles and his art collection.  The miracles would seem to be associated with the higher fluid of which he teaches, but the collection of art seems to be associated with the middle one of materialism.  That seems perplexing to me.

One would think that he would have put his major attention on making sure his writings were published and circulated far above that of collecting art.

It seems a crime that he left his copyrights to a family that hides his writings under a bushel and doesn’t allow them to be published.

One would think that Dahesh would have sought out the most important miracle of all and that is to take a peek into the future and discern the best way to make sure his writings are published after he died.

Do you have any explanation as to why he did not publish his works here in America himself and why they have not been published to this day?  Did Dr. Dahesh make any comment about when his writings would be published to the world?

That’s probably enough for you to respond to for now but will have a number of other questions for you.

Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey