freedom – Page 2

The Two Paths

May 28, 2016May 28, 2016 Joseph Dewey

May 28, 2016

The Two Paths

It s interesting that the vast majority of Alice A. Bailey students who aspire to taking the right hand path cleave strongly to the political left and speak negatively of the people of the right.

In stating this I am not saying that all the people on the left are bad guys in cahoots with the Dark Brotherhood, or that those on the political right are all good guys under the wing of Christ and associates.

On the other hand, it is perhaps wise to consider the Law of Correspondences and ask ourselves if there are more ingredients of the right hand path in the political right than the left. Perhaps it is no coincident that the political right identifies with the right, and the so-called liberals with the left.

To clarify this we must ask ourselves what the main difference is between the right and left hand paths as well as the political right and left.

Before exploring this we must ignore many of the angry accusations the political left and right make against each other, for some are not even founded in reality. What we want to look at is the core difference and see if there is a correspondence to the two paths.

The prime difference between those who take the right and left hand path is the principle of freedom. Those on the right hand path seek to allow the maximum amount of freedom possible to individuals, groups and even nations whereas those on the left hand value maximum control and regulation over freedom in seeking to accomplish their goals. The Dark Brotherhood does not trust the individual to set his own course and to chart his own path.

Why?

Their excuse is that human beings are flawed and because they are flawed they need direction from superior beings who can guide them better than they can guide themselves.

And who are these superior beings?

There are of course, the leaders within the left hand path. Of course they have flaws too, but such leaders always see themselves as superior to those with a different opinion than themselves and that different opinion must be obliterated through rules and regulations set up and administered by themselves.

Does this correspond to the political left and right?

Yes, it does to some extent for the main difference between the two lies in the principle of freedom.

Overall the political right espouses more freedom in the following areas.

(1) Lower taxes allowing for the freedom to keep and control a larger percentage of your own money.

(2) Fewer laws, rules and regulations that will restrict free well and free enterprise.

(3) Freedom to bear arms as stipulated in the Second Amendment.

(4) Free speech, even if it is highly offensive as long as it does not lead to obvious physical harm.

(5) Emphasis on decentralized and smaller government as opposed to centralized big government.

The political left generally wants to restrict freedom on each of the five points. They usually want to raise taxes, increase rules and regulations, increase restrictions on arms and desire to limit speech they find distasteful. It is almost always the left that decrees which speech is politically correct and which is not. It is the left that encourages sensitivity training so people a get their minds right so their speech will be in the correct alignment.

Finally the left always supports increasing the size, power and central authority of government.

Free speech is the greatest freedom we possess which allows us to move forward on the path of light and unfortunately it is under threat in the United States and much of the free world as never before. More and more people of the left are rising up demanding the limitation of speech, often in subtle ways, but sometimes openly.

Just one example is that many are coming forward expressing a desire to prosecute those who give opinions on global warming that run contrary to that of the left.

The dividing line of freedom between the political left and right is not exactly black and white. Many religious people on the right object to obscene speech, pornography, and various types of immoral behavior and would like to see them controlled more rigidly. Then there are times the political right will support excessive laws and regulations that is in alignment with their own point of view. Even so, overall, the political right supports the Principle of maximum freedom more than does the left.

Now the left will argue that freedom needs to be restricted to insure that the greater good can prevail. We need higher taxes so we can fund more social programs. We need more regulations because people are not responsible. We need to control guns because there are too many accidents and we need some restrictions on speech because wrong speech can hurt feelings and impede progress.

I wonder how many esoteric students have tried to assess the reasoning behind the Dark Brotherhood’s desire to restrict freedom. It appears that many just see them as coarse beastly individuals who are just out to do all the damage they can do.

They overlook one thing. That is that every thinking individual follows a course that he sees as reasonable for himself and others. The dark brothers are not monsters foaming at the mouth, but people with a plan. In their plan the intelligent will rule those who are not smart enough to govern themselves. This will produce order while giving those at the top freedom, security and abundance.

People are drawn to the left hand path because they believe that they will be a part of the ruling class and those they rule will benefit from their superiority.

Others are drawn to the right hand path with the Brotherhood of Light, not for power but for the joy of service and knowing that working with the Principle of Freedom that maximum progress for all will be made in the long run. They trust their fellow men and women to eventually make the right decisions in an atmosphere of freedom.

It is true that there are always risks associated with freedom., With the freedom to drive a car comes the risk of having an accident. With the freedom to own a gun comes a similar risk. Free speech carried the risk of offending people or making a fool of yourself. With the freedom to keep your money comes the risk of losing it on a bad investment.

Those on the path of light know the risks and do not mind taking a few of them. Those on the left want to eliminate all possible risk.

Those who are on the political left and right who support the principle of freedom are supporting the right hand path and those who fight against it, whether they be the political left or right, support the esoteric left hand path.

Here are some quotes from DK on the subject:

In the coming New Age, the Master is responsible for the offering of opportunity and for the right enunciation of the truth but for no more than that. *** I exact, therefore, no blind obedience. But, however, if advice and suggestion are accepted and you choose—of your own free will—to follow my instructions, those instructions must be followed accurately. *** There is not the slightest suggestion of authoritative pronouncement by a member of the Hierarchy who must be obeyed and whose word is infallible. Let this be remembered, otherwise work will not be possible, elements of danger may enter in and the present effort come to naught.*** Masters are made through the achieving of mastery and not through obedience to any person.

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Pages 5 & 7

Leave people free in all respects—with the freedom that you demand and expect for yourself.

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Page 427

Today, the Masters are dealing with the highly mental type of disciple who believes in the freedom of the human will and consciousness and who resents the imposition of any so-called authority. The intellectual man will not accept any infringement of his freedom, and in this he is basically right.****The obedience required is obedience to the Plan. It is not obedience to the Master, no matter what many old-style occult schools may say.*** The obedience demanded is that of the personality to the soul as soul knowledge, soul light and soul control become increasingly potent in the mind and brain reactions of the disciple.

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Pages 686-687

The Master is prevented by occult law from using any pressure or power in the effort to swing the minds of those whom He is influencing into unison with His. He may not impose His will upon the disciple; His desires, aspirations and wishes must not be the enforced directing agency in the lives of those with whom He is in touch. He may impress their minds with what He feels is needed in periods of world crisis. He can express to them what He feels should be done. But it remains for the disciple to decide and prove. Disciples are in a Master’s group because of similarity of ideas, even though they sense and express those ideas far less clearly than He does and see the vision as through a glass darkly.

Discipleship in the New Age, Vol 1, Page 696

For a 11 part treatise on on how DK’s views fall surprisingly to the political right go HERE.

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

More on Freedom

April 26, 2016April 26, 2016 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 51 of 73 in the series 2015

Nov 14, 2015

More on Freedom

Dan writes:

By what criteria can a person that doesn’t already (think they) know how the universe works determine if a particular act increases or decreases freedom for the whole?

***

Some issues, like murder, seem clear while some, like forced/mandated insurance, are not and I am unable to pick up the common “thread” that SHOULD, logically, run through ANY/ALL issues that lie on one side or the other of the principle.

In example how does it decrease the freedom for the whole for me to exercise my freedom to steal my neighbor’s sheep?

EVERYBODY is going to kneejerk say it OBVIOUSLY decreases the freedom of the whole but specifically how?

It increases my freedom to eat mutton tonight and decreases his – that only impacts me and him, NOT the freedoms of this (nebulous) “whole”.

There are two keys for insuring maximum freedom for any group.

The first is the Second Key of Judgment and the second is the taking into consideration what the will of the majority is concerning what is necessary for maximum freedom.

Let us say that we have before us a large number of groups with a wide range of consciousness. Let us also say they can be labeled between one and ten with ten being the highest state.

The maximum freedom for group one would be much less than a group with the rating of ten. Group one would have to have many black and white rules, group two less and group three less still until we get to ten which would need few if any rules as the Principle of Freedom would be a part of their consciousness.

The leaders of each of the ten groups would have to tap into public opinion to determine the least amount of rules and laws needed so they could tap into maximum freedom and efficiency.

Now let us examine your question about stealing the sheep. Let us say that you and the sheep owner are the only two people in the area and no one else is affected by anything either of you do.

Yes, if you steal the other guy’s sheep you will increase your freedom to possess the sheep and eat mutton while the owner loses this advantage. Looking at it this way it seems that the net gain and loss cancel each other out.

Looking at freedom this way completely misses the principle. The Principle of Freedom is not concerned with possessions. He who has more possessions does not have more freedom (as far as the principle is concerned) than the one with few possessions.

The Principle of Freedom revolves around our freedom of action to obtain possessions or whatever it is we want to accomplish, do, say or think and to be able to keep those accomplishments without threat to life, limb or loss.

Person A’s goal was to own sheep and it took him a reasonable amount of labor to raise the sheep in question. The freedom that was diminished when person B stole the sheep was the freedom to enjoy the benefits of one’s labor. The thief had no labor involved so he could not steal this for himself. He could not steal the sense of accomplishment that was had by the legitimate owner.

By stealing the sheep the thief gains no skill or satisfaction of a job well done whereas the owner loses the results of his labor and his goals to grow his herd are diminished. There is loss by person A and little or no gain by person B.

The scriptures tell us that our works follow us to the next world, but our possessions do not. This is because real freedom lies in freedom to do fulfilling work and not in possession of physical things. He who has freedom to effectively labor at that which he loves can possess all he needs for happiness.

Now let us suppose that these two people were a part of a group. If person A reported the theft to the group then the feeling of safety and the ability to feel secure in their possessions would be diminished for the whole. There is less freedom in a group with a thief in their midst than a group with no thieves.

Setting up laws and punishments for theft will help to secure the freedom of each individual to work toward their goals of obtaining and securing their possessions. The freedom to work without undue restrictions to fulfill and keep your desires is essential to the Principle of Freedom.

The goal with the Principle of Freedom is then to insure that all have maximum freedom of action, speech and thought rather than possessions. Needed possessions naturally come to groups who support maximum freedom.

You mention freedom related to gay marriage, speed limits and mandated insurance.

The core question behind these and other issues is this. Does this law, regulation or action secure more freedom than it takes away?

The answer for those in groups having a lower consciousness is in the eye of the beholder and not seen clearly. These groups will have many laws thinking they are enhancing freedom when they are really restricting it. Even so, all kinds of rules and regulations are necessary for lesser evolved groups so they can slowly learn what real freedom is and to esteem it of high value.

Laws that seem satisfying for a group of low evolution would be intolerable for a highly evolved group.

When a true gathering of lights occurs the needed laws to insure freedom and safety will be much less than the counties of the world today as the laws of justice will be written in their hearts.

“Some birds are not meant to be caged, that’s all. Their feathers are too bright, their songs too sweet and wild. So you let them go, or when you open the cage to feed them they somehow fly out past you. And the part of you that knows it was wrong to imprison them in the first place rejoices, but still, the place where you live is that much more drab and empty for their departure.”

–Stephen King (From “Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption”)

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

The Left, the Right and DK, Part 2

December 6, 2015January 31, 2020 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 2 of 73 in the series 2015

Freedom- An Attribute of the Right

So, what are other freedoms overlooked by the Left?

We go through cycles where the political left and right take their turn in pushing us in the Right direction. Sometimes the Left pushes too far and nudges us toward the Left hand path and sometimes the Right goes too far and brings progression to a halt by too much focus on the past.

At present the political left is placing a dangerous amount of energy on limiting freedom and they are attacking the most precious freedom of all which is freedom of speech. If we lose that we will lose all of our important civil freedoms.

When I was in college in the Sixties the Left was very big on free speech. The popular bumper sticker of the day for them was “Question Authority.” They often quoted the famous statement, “I disapprove of what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”

Today the left has shifted around 180 degrees on this view and it all began with political correctness. They started putting a lot of attention on speech that could be offensive and then telling the rest of us that we shouldn’t say certain words.

Many made fun of them and came up with humorous lists of politically incorrect things to say.

Here is just one list. LINK

Many saw this approach as obnoxious, but few saw it as dangerous.

Well, the danger has come full circle illustrated by the demands of some college students lately. Students at Yale are demanding restrictions on Halloween costumes, Brown University students are demanding “anti-oppression training” for college employees, Princeton students want former president Woodrow Wilson’s name and image removed from campus and in Columbia. They are traumatized because the class material is not diverse enough. They are demanding that conservative commentators not be allowed speak on campus. Make America great hats are called symbols of hate and those who wear them are attacked or banned. Students at George Washington High in San Francisco felt traumatized by a longstanding mural of the first president and wanted it covered up.

Larry Summers, esteemed president of Harvard who has always leaned left was forced to resign for just making the true observation that males at his school perform better at math than females, ending with the statement, “there is a difference in the standard deviation and variability of a male and female population.”

One of the most bizarre attacks occurred when Smith College president Kathleen McCartney as well as Maryland Gov. Martin O’Malley got in big trouble for saying that “all lives matter” when they should have just stuck to the mantra “black lives matter.”

Students and much of the general population that lean left are now so offended by free speech that they support curtailing it by force of law.

A new Pew Research Center poll shows that 40 percent of American Millennials (ages 18-34) are likely to support the force of law to prosecute public statements offensive to minorities.

Even more egregious is that a 2015 Rasmussen poll revealed that 27% of Democrats and 11% of Republicans want global warming skeptics prosecuted for speaking against standard global warming theory. An additional 15% of the general public do not side with free speech and are not sure if skeptics deserve free speech.

In the UNESCO division of the United Nations they recommend prosecuting organizations “devoted to organized climate denial.” If this were to happen then the only research that would be permitted would be that which supported a warming planet due to human activity only. That would be comparable to the ancients only allowing research into a flat earth. Round earthers must be rounded up. LINK

Hillary Clinton gave a strong indication where her loyalties to free speech lie. She attended the famous Laugh Factory in Los Angeles and didn’t like some of the things the comics humorously said about her. When some of the video was placed on their website she insisted they be taken down and wanted the identities of all the comics. The owner, Jamie Masada, said:

“They threatened me, I have received complaints before but never a call like this, threatening to put me out of business if I don’t cut the video.”

A generation ago, when nudity, drug use and cuss words were being pushed upon us through movies and other media the Left often defended free speech and criticized the conservatives for opposing it. Now things have changed. Now conservatives rarely stand in the way of offensive speech while the Left is marching toward alarming restrictions putting the First Amendment at risk.

DK never said anything in any of his works in favor of restricting speech that may merely offend. He, of course, advised students to be wise in their speech, but never advocated force to restrict public discourse.

“No matter what past history may indicate in connection with many of the allied nations (past aggressions, ancient cruelties and wrong doing), they were and are today (during WWII) seeking to cooperate with the Forces of Light and are endeavouring to salvage human freedom political, religious and economic.” Destiny of the Nations, Page 100

It looks like we are reaching a point where these freedoms may need to be salvaged again.

Time and time again DK placed emphasis on free speech and goodwill.

“The forces of death are abroad today, but it is the death of liberty, the death of free speech, the death of freedom in human action, the death of truth and of the higher spiritual values. These are the vital factors in the life of humanity; the death of the physical form is a negligible factor in relation to these, and one easily righted again through the processes of rebirth and fresh opportunity.” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 232

The disciple must “gain that control of speech which has often been your goal but seldom your achievement, and remember that the most powerful factor in the control of speech is a loving heart. Wild and fearful talk, hateful gossip, cruel innuendo, suspicion, the ascribing of wrong and wicked motives to persons and peoples, and the divergences of attitude which have separated the many different nations in the world are rampant today and have brought the world to its present distressing situation. It is so easy to drift into the same habits of speech and thought which we find around us and to discover ourselves participating in attack and the spirit of hate. Guard yourselves strenuously against this and say nothing which could inflame hate and suspicion in connection with any race, any person, any group or any leaders of groups and nations.” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 82

Freedom, A Pearl of Great Price

It is bad enough that free speech is under attack, but in addition to this almost every freedom our forefathers fought for is being diminished.

The Second Amendment, the Right to keep and bear arms, comes under renewed attack whenever some crazy guy goes on a shooting spree. Yes, there are some accidents and homicides due to guns, but many more deaths and serious injuries due to car accidents. But no one calls for the banning of cars.

Why?

Because their usefulness far exceeds the damage they cause.

And what is the usefulness of guns?

The main one, which was enunciated by our founders, was not for hunting, but to keep us free. A government will be nervous taking us too far toward tyranny if its citizens are armed and other nations would think twice about invading us when the citizens are armed with a couple hundred million guns.

We need to recall that the worst killing spree that has happened on American soil was caused, not by guns, but by 19 men with box cutters who hijacked airplanes. Yet no one called for the banning of air travel.

Again, even with great disasters now and then air travel brings much more benefit and freedom than it takes away.

Big Brother has been taking away freedoms in many other ways. If you count all the hidden taxes the average taxpayer pays more than 50% in taxes.

Government borrowing and charging the reckless debt to you and me and our children is another great inhibitor.

Excessive laws and regulations are suffocating many just trying to make a living.

Other freedoms at risk are our religious freedoms, a free unregulated internet, freedom from excessive and frivolous lawsuits and just a general freedom to speak and act with out of the box ideas.

DK supported the Allies against Hitler to secure freedoms necessary to insure the coming of the New Age, but I would suppose he would be concerned today as he surveys the current situation.

Yes, some things have improved, but it will all be for nothing if we were to lose our freedoms. We must ever remember these great words emphasized by numerous Founding Fathers including Jefferson.

“Eternal vigilance is the cost of liberty.”

DK Quotes on freedom:

For the first time in human history, the lines of demarcation between that which is right from the angle of the spiritual values (the essential freedom of the human spirit) and that which is wrong (the imprisonment of the human spirit by materialistic conditions) are clearly perceived by the majority of the nations of the planet. (Understanding of Humanity after WW II) Discipleship in the New Age Vol II, Page 220

“The freedom of humanity and the liberation of its power to be self-determining (which is an aspect of freedom) has become the dearest ideal and the best thought of the thinkers in all nations. In the last analysis, it is this interference with individual and group freedom which is the worst sin of the evil men.” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 266

Nothing of true value is to be gained by any arbitrary or autocratic activity on the part of the spiritual Hierarchy. That is one of the lessons to be learnt, as the work of the totalitarian powers—in the past and today—and its effects are noted. Under the totalitarian system, freedom is curtailed or abolished, the free will of the individual is denied and prevented expression, the individual is regarded as the appurtenance of the all-powerful State and held in that position by police regimentation; individual development is of value only in so far as the interests of the State are served, but the individual himself—as an independent divine unit of humanity—is non-existent, from the totalitarian point of view. Would you, therefore, have the spiritual Hierarchy of our planet work along totalitarian lines, enforcing peace and comfort, taking steps to arrest evil by force and working for the material well-being of men? Or would you have the Masters lead humanity itself, through right understanding, to take the needed action, even if it involves trial and error and a much slower process? Would you have mankind standing on its own feet as intelligent agents of the divine Plan? Or would you have them treated as irresponsible children who must be energetically protected against themselves? Is it not better for the rapidly awakening intelligence and activity of men (in every land) to be trained to recognise the essential unity of all human beings, and so be led to take the action needed which will endorse that unity, which will work for the entire group of human beings in all lands everywhere, and which will also and at the same time preserve the individual and the national cultures, alongside a universal civilisation and a world-wide system of divine recognition? It is toward this general freedom and the intelligent activity of the free individual that the Hierarchy is steadily and successfully working; the concept of unity and of united activity for the good of all is far more widely grasped and understood than you perhaps realise. The totalitarian approach works toward an imposed unity and one which will include all peoples and bind them down to a uniformity of belief—politically, economically and socially—and which will and does basically ignore the spiritual values, putting the State in the place of that divine spiritual centre where spiritual reality is to be found. Externalization of the Hierarchy, Pages 670-671

“The material goal which all who love their fellowmen and serve the Hierarchy must ever have in mind and at heart is the defeat of totalitarianism. I do not say the defeat of Communism, but the defeat of that evil process which involves the imposition of ideas, and which can be the method of the democratic nations and of the churches everywhere, just as much as it is the method of the U.S.S.R. This we call totalitarianism. I would ask you to have this distinction clearly in your minds. Your material goal is the defeat of all that infringes human free will and which keeps humanity in ignorance; it applies equally to any established system—Catholic or Protestant—which imposes its concepts and its will upon its adherents. Totalitarianism is the basis of evil today; it is found in all systems of government, of education; it is found in the home and in the community. I refer not here to the laws which make group relations sound, possible and right; such laws are essential to community and national well-being and are not totalitarian in nature. I refer to the imposition of the will of the few upon the total mass of the people. The defeat of this undesirable tendency everywhere is your definite material goal. Externalization of the Hierarchy,” Page 701

“Freedom is an essentially spiritual attribute, underlying the entire evolutionary process; this should always be remembered as a strengthening and conditioning reality by all men everywhere. It has survived aeons of opposition from the principle of enslaving selfishness and is largely responsible, at this time, for the struggle in which we are all participating.” Rays and Initiations, Page 428

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

The Left, the Right and DK, Part 1

December 6, 2015May 10, 2020 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 1 of 73 in the series 2015

The Principle of Freedom

A reader brings up an interesting point, that most Bailey students are from the Left and see me as a heretic to the faith because I lean to the Right on some issues and this division seems unreasonable.

Yes it is interesting that a great majority of Bailey students as well as most in other new age movements lean quite strongly to the Left. If I had to guess the amount I would say it was over 80%.

So, do shear numbers in majority mean that going to the Left is the true right hand path?

Not hardly. History proves that the next level of truth is always seen by the few, not the many.

Before I proceed let me note that when I speak of political divisions I usually use Left and Right instead of liberal and conservative. This is because these titles are misleading as those who are called conservative are liberal in many ways as they give more to charities, they are supportive of space exploration and technology, they look for new ways to expand on freedom, liberally embrace free speech, limited government, etc. Those who call themselves liberal are extremely conservative about conserving all kinds of things – the environment, cultures, historical sites and buildings and unfortunately lean toward the old conservative ways of totalitarian government much more than do conservatives with their emphasis on freedom..

I consider myself on the Right because I choose the Right hand path and it may be no coincidence that the political left and right have taken those names to themselves as the esoteric left restricts freedom and the right seeks to expand it, similar to the political left and right. Both of the groups on the left seek to restrict individual and group freedom with more laws, more regulations, less free speech and less trust in the intelligence of the individual to make his own choices.

So what are the indications that the seeker is on the Right hand path?

As I have said many times, the key indication that one is treading the Right hand path is an embracement of the Principle of Freedom. After all, what is the core ingredient of the various initiations that have to be taken on the path to liberation?

DK said again and again that the initiations remove limitations. And what happens when limitations are removed?

Greater freedom.

How can a seeker be making significant progress toward his next initiation, which brings greater freedom if he fights against the very principle of freedom that is needed to move forward?

The problem with understanding freedom is that everyone thinks they are for it. Slave owners during the American Civil War thought they were fighting for it. Hitler thought he was fighting for it. Even terrorists think they support it.

How can some be so deluded one may ask.

The reason is that individuals tend to see freedom only as it relates to their own little world and totally miss seeing it as it applies to the whole.

If slave owners won the war they would have had more freedom to do what they wanted with their slaves. If Hitler had won he would have had more freedom to carry out his insidious designs. If terrorists get their way then they’ll have lots of freedom to rape and pillage.

Fortunately, most reading this will clearly see that the above groups did not embrace any true principle of freedom. Unfortunately, many cannot see where they are missing the principle with the political views they embrace.

Consider the ways that many miss out on the Principle of Freedom.

They accept the idea that it is okay to limit or take away freedom if their intention is to do good.

For instance, the current society has a plethora of social programs not supported by the majority who actually pay the taxes to support them. Social Security is the exception in that we all pay into it and all benefit. It is no wonder then that it is supported by most and thus the principle of freedom for the whole is upheld.

On the other hand, only about 50% of the people pay any significant federal taxes yet the 50% who do not pay are the main beneficiaries. These people who benefit with no contribution get to vote for representatives that will take money from taxpayers to give them free benefits. This causes more to be spent on social programs than is available, as evidenced by our $22 trillion national debt.

Average federal taxpayers would be willing to see a reasonable amount go to social programs but because those who do not pay keep demanding more, many feel that their money is being stolen from them as well as their grandkids with the piling up of debt.

Thus we have a new type of slavery, for those who do not contribute seek to live off the means of those who do. This is what the slave owners in the Old South did. They lived off the labors of the slaves and reaped the benefits.

Now the situation is reversed in that the poorer half seek benefits with no contribution.

The poor are not the only ones benefiting as many unsupported taxpayer funds go to subsidize or benefit the wealthy.

Yes, the Ancient Wisdom teaches the principle of sharing, but it’s core emphasis is on the principle of freedom and liberation.

Sharing should be encouraged but must have at least 50% support from the group who are asked to make the sacrifice. To support the demand for confiscating by force, funds from a group where majority support does not exist, is to place yourself on the side of new cycle of slave supporters and this is not the path of the esoteric right.

The pilgrim on the true right hand path will support the principle of maximum freedom and seek to influence the majority to support sharing necessary to bring in the new age

Only by creating a sense of personal responsibility and a consciousness of freedom can we insure that our world will not slip back into physical slavery.

A reader writes:

“So, are you saying those that lean to the political left are “leaning toward the Left hand” (spiritual) path?”

JJ: The reason I use “Right” and “Left” as much as possible when I am teaching is to correlate my views with the Right and left hand path more than the literal political right and left.

The political left leans more toward limiting freedom than does the political right, but the Right is far from perfect so I do not set them up as the ideal by a long shot. Now because the political right have some areas where they also want to limit freedom does not mean they are equally egregious. One has to use the Second Key of Judgment and assess the degree each side goes off the path to liberation of the human spirit.

Both political sides are way too black and white and a black and white approach overlooks the Principle of Judgment, as well as principles in general, which must be used to see the Right hand path. Without judgment the seeker will naturally gravitate (usually with good intentions) toward the Left hand path until he reaches a point of tension where the real truth stares him in the face. At that point many will choose correctly and veer to the Right.

Another readers asks:

I feel like you talk about socialist policies, as if they were brought in by a dictator. Was it not the majority rule, that you espouse, that brought about socialist policies? Is it not then the will of the people, that enacted these policies in order to make a more just, and equal society?

JJ: If people want to cooperate in socialistic endeavors through their own free will then I am all for it, but many socialist policies, as well as many acts of Congress and presidential executive orders, run contrary to the will of the people.

Our elected representatives are supposed to represent the will of the people, but often vote against it and in harmony with pressure groups and political leaders rather than the people.

Congress barely passed Obamacare with only Democratic votes which ran contrary to the will of the people.

A big problem with it was that the people were unaware of what was in it and those who did read some of it were usually strongly opposed to it.

When passed the Obamacare bill contained 381,517 obscure words and within three years an additional 11, 500,000 words were added in attempts to clarify and expand its powers. I supposed additional millions of words have been added since.

The bill did not have majority support when passed and has low support now. A Washington Post poll in June 2015 showed support at 39% and in October 2915 a Rasmussen poll showed support at just 32%.

If we eliminated the people from the poll who were getting highly subsidized insurance at the expense of the middle class then support would be much lower.

The New York Times found that more than half the plans offered through the federal Healthcare.gov exchange had deductibles of $3,000 or more. In some states, the median deductible was $5,000 or more.

Sky-high deductibles like that high used to come with extremely low premiums. But thanks to ObamaCare’s many rules and regulations and fees, such plans are a thing of the past.

The Times notes that an Albuquerque, N.M., woman pays $4,800 a year for a plan with a $6,000 deductible. Before ObamaCare, a plan with a $2,500 deductible was available in that state for just $1,625 a year, according to a Government Accountability Office review of pre-ObamaCare premiums.

LINK

If you have a social program where a third of the people get free stuff then almost all of that group will vote for a continuation of the freebies. On the other hand, it is theft for those who are getting the benefit without paying for it, to have the power to demand free stuff from those who work hard to earn the money and pay the taxes. Any social program should be supported by the majority of those who actually pay for it. Benefits supplied by the approval of the majority who who pay the bills are much more justified than those opposed by the majority.

Right now almost half the people are receiving government benefits. If we reach a point where over half receive more than they pay in then the takers will have power to demand the givers to give more and more until the country unravels and collapses.

Not a good thing.

The solutions to these problems are presented in my book Fixing America and the core of the solution is presented online free HERE.

Universal Healthcare Lost

Would you say that we have universal healthcare if we had a system that all could afford, even if one worked for minimum wage or was a fruit picker working for piece work with imported Hispanics?

Let us say that a fruit picker had an accident where he wound up spending three months in the hospital involving six operations, yet had no problem paying for the whole thing. Does that sound like the best system ever?

Yes, it does. This was what we once had and we let this utopia slip from our fingers for a bowl of porridge offered to us by Big Brother.

We had such a wonderful system back in 1958 when I had an accident with a homemade rocket exploding that indeed put me in the situation just described.

This happened at the worst possible time. My parents had just divorced and my Dad took off to central America, not to be heard from for years and giving us no support. We had no food stamps no welfare, no child support, no medical insurance and no skills in making money. To make money, my mother, younger sister and I picked fruit in the summer and my mother worked for minimum wage in a potato plant during the rest of the year.

After the explosion I spent eight hours in surgery and a month in the hospital. Then a short time later I had a second surgery requiring a few extra hospital days.

I was quite concerned about the cost to my mother for something that was my fault and discovered that my cost there was $8 a day. There were other rooms that cost $12 and $14 a day, but I had a cheaper one because it was a ward shared with others.

Even so, eight dollars a day in 1958 seemed like a lot for someone in our situation. That’s about $70 in 2019 dollars. On top of this we had the surgery costs and office visits.

We, of course, could not pay it off all at once, but over time we paid the whole thing by picking fruit, working near minimum wage and me mowing laws on the side.

Then, later I had four corrective surgeries by a specialist that required an additional two months in the hospital. To cover the costs my savvy mom found a private charity that paid for the whole thing.

If this happened under today’s system the overall bill would be around a half million dollars and there is no way that a fruit picker could handle it, even if he had good insurance that paid 80%.

Indeed, we used to have a universal health care system, in other words, a system that all could afford and it required no payments to the IRS taken out of paychecks to cover Medicare – neither did it require the government to borrow money to supplement healthcare.

What happened that destroyed such a fair system?

It happened when the government stepped into help in 1965 when Medicare was introduced. It was supposed to help with medical costs, but from that point on they increased exponentially.

Medicare seemed like a good idea to many, especially in consideration of the cost projections at the time. The public was sold on the idea that Medicare’s $3 billion cost in 1966 would only reach an inflation-adjusted $12.0 billion by 1990. Instead, the actual cost in 1990 was a whopping $67 billion. The “experts” were off by 7.44 times. Total Medicare spending reached $440 billion for fiscal year 2007, or 16 percent of all federal spending. Since that time, spending has continued to rise and Obamacare is sending taxpayer costs through the roof.

The only larger categories of federal spending are Social Security and defense.

Would the public have supported socialized medicine if they could have seen what they would lose?

Certainly not.

Unfortunately, young people today have no sense of history, of what a financial paradise health costs were when before 1965.

Back then doctors often put patients a couple days in the hospital for observation. Because costs were so low the payment was no problem. Now, even with insurance, no one goes into the hospital unless absolutely necessary.

Today people are often complaining about the price of gas, but when I had my accident in 1958 the price of a gallon of gas was 40 cents a gallon. In today’s money that is equivalent to $3.48. These supposedly greedy oil companies are now selling gas for as cheap as $2.06 a gallon at the time of this writing in my city. Consumers are winning in that they are buying this product below the cost of inflation.

On the other hand, if you spend a day in the supposedly non-profit hospitals you can expect to pay around $4000. That far exceeds the inflation of the $8.00 I was paying, which would be $70 today. In fact it is 57 times the cost of inflation.

If gas went up the same amount we would be paying almost $200.00 a gallon.

So much for the benefits of being non-profit and benefitting from government help.

Help like this is something we can certainly do without.

A question a real seeker of truth may ask here is which has worked better in proven reality? Has it been free market capitalism in bringing us oil or socialism replacing the free market in bringing us medical services?

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Facebook Group HERE

Where Are the Masters?

March 13, 2014May 24, 2017 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 21 of 34 in the series 2010B

Blayne writes:
I am wondering if there are many masters reincarnating or have already into this time period to help humanity through this rough patch? Or high level initiates at least?

Maybe it is just me but I feel something has to give soon and I have the feeling it is going to get pretty rough soon. I feel like the Korean problem while still volatile has passed its most dangerous point and is calming down.

Still unemployment is increasing rapidly despite politicians and media pundits claiming were in recovery and of course politicians are borrowing and spending like drunken sailors.

We Have riots in Europe and the UK as students are mad the government wants to cut back the education subsidies and make them pay more as governments all over the world are bankrupt and running the printing presses or credit card so to speak to pay the bills. And yes Australia too they just had more room to inflate then the US but are in the same boat and will catch up soon.

While it’s possible things could change nothing has and there is no indication any of the people that need to be the catalyst for change are even considering it. At some point the unemployment will reach a critical mass and then you will have a bunch of pissed off people with nothing left to lose.

I just feel people need to prepare for a time in the near future when there will be no jobs and food etc will be scarce. I don’t see it heading any other way. If something changes to save the day great but in the meantime were on our own for a good stretch and were going to have to reap what we have sown as a people I think.

Hate to be gloomy and I still have a strange optimism at the eventual outcome but the in between is not going to be fun and what we see now is just barely the tip of the iceberg. Thoughts?

JJ
Unless some turnaround occurs we are indeed headed toward financial catastrophe. One just has to do the math on the increasing interest payments we are making on our debt.

There are ways to turn things around and perhaps the only real solution will come from the people themselves as politicians seem to lose all touch with common sense after they get settled into office. The new crop shows some promise but we’ll have to wait and see.

Mentally it seems logical that I should be placing all my energy into organizing something to incorporate some of the changes I have written about but my soul tells me that the time is not quite right and wait for a season. I do not think the time is far off as more people are looking for solutions as time passes.

As to where the masters or initiates are it appears that not many high on the scale have entered politics as there doesn’t seen to be much light in he halls of Congress.

An amazing number thought that Obama was a master or high initiate. His ability to read a teleprompter well seemed to have misled many. Thankfully you and I were not among them. Now, even many of his supporters are coming to the conclusion that he is in way over his head.

So, if Obama was not a master or high initiate then where are they – or do such entities avoid politics completely?

If we want to find any initiates among politicians we must know what to look for. What kind of approach would be taken by a lofty soul who is in politics? The masters focus on the line of Love/Wisdom and can be found on the plane of the mind so a high initiate would use logic and reason tempered with love.

Anyone working with the forces of light would show these qualities.

(1) He or she would not support the idea of continually spending more money than we have and strapping the next generation with high interest payments.

(2) He would support the principle of freedom and thus work to run the country on the lowest possible tax rate giving people freedom to invest their own money.

(3) He would not seek for excessive regulation and quality of laws but only essential ones.

(4) He would not use the poor and unemployed to increase his power base but sincerely seek to assist them in ways that will get the willing back into productivity.

(5) He would be a true environmentalist. He would not use the environment as a weapon to increase political power or raise taxes but seek to aid the environment in common sense ways.

(6) He would not be black and white but willing to use the principle of judgment as situations change.

(7) If he is an initiate then he will be working on initiating something new.

That said – let me throw this out to the group.

First, do you agree with the above seven points? If not what criteria would you use?

Secondly, can you think of any one involved in politics who you think could be an agent for the Brotherhood of light?

If the answer is yes then why do you think this?

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2013, Part 8

July 6, 2013 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 8 of 25 in the series 2013

March 20, 2013

Aquaponics

I came across something new that Blayne and some others may already know about. It’s called aquaponics. Here is a brief definition of it:

“Aquaponics is the combination of a Aquaculture and Hydroponics. In these semi-closed systems, water flows between a fish tank and a plant growing bed. The fish waste in the water is used to supply nutrients to the plants. The plants and micro-organisms clean the water that is returned to the fish tank. This provides a mutual beneficial environment for both the fish and the plants, and results in two crops (the fish and the plants).”

Benefits of aquaponics?

Aquaponics uses less than 5% of the water that traditional farming does.

Aquaponics is energy-efficient: our current systems use one-tenth of the energy conventional farming does!

Aquaponic produce can be grown year-round in almost any climate in an Aquaponic Solar Greenhouse

Aquaponics has eight to ten times more vegetable production in the same area and time.

Aquaponic systems with mosquito fish eradicate mosquitoes in a LARGE surrounding area!

Aquaponics is fully scalable from indoor systems to backyard family systems to full commercial systems.

Aquaponics is pure, clean, and natural: USDA Certified Organic and Food Safety Certified.

Aquaponics is easy to learn and operate: anyone can do this!

I first came across it in an internet infomercial ad that sold it on the idea of being a way to produce food for yourself if society were to have a total breakdown. I did some Googling and found several helpful links. Here is a youtube video that gives a good idea how the system works.

Here is a site that sells various systems.

And here is the infomercial I watched. It is interesting to listen to but fairly long:

They sell instructions to build your own system and supposedly save big bucks.

If anyone in the group has any knowledge or experience with this please share with us.

March 22, 2013

More Threats to Freedom Part 2

This continues my treatise.

(5) The freedom of belief. Ryan Rotela attends a University in Florida and struggles to do well in classes as well as live his religion. Then one day he was put to the test.

His professor, Deandre Poole, who is also a Democrat party official, gave some strange commands to his class.

First, he told the students to take out a blank sheet of paper and write the word JESUS in bold letters. This order seemed strange to Ryan but he complied.

Next his teacher instructed them to place the piece of paper on the floor face up. This also seemed odd but Ryan complied.

Finally he ordered the students to stomp on the word Jesus in front of them.

This was too much for Ryan. He refused and picked up the sheet of paper instead.

He thought the order was outrageous and complained to school officials. Instead of reprimanding the professor they turned on Ryan and suspended him from the class.

Perhaps, even more disturbing than this was that Ryan was the only one who objected to stomping on Jesus.

Read the story here and watch the video.

This is just one of many examples that comes over the media of how the freedom to follow one’s own harmless beliefs are being threatened within our society. Here are a few:

Not only is prayer outlawed in schools but even the mention of God or Christ is largely prohibited. Some schools do not allow religious or even patriotic symbols to be worn. Kids have been sent home or chastised for wearing shirts bearing the American flag or even flag pins.

Nothing of a religious nature is allowed to be held on any public property. This was not the way the Founders interpreted the separation of church and state for in the early days of the Republic the local courthouse was often used for church and spiritual meetings of all kinds. Prayer was common everywhere and there were lots of Bibles in all schools. Even the hated early Mormon missionaries were often allowed to hold meetings in public property.

It ay be true that the State embraced religion a bit too much for the modern tastes of the majority, but now they have gone the other extreme and are acting as an agent to mold belief and suppress that which they deem undesirable.

Big brother decides that its sanctioned beliefs are to be presented and others are not thus restricting the free choice of students.

For instance, there are scientific arguments for and against Intelligent Design, but only one side is allowed, which is the atheist view.

The Powers-That-Be are big believers in orthodox climate change theory and again only seek to have one side presented.

Then the overwhelming majority of teachers and professors are Democrats and openly give their political views in class while the more conservative views are either ridiculed or penalized.

We are supposed to be living in a free society and in a free society there must be tolerance of people expressing their views and both sides presented. We must be allowed to live our spiritual lives without hindrance from the beast of unjust authority.

March 22, 2013

Re: The freedom of belief

The problem here was not that the kid was merely ordered to stomp on a sheet of paper with words on it. Yes it is true that if one sees the paper in that way no harm is done. It wouldn’t be much different than stomping on a picture of Hitler or opening a book.

There are two things at play that you are overlooking.

(1) If faced with such an order few would look at the command as merely stomping on a sheet of paper. If ordered to stomp on Jesus, a picture of your kid, your wife or your mother, few would just see the exercise as just stomping on a sheet of paper.

The command would obviously be an affront to what 99% of humanity would consider decent and would be a humiliating thing to be forced to do.

(2) Secondly, even though I could take the viewpoint of the observer and see the thing as a mere piece of paper I would consider it an affront on my free agency and normal human respect. Most likely the teacher sees the representation of Jesus as being more than just ink – as something he wants to diminish. What is his motive here? Why Jesus – why not Mohammed, Obama or anyone else? Perhaps if he, being a Democrat, first demonstrated his open mindedness by stomping on a picture of Obama he would be somewhat justified in his class exercise.

I would consider it an insult to be forced to make the symbol of stomping on a representation of any human which is interpreted by all in the room as making a statement that this particular human has no value. I would refuse a silly command like this just for the principle of the thing.

March 23, 2013

Intelligent Design Questions

—JJ— For instance, there are scientific arguments for and against Intelligent Design, but only one side is allowed, which is the atheist view. ——–

Nathan In order for an idea to be scientific, possibly the most important quality it must have is that it be falsifiable. Intelligent Design is not falsifiable (capable of being tested and proven true or false by experiment or observation). There is no experiment, test, or analysis you can make to reveal evidence that could challenge ID. This is mainly due to the fact that the elements of this “theory” are too vague, which is another reason why ID is not science. It is missing the “How does it work?” component. At most, ID belongs in a philosophy class, but not in science classes.

JJ It sounds like you are talking about the Big Bang which is considered valid scientific theory. It cannot be tested or proven true or false and not all scientists accept the theory. What caused the Big Bang is more vague than the Intelligent Design teaching and it is missing “How does it work?” According to your thinking this should be resigned to a philosophy class.

But it is not. Even though no scientist can demonstrate a Big Bang can happen with no intelligent direction it is still taught in our schools.

That pretty much destroys your reason Intelligent Design should be ignored as a cause.

Isaac Newton, acknowledged by most as the greatest scientist of all time believed that Intelligent Design is proven by observation which means he saw it as falsifiable. He believed that observation alone of the eye or the ear provided overwhelming evidence that an intelligent designer was at play.

Whenever I consider our bodies and how wonderful is their design I marvel at the fact that there can be even one human in existence, possessed with any intelligence at all, that cannot see that some intelligence was behind its creation.

As I said, if you stumble across an iPod in a forest would you assume the elements just came together on their own and created it? Would that be a scientific conclusion? I don’t think so.

There are good scientific arguments for Intelligent Design. A good book to read is “Signature in the Cell” by Stephen C. Meyer. He presents a lot more scientific evidence for intelligent Design than I have ever seen against it.

—JJ— The Powers-That-Be are big believers in orthodox climate change theory and again only seek to have one side presented. ——–

Nathan Remember weeks ago? I posted that article which showed that as far as the scientific community which studies this phenomenon goes, there really is only one side to this argument.

JJ That is an amazing statement concerning a subject with two definite sides. I’d say that 30,000 scientists signing a petition that disagrees with orthodox global warming theory definitely demonstrates there are two sides to the argument. Check this out:

Let’s review our dialog. Note that what the scientists you referenced agreed upon was not even part of the argument posed by skeptics.

You wrote: The Web of Science is a database with articles from a little over 10,000 academic journals. Of that entire database, 13,950 articles can be found on the subject of climate change. Only 23 articles reject global warming or reject global warming as a man-made phenomenon.

JJ I’m surprised they found 23 fitting their criteria which is: “To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming.”

Every knowledgeable skeptic including myself would have to side with the majority here. Of course, over the past century there has been warming and man made emissions has been a partial cause. The disagreement isn’t over this technicality but on how much of a cause CO2 is and whether the apocalyptic doctrines they promote are probable. Maybe we should worry more about being hit by an asteroid and concentrate more on preparing for that than global warming. After all, global warming has never destroyed most of the life on earth. (End Quote)

If the religious orthodox global warming political theory is taught in schools then the scientific skeptical side should also be presented. Otherwise, it is like teaching only addition in math class and never teaching the kids how to subtract.

As far as ideology affecting teaching, yes it happens on both sides but the Left has by far the majority of control here. I refer to a previous article on the subject.

One point to make is that Intelligent Design is different from what is called Creation Science. The latter usually assumes that the earth was created in six days and is less than 10,000 years old. This is not scientifically supportable. Intelligent Design merely states that there is strong evidence that life was created by a higher intelligence. This is in harmony with esoteric thought.

March 23, 2013

Re: The Freedom of Belief

Dan: Your point number (1) is answered in my original reply (and again above). I said that in the absence of additional information, _I_ PERSONALLY would look at it that way and didn’t find it all that disturbing _BUT_ (essentially) that others might and I could understand that.

JJ Let me put it this way. Actions are communication symbols just as words are. To stomp on a picture or name is to issue a statement that this person is despised and hated.

Now let us say that the paper contained a picture of your mother and you were ordered at one time to stomp on it and at another time to state before the class that you despise and hate your mother.

What is the difference?

Nothing.

If you love your mother this means you are being asked to lie or make an untrue statement a thing which goes against the code of any disciple.

If it were the name of Jesus, Mohammed or even Obama I would not do it because I do not hate any of them.

If there was some greater purpose involved I could see the image as just a piece of paper or the words as just vibrations but that would be a rare circumstance.

On the other hand, many in the Middle East burn the American flag in disrespect and are being honest because they really do hate us.

Dan: Well, then I must hate/despise not only my mother but most of the rest of my family to include myself 🙂

There are a bunch of framed photographs on my livingroom wall of me, my mother, brothers and several other family members.

I regularly shoot these pictures between the eyes with my handgun/laser for trigger control practice, maintaining a proper sight picture, practicing stance, draw and etc.

I’m sure a psychiatrist would have a field day!

JJ I’m sure you do not see shooting a harmless laser at family photos in the same light as an ex wife burning or stomping on her husband’s photos as far as communication goes. On the other hand, it would be different if a beastly authority ordered you to shoot with either a laser or a bullet a picture of Marcie between the eyes as an acknowledgement of what you or he you think of her. I think the guy in the class felt that stomping on Jesus was an acknowledgement that Jesus was a worthless dude.

March 24, 2013

Thinking Makes It So

Dan’s comments on Jesus and shooting pictures reminds me of a scene from Hamlet by Shakespeare:

Hamlet: What have you, my good friends, deserv’d at the hands of Fortune, that she sends you to prison hither?

Guildenstern: Prison, my lord?

Hamlet: Denmark’s a prison.

Rosencrantz: Then is the world one.

Hamlet: A goodly one, in which there are many confines, wards, and dungeons, Denmark being one o’ th’ worst.

Rosencrantz: We think not so, my lord.

Hamlet: Why then ’tis none to you; for there is nothing either good or bad, but thinking makes it so. To me it is a prison.

Is it true that thinking determines whether a thing is good or bad?

In what context would it be true and when would it be false?

March 25, 2013

Was Jesus Wrong?

Tom writes: How can Jesus Christ be wrong about the mustard seed? If he was really a 6th degree initiative then why did he not know there was seeds smaller then a mustard seed that can be sown?

JJ This is certainly not something I would lose sleep over no matter who said it for the purpose of the conversation was not to find the smallest seed on the earth but to illustrate how the Kingdom of God will begin as a small thing and grow into something great.

A problem with analyzing this is we do not know the exact words that Jesus used when referring to the mustard seed. The Gospels were written down from memory decades after Jesus spoke the words and who knows how accurate they are.

Your post quoted from Mark as follows:

Mark 4:30 And he said, Whereunto shall we liken the kingdom of God? or with what comparison shall we compare it? Mark 4:31 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which, when it is sown in the earth, is less than all the seeds that be in the earth: Mark 4:32 But when it is sown, it groweth up, and becometh greater than all herbs, and shooteth out great branches; so that the fowls of the air may lodge under the shadow of it.

On the other hand, Luke words the account quite differently: Luke 13:18 Then said he, Unto what is the kingdom of God like? and whereunto shall I resemble it? Luke 13:19 It is like a grain of mustard seed, which a man took, and cast into his garden; and it grew, and waxed a great tree; and the fowls of the air lodged in the branches of it.

Notice that in Luke’s account that Jesus said nothing about the size of the seed. It is quite possible that this is closer to his original words and other writers just embellished what he said.

But what if Jesus did say that the mustard seed is the smallest. This was a logical presentation as far as I can see for the mustard seed with the smallest seed with which the people were familiar. If he had identified the true smallest seed in the world the people would have been confused and the parable would not have had much meaning.

But the black mustard seed (Brassica nigra = Sinapis nigra) was the smallest seed ever sown by a first-century farmer in that part of the world according to some scholars.

Whatever the case, the mustard seed was probably the smallest seed that Jesus knew about and the contrast between its beginning and end made for a good example to illustrate the truth of his thinking.

Jesus probably didn’t have a clue as to what the real smallest seed on earth was. Neither do I and I do not care.

March 26, 2013

Re: Thinking Makes It So

The questions: Is it true that thinking determines whether a thing is good or bad?

In what context would it be true and when would it be false?

We’ve had lots of good comments on this assignment – too many for me to comment on so I’ll just add a few of my own.

The individual’s thinking definitely determines whether a thing is good or evil in his own mind and thinking.

For instance, the teacher that ordered his students to stomp on the name of Jesus thought it was a good thing to do.

On the other hand, the student who resisted had different thoughts. He saw this as a bad thing to do.

The only difference in how the two people saw good or evil in the act was determined by their thought.

This principle also applies to groups. For instance, the Nazis as a group thought that it was a good thing to exterminate the Jews. On the other hand, the Jews had a different outlook. They definitely saw their persecution and extermination as very evil.

So Shakespeare was correct as far as good or evil is interpreted by individual or group consciousness.

Now we need to look at the bigger picture and ask if the Nazis belief that killing Jews as being a good thing really meant that it was a good thing to do?

To understand the answer we must define the principle of good and evil. We have previously defined good as that which moves us forward in our spiritual progression and freedom and evil that which takes us backward.

Therefore, the Nazis were definitely doing an evil act, even though they thought it was good. Taking an innocent life interferes with the path of the soul whose life is taken and the one taking the life suffers loss of soul contact and gains karma.

Now let us apply this to the assignment to stomp on Jesus. One thing that interferes with spiritual progression is to interfere with free will. For the students in the class who cared less about Jesus there was no problem. They could stomp on the name of Jesus, have a good laugh and their free will would not be infringed. On the other hand, the teacher’s command violated Ryan’s free will as the idea of disrespecting his messiah was repugnant to him and the teacher had to know that some would feel this way. This violation of free will puts his command in the evil category.

Let us suppose that the whole class was composed of atheists who didn’t care about Jesus. Would the order to stomp on his name be good, bad or neutral?

In this case it would not be nearly as bad as the violation of free will but stomping on the name of an honorable person is a sign of disrespect. The teacher is assisting in conditioning the students to not respect good people and if this happens on a large scale civilization deteriorates placing such actions in the evil category. It may be slightly evil if done infrequently but could lead to a great evil if people are conditioned with hate and disrespect over and over.

March 26, 2013

Good Grief

As if the university is not making a big enough fool of themselves they are now adding further disciplines to Ryan who was ordered to stomp on Jesus. This kid is providing good PR for Mormons who are looked upon as not believing in Jesus by many Christians.

March 29, 2013

Re: Pregnancy (or not) & Intention

Sarah asks: How can I control whether I conceive or not with no traditional contraception?

JJ First, most are familiar with the Rhythm method. This doesn’t require any extra sensory perception and is not 100% reliable.

What you are referring to is the process of tuning into your body so you can tell when it is ready to conceive or not conceive. If the seekers are tuned into their bodies during sex they can tell when a conception will occur and if they do not want a baby they can avoid impregnation.

There are two problems with this.

First, this method of tuning in is taught nowhere of which I am aware so the seeker is left on his own to perfect it.

Secondly, even if you believe in and like the concept you have no guarantee that you will have control over conception. Before this occurs the seeker must practice tuning into his body. One thing you can do is when you decide you want to get pregnant try to tune into your body when having sex and attempt to registe5r the moment when conception occurs. When you realize what this feels like you have made a large advance in the direction of being sensitive enough to control your time of conception.

Since there are not normally a lot of time periods where one is trying to get pregnant one must practice sensitivity in other areas. One way to increase body sensitivity is to pay attention to all things you eat and take into your body. This includes food, food supplements, vitamins, herbs, beverages and medicines. Shortly after you ingest something, especially if you haven’t had it for a while, see if you can tune into how your body is responding to it. Does it like it or not? Is your sense of well being greater or less?

Until the seeker becomes confidently sensitive he or she is better off using conventional birth control means. If a copper Paraguard IUD is causing problems I would switch to something else.

You might want to talk with your doctor and tell him you want to switch to another method and see what he recommends. Also google something like “safe birth control” and lots of things will come up.

In the coming age classes will be taught hat will assist students in tuning into their bodies and assuming greater control but for now we all have to plow with the horses we have.

Good luck.

March 30, 2013

Interesting Articles

I read a couple interesting articles today. Take a look:

How the Massacre of 40,000 Elephants Could Lead to the End of Global Warming

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

The Principle of Freedom

August 16, 2012March 24, 2018 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 04 of 98 in the series Principles

Principle Four: The Principle of Freedom

The principle of freedom is a mystery just as most principles are. Why? Because it takes a certain degree of consciousness to apply the second key of judgment to understand and apply it.

When freedom is discussed among all people of divergent views it is interesting to note that all of them see themselves as struggling for freedom, even those who are enslaving others. Hitler often spoke of freedom. The Taliban speaks of their own freedoms. The Old South maintained they needed slaves to insure their own freedom. Abraham Lincoln noted this and observed that some people have a pretty strange idea of what freedom is.

Some think that freedom can only exist in a state of anarchy, but this is illusion for it takes a number of laws to insure the maximum freedom of the whole.

Others think we need laws to cover every detail of living to insure freedom, but too many laws and rules hinder freedom.

There are those who think life is not fair so they make restrictive laws to make everyone equal thinking greater freedom will result. This usually results in less fairness and diminished freedom for the whole.

The problem with freedom is that people view it from their own restricted vision. Instead of looking at it from its effect on the whole they look at it from the view of their own little isolated world. It may be true that a man could have had a slave and the slave helped him have a temporary increase in his own physical freedom, but the whole was less free.

The problem with freedom is we are looking for the manifestation of maximum freedom for the whole and to obtain this there has to be some restrictions on the individual. For instance, the individual burglar must not be given the freedom to break into homes. On the other hand, too many restrictions will suffocate freedom. Only those who see the fine point of balance in the middle and how the whole is affected will understand.

What is true freedom then? Again, it is the removal of restrictions either imaginary or real, so the power of decision has complete freedom within the sphere of its plan. Thus the true principle of freedom lies in the idea that the soul energy to accomplish is released so its life can flow through the ideas and thoughts of the pilgrim until all desires are fulfilled.

No matter what your belief system there will come trials in harmonizing the Principle of Freedom with personal feelings.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against abortion must allow the woman her freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against gays living together must allow them that freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against illegal drugs must allow the user his freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against Neo-Nazis promoting their doctrines must allow them that freedom of choice whether that choice be right or wrong.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against cutting down trees must allow others the freedom of choice within their own sphere whether that choice be right or wrong — as long as no great harm is done to the earth.

He who believes in the Principle of Freedom yet is against rules being laid down in a school, group or business must allow others freedom of choice within their own sphere of activity whether that choice be right or wrong — for the seeker retains the choice to work for another company, join another group or take another class.

Each potential disciple will have some final temptation to support the unreasonable restriction of others in the name of promoting his personal desire to see that which is good triumph. The deception is that true good can only magnify in an atmosphere of maximum possible freedom.

So the principle that the gathered lights will always apply is maximum freedom for the whole. The only time any freedom is taken away from the individual is when it increases the freedom for the whole. Like I say, we take away the burglar’s freedom because the burglar takes away the freedom of the whole so by taking away the burglar’s freedom we increase the freedom for the whole. The principle involved with freedom is the wholeness aspect; maximum freedom for the whole. The seat belt law is a simple little thing but it’s totally unnecessary to have a $200 fine for a seat belt infraction. It may force us to buckle up but on the other hand it creates big brother telling us what to do with outward authority over our lives.

What we need to develop is power to have our on personal freedom and do what is right because we decide to do what is right. We do right because we see what is right; to help our fellow man because we want to help our fellow man. By doing these things we can enhance the flow of the energy of God because the energy of the Holy Spirit operates on total freedom.

Where freedom is taken away, the Holy Spirit does not flow. People have gone to very oppressed nations and visited them, particularly Russia when it was totalitarian and was in full power-it’s a lot better now than it was-but when people have gone and visited these oppressed nations, people look depressed, they don’t talk to each other, there is no flow of ideas. They’re afraid that somebody will report what they’ve said. They’re afraid all the time. There is a spirit of fear. They’re doing what’s right maybe, according to the state, but they have no freedom.

The greatest evil is always generated when people are forced to do what is right. The force to do what is right has so much power behind it because they say, “We need to create a law to make this happen.” People say, “That would be good. Let’s go ahead and do it.” They don’t even think about the principle of freedom involved. They never argue the principle of freedom. When our legislators are talking about passing laws, they never think they’re taking away freedom. The argument is always over making people do what’s right. If they would only argue over what the maximum freedom would be generated. How can we make the law so freedom will not be infringed, freedom of the whole will be amplified rather than held back. There are, like I said, a small handful of laws for robberies and rapes and murders and these types of laws, are good for people but there are so many laws that infringe freedom.

The principle of freedom applies to a lot of things, even teachers, such as myself. If a teacher such as myself didn’t believe in the principle of freedom then he would attempt to set himself up as an authority over a group to control them.

“The Americans have need of the telephone, but we do not. We have plenty of messenger boys.”

— Sir William Preece, chief engineer of the British Post Office, 1876

Go to Principle Five

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Kalispell Gathering 2006, Part 31

March 3, 2010April 2, 2011 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 16 of 24 in the series Kalispell Gathering 2006

JJ: Okay let’s get back to the gathering principle. The gathering principle is that the cream of the crop is gathered and produces something new. The people came out of the kingdoms and came to America and when they got here they did not want a duplicate of what King George, France, or what the rest of Europe had. They wanted a system where there was freedom of expression, freedom of speech, freedom of religion, freedom of the press, so they created this system where there was much more freedom of movement. What we did was evolve from the tribal system to the kingdom system to the competitive system and this is what we are in right now and in many ways it is not competitive enough. We have not really lived through it completely but we are foreshadowing the next system and what is the next system?

Audience: Co-operative system

JJ: Correct, the co-operative system. The co-operative system is foreshadowed in a lot business we see among us. For one thing we see that employees are becoming more involved. The suggestion box began how long ago, maybe in the early part of the last century. Now we are at the point where they are listening more to the employees at the bottom. Employees at the bottom are now getting the option to buy stock and this makes the employees owners. And this is the way it should be in the co-op system where everybody is an owner. Boise, as you know, is the headquarters for Albertson’s, one of the largest supermarket chains in the world. Until recently Albertson’s in Boise had a goal to monopolize Boise since it was their hometown. They put a lot work, energy and money to make sure that they controlled Boise. They chased out Safeway, Smith’s, they put just about every competitor out of business and it reached a point in Boise where all we had was Albertson’s and a couple little tiny independent stores.

If you wanted to go shopping you had to go to Albertson’s and the prices were very high. People would come from California and say, the prices are higher in Idaho than they are in California, I would say that is because Albertson’s has a monopoly here in Boise because it is their home turf. Well a chain started and it was called WINCO. It is interesting that all the employees had stock and were co-owners, had good health insurance, were treated very well. And the great part about WINCO was their prices were very reasonable, if you took two shopping carts full of the same kind of food one from Albertson’s and the other from WINCO, the WINCO cart would be much cheaper.

It took a while for people to catch on, but now the place is packed with shoppers and now what is Albertson’s doing? They are lowering their prices and coming up with all kinds of schemes, Fred Meyers and Wal-Mart has also come in and so Albertson’s is fighting for their life in Boise where a few years ago they had a monopoly.

What was interesting was what toppled this authoritative grocery store was a small co-operative grocery store. People getting together and deciding to make the employees part owners so they would get more involved. I do not know how this involvement made the prices so much cheaper but you could go to Albertson’s and get oranges for say 90 cents a pound and you would find them at WINCO for 40 cents a pound. The difference was amazing in the price. So this is new system that can come in and beat the competitive system. Now there is competition involved but you have this co-op as the main thrust which toppled this large grocery store chain, Albertson’s.

So co-operation will be the main difference between now and when the new age is fully in. Co-operation will cause the cost of living and expenses to go down so much that we will have a lot more time to the things we like. One of the problems that we have is most people have many creative things that they would like to do but you do not have the time because you are concentrating on making money. Imagine if we could make all the money we needed just working 20 hours a week. If we could do that then we would have the free time to do the other things that we would like to do and when you think about it the products that really add to the value of our civilization are manufactured by about 9% of the people of the world. The manufacturing say of this microphone adds to the value of our civilization. Susan is a real estate agent and she is not adding to the value of anything what she is doing is taking the value and moving it around. Many of us do this in our jobs. We take the things that are backed by hard value and move them around. We have an enormous amount of our employees moving wealth around or working in a bureaucracy that governs wealth. Anyone know what percentage of Americans work for the government? I think it is somewhere around 30%. Do what it is in Denmark Annie?

Annie: More than 30% and those who make $45,000 a year they have to pay 60% to 65% in taxes.

JJ: Probably more than 30% work for governments in most of Europe and that accounts for a big chunk of taxes that is taken out of your income. We are taxed today more than the slaves in the Roman Empire had to pay. It is amazing Annie is so cheerful. So we have about 30% of the people watching, taxing and figuring out how to tax the wealth more and spending the wealth – figuring out how one part of society can benefit another. They do not create wealth or increase wealth. They just try to figure out what to do with the wealth that others create. Many of the bureaucracies are created to just appease somebody. Even in a regular business like HP or Micron could be streamlined and not have so much bureaucracy. The longer a company is in business the more bureaucracy it has. The newer business has a streamlined bureaucracy and the older business operates more like the government does.

Then I think that there is about 5% in farming that are making something that is worth something and about 9% in making something else that is worth something. So you have about 14% of the population making something that is worth something and the rest just moving it around and trying to control it. Let’s say everybody that is moving wealth around or controlling it make something that is worth something and we share that responsibility. We could have double the wealth we have with just working 20 hours a week, especially with the technology we have and new technology is being developed all the time that is decreasing the amount of labor that is needed. If we keep up at that pace then in a few years we would only have to work 10 hours a week. But let’s suppose we only had to work 20 hours a week. Then we could have time to do what we want.

Many people do not want to spend their time writing or reading books, a lot of people would like to contribute to society in another way like using Wayne’s idea of helping with education, or helping with doctors in medical support – doing something that does not require a lot of training. Others could make sure the parks are clean, the point being that if we only worked 20 hours a week many people would be happy to volunteer their time to help in a lot of ways.

Now the Mormon church which I have criticized in the past does one thing that I find very interesting and that is they get a lot of volunteers for labor, and many of the people work 60 hours a week at a regular job. They have these church farms and it is all done by volunteer labor. Teaching is all done by volunteers and preaching is all done by volunteers.

Volunteers do all the jobs of the church, and it is not always efficient but it always gets done. They have a welfare system that is completely volunteer labor so where it might cost the government a dollar to give away a dollar, it costs the Mormon Church zero dollars to give away a dollar. They have a lot of faults in many ways but in this way they have set an example of what can be done with volunteers. These are volunteers that are working like crazy at other jobs. Imagine if we had a society that only had to work 20 hours a week or less and then had all this free time. Instead of having an attorney come in and charge all this money we could have volunteers who could run the legal system and negotiate and settle all kinds of problems. There are all kinds of ways that would save money and would bring our taxes way down and the money that we do give in taxes could be spent more efficiently. That is just a few ideas to start with.

Morya School Attitudes

March 1, 2010December 27, 2010 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 7 of 62 in the series 2010

Morya School Attitudes
Posted July 10, 2010

Way to dig in there Larry with the Morya School.

You will find that over 90% of New Agers as well as DK readers are quite liberal and are unaware that DK supported a number of conservative issues.

Among them are

(1) The use of nuclear energy for power
(2) The dropping of the atomic bombs on Japan.
(3) He was against the inclusion of totalitarian states within the UN or giving them any power.
(4) He put a lot of emphasis on freedom.
(5) He was against totalitarian states
(6) He supported a strong defense and showed a willingness to go to war for the cause of freedom.

He was against orthodox liberals in a number of ways;
(1) He was against compromising with totalitarian dictators.
(2) He thought the peace at any price people were dismally mislead.
(3) He said nothing in support of big government as we have it today.

He did condemn capitalists who accumulated large amounts of wealth and used it for political power. What liberal DK readers overlook is that the most wealthy people in the country now are Democrats, not Republicans – men such as Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Waren Buffet and many others. The liberals are in bed with the big money power brokers as much or more than the conservatives whereas the conservatives support the small business people and are supported by them. These were not condemned by DK.

Another point is that the big corporations do not have the power they had when DK did his writings. A company like McDonalds could have never been successfully sued by a woman who merely spilled hot coffee on her and the car companies were rarely liable for car crashes. BP could have gotten away with spilling oil to their hearts content.

DK does promote some liberal views, but they are common sense ones much unlike many of the liberals of today. Nowhere does he say we need to be taxed to death and then spend ourselves into oblivion. This process is the hallmark of modern liberal thinking.
Copyright 2010 by J J Dewey

Questions

March 1, 2010December 28, 2010 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