The Seeker’s Guide to Soul Contact, Part 12

Day 115

The Intelligent Designer

The beast of unjust authority does all it can to insure that only one side is represented and presented – his side. When the choice is between light and dark he will be against the light and support the dark. In addition, he will be against freedom and support suppression, against truth and support distortion, against God and for atheism.

The irony is that the beast will claim to be a champion of light, truth and freedom. and many fall for this illusion while he subtly subverts them all.

As far as belief goes the beast controls both ends of the spectrum. He convinces those who believe in God that his agents speak for God and can tell followers what God wants them to do and believe. Those who do not believe still seek authority and he delivers it through other belief systems such as one where the state replaces God.

In modern times society has been moving away from many illogical religious beliefs and the beast has been adapting. After all, his ultimate goal is to have his representatives be the final authority in all things and in this any real contact with God or the soul is to be shunned as fantasy.

The beast has been quite successful in securing his authoritative system in our educational enterprise. His first line of attack is to suppress any teaching or belief in God, especially as the Creator. This is done in the name of fairness, in that it would be unfair to present one religious belief over another. It is also done in the name of science. Representatives of the beast tell us that any belief in God is not logical or scientific.

Therefore when students learn about theories of creation they only hear one side – whatever is accepted by the authorities of the state.

The beast is playing off the accepted and just idea that it would not be productive to mix religious indoctrination with education. Parents do not want their kids being preached to at school. But a basic belief in a creator is a common thread running through all religions and is much more prevalent than atheism. Around 90% of Americans believe in an Intelligent Designer yet any talk of such an intelligence is forbidden to be discussed in our public schools and universities. If any teacher brings up the subject of intelligent design he is likely to lose is job.

The beast has been very successful in eliminating any debate or consideration of intelligent design in our schools and presenting a very distorted image of what is sought for. What is sought for by fair minded believers is, not to present religion, but to present the science and logic of both sides of the equation.

For instance, the human cell is more complex than the most advanced computer and is as full of industry as a large city. There are many pieces that fit together like a light bulb in a socket.

Scientific theory tells us that something much more complex than a light bulb could just come together by natural means given a long enough time. But to make the bulb functional you have to have a socket to screw it into. They say this could also be naturally assembled over a long period of time.

But here is the really tricky thing. How could two complex pieces independently evolve that would perfectly fit together so the light bulb could precisionly screw into the socket. When you think about it this simple fit couldn’t just materialize in a billion or a trillion years without an intelligent hand at work. Even when the two pieces do fit the bulb will not work unless supplied with electricity. Many units in the cell have pieces fitting together which are supplied with electrical current.

The presentation of the scientific evidence for intelligence at work in creation is just as legitimate as standard scientific theory.

It is strange that intelligence in creation is so difficult for educators to accept when we see ironclad proof of it every day of our lives.

And where is the proof? Look in the mirror. Humans are intelligent and they create lots of things. If we are intelligence in matter that creates then why not consider that there is an intelligence in the universe itself that creates?

We would have a much more enlightened educational system if both sides of controversial ideas are presented and discussed.

Assignment: Ask yourself this question: “Does my Higher Self support giving credit to Divine Intelligence for the life I see around me?”

Affirmation: “I choose to see the hand of God.”


Day 116

Resist Dumbing Down

The beast was unable to stop the tide flowing toward universal education so he decided to lead the parade rather than continue fighting it. To continue his base of power he needs a high degree of ignorance. Since the public insists on education his solution is for his agents to be seen as champions of education while deflecting students away from learning useful information that will lead to true independent thinking.

The beast has two lines of attack to insure maximum ignorance.

The first is to dumb down courses so important facts and true principles are filtered out. The goal is for the kids to be “ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.”

Those who watched the Jay Leno interviews of the past and Jessie Watters and others in the present see that a high degree of ignorance has been achieved.

History in particular is under attack because we must learn from the past to avoid making the same mistakes over endlessly. The power of the beast depends on us repeating the same mistakes over and over so history is a subject that is under constant attack and revision.

I’ve watched TV personalities interviewing college students and asking them simple questions about which they were clueless. Many did not know who we fought during World War II, who fought in the Civil War or which century they were in. They did not know who we fought in the Revolutionary War or the time period involved. Others did not know who the vice president was.

Some think those interviews must be fake, but research has revealed they are not. Common Core did a poll a while back that revealed that around 40% of our students are just as deficient in history and political knowledge as the humorous interviews illustrated. For instance, 57% of the students didn’t have a clue as to the time period the Civil War was fought and 25% thought that Columbus discovered America after 1750. Even more disturbing is that 44% did not know the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Schools are switching way from the crucial events in history to politically correct ones. Some are advocating the ignoring of history before there Civil War. Our colleges are offering questionable courses that divert the kids from real learning such as:

  • “What If Harry Potter Is Real?”
  • “Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame”
  • “Philosophy And Star Trek”
  • “How To Watch Television”

In addition to diverting students away from real learning the students are spending much less time in study than in the past. They spend about 50% less time in individual study than they did a few decades ago.

The beast has been particularly interested in dumbing down the United States since it is the major power in the world that can stop the various tyrannies from spreading.

American students rank 17th in reading, 26th in math and 21st in science worldwide.

That is a sad state of affairs for the nation that put a man on the moon way back in 1969.

Perhaps a sign that more dumbing down is on the horizon is a new book coming out spearheaded by Professor Rochelle Gutierrez at the University of Illinois with collaboration of 40 educators promoting the idea that math is racist and a product of white privilege. “Mathematics itself operates as Whiteness,” she says. She tells us that we need to move away from recognizing excellence in math toward more subtle types of reasoning. It is strange she is critical of white students who are good at math when many Asian and Indian students excel even more.

She doesn’t seem to realize that none of our electronic devices we love so much would be available if we did not have many people of numerous races doing the math necessary for their creation.

Fortunately, there are several bright spots in education for those who desire to bypass the authority of the beast and excel in learning. While it is true that the internet and social media is a big distraction for many a few students are using it for research and learning. If one wants to learn he can find just about anything.

Extra systematic learning is there to be had for free or a reasonable cost.

A great free source is the Khan Academy. Students who need greater understanding of their materials or just want to branch out and learn can choose from hundreds of classes. Currently they have over 40 million students world wide and haven’t dumbed down their math at all. Salman Khan, the founder, is a non white of Indian heritage.

Assignment: I mentioned that there were two avenues of attack by the beast directed at education. The dumbing down of teaching is one. What do you suppose the other is?

Affirmation: “I learn that which I decide – not that which is decided for me.”


Day 117

A One-Sided Situation

Another line of attack used by the beast to maintain authority is the suppression of points of views that do not support his plan.

We have already mentioned that he suppresses any type of education that even mentions a creator in a positive light. The beast is also very one sided in his allowance of political views.

Now keep in mind that his main goal is to exert controlling authority over the souls of humanity and in the past has used both believers and non believers as well as both sides of the political spectrum to further his agenda to restrict freedom for all but his appointed authorities. Therefore, at any point in time we must examine where the suppression lies to see where his plan of attack is taking us.

When we look at statistics the direction is quite obvious.

When looking at the dominance of the left and right or Republicans and Democrats we see that Democrats dominate in education from the beginning of a students education. Among Preschool teachers 75% are Democrats and 26% Republicans. This dominance increases at the elementary level to 85% for Democrats and 15% Republicans. Then in High School there are 87% Democrats and only 13% Republicans.

If these numbers seem lopsided take a look at the dominance in our universities. The Econ Journal Watch in Sept 2016 published a study that looked at at faculty voter registration at 40 leading universities. It discovered that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is 11.5 to 1. The balance gets real crazy when we get to history professors where the ratio is 33.5 to 1. This is a disturbing trend when we discover that in 1968 the ratio was 2.7 to 1. The number of Democrats in domination has multiplied over a dozen times since then. A change like this would appear to be something engineered rather than a natural evolution.

This extreme dominance gives the left power to shape history in the minds of the students any way desired, and from studies of students’ knowledge of history it seems that they are not learning the same facts concerning real events as did their parents. What has happened has been a turning aside from regular historical studies to explore history related to politically correct trends at the sacrifice of a dispassionate study of major figures and events.

If these ratios were reversed we would still have problems for whenever you get such an imbalance bias and distortion creeps in.

This has shown up in our universities by the suppression of conservatives.

Some Republican students fear for their safety and good grades and find that they have to restrain themselves from talking politics as well as pretend to their teachers that they agree with them.

Conservative speakers are often not approved and if they do get an opportunity to speak they must be accompanied by massive security and are often shouted down.

For instance, in February 2017 the Berkeley College Republicans invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak but the event was abruptly canceled when masked left-wing anarchists rioted outside the event to shut it down. Then in April threats of violence shut down an Ann Coulter speech

Berkeley received quite a bit of criticism for this since, in the past it was seen as a bastion of free speech.

Then in September 2017 a Jewish conservative, Ben Shapiro was invited to speak by the college Republicans. You wouldn’t think he would have been much of a problem for the school as he is mild mannered, has a good reputation and as no scandals attached. He even worked against he election of Trump which should have scored him some points there. Even so intolerance showed itself and threats of violence surfaced. It turned out that the school had to spend about $600,000 on security for the event and still 9 students were arrested, three of them with weapons.

This shutting down of conservative speakers has been the most newsworthy problem created by one-sided dominance in education, but there are others. Reflect on what they may be and we will continue.

Affirmation: “I must look at both sides of an argument to see the whole truth.”


Day 118

The Controlling Agenda

One of the most effective tactics of the beast is to shut down free speech and debate. He picks a point of view, promotes it through his appointed authorities and tries to destroy anyone who challenges it. It matters not to him whether his doctrine is true or false. What matters is that it is not questioned. As a result a hodgepodge of material that is a mixture of truth and fiction is put in circulation.

The important thing is that the authorities in charge make this mixture appeal to the emotions of the masses so they can feel good supporting it while ridiculing those who may question.

From elementary through high school numerous one-sided views are promoted until the students arrive at college. It is here that the most powerful authorities rule who are not checked by parents and local school boards. Here is where there beast has the chance to place the final nail in the coffin of independent thinking.

This is disturbing for our universities of higher learning were once considered bastions of independent thought and debate. Now if anyone steps out of line they are accused of “micro aggression.” Students are now demanding “safe places” where they will be free from hearing any opinions not sanctioned by the beast.

We recently discussed a topic under the control of the beast which concerns the spiritual side of life and God. No consideration of God or Spirit is considered being open to serious discussion by the beast and his agents. If they are discussed at all it is with ridicule.

One example that illustrates the disrespect of the agents of the beast toward the spiritual happened at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. In an Intercultural Communications course Professor Deandre Poole ordered his students to write the word “Jesus” in bold letters on a sheet of paper, then place it on the floor, stand up and stomp on it.

Amazingly, only one student had the fortitude to defy the authority of the beast. Ryan Rotela, a Christian, questioned the action, and for refusing to cooperate and questioning the correctness of such an action, he was thrown out of the class.

The professor said he was merely following instructions in the textbook and had done it before so the question arises as to how many times this happened before one student voiced an objection.

Because of the publicity the professor received harsh criticism and the exercise was discontinued but every day many subtle attacks are made toward any spiritual belief in our halls of learning and students dare not contradict them, not only for fear of a bad grade, but fear of scorn from fellow classmates.

The beast is extremely adamant that only one side of the global warming debate be presented in the halls of learning. Any teacher who presents information to the contrary is risking his job and career.

The idea presented is that manmade climate change is an established fact so it is crazy to even consider another point of view. It would be like presenting evidence that the earth is flat, they say.

This is a false comparison as well as calling skeptics climate change deniers. This is silly for no one denies that climate changes. In addition many scientists doubt that man made climate changes poses the threat presented by orthodoxy. In the first 10 months of 2017 there have been 400 scientific papers presented that challenge orthodox theory. Here is a quote from the meteorologist Anthony Watts:

“During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

“These 400 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes. Climate science is not settled.

“Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.”


As it turns out those who take the orthodox approach work under the strong authority of the beast and if they come up with any contrary opinion they will be subject to ridicule and losing their jobs.

Almost all the scientists who are in the skeptical category are outside the authoritarian system giving them freedom to voice a contrary opinion.

So why does the beast come down so hard on the side of panic over global warming?

The answer lies in control. Authoritative control is always the goal and if he can convince the world that the threat is so dire that all the nations must be taxed to combat it then he has established a foothold for world control that would be difficult to dislodge.

I have studied both sides of the climate debate and there is valuable information to be had from looking at both presentations. Our schools should not be afraid to allow students to hear both sides of the debate. It would be helpful if all they did was allow a guest speaker to come in now and then and present a different point of view.

The mind expands when it is exposed to two sides of a debate and contracts when exposed to just one.

Continue reflecting on how the authoritative system hinders real education.

Affirmation: “I will find the truth that lies between the extremes.”


Day 119

The Importance of History

Not only does the teaching within our schools have a problem with presenting two sides of controversial issues, but they have a major problem with presenting the whole picture. This occurs somewhat in science, but is most pervasive in history.

I thought that the teaching of history was pretty bad when I was a student in the Sixties. They covered the subject reasonably well, but the textbooks were extremely boring and to pass tests we had to memorize dates, names and events that were often forgotten a short time later.

I didn’t realize that history could be fascinating until I read something on my own initiative. I bought a copy of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shirer. After a few pages into it I was riveted and by the time I had finished I realized that history can be very interesting after all if the writer concentrates on the story and why things happened the way they did instead if merely presenting dry details.

After reading the book I thought that it would be extremely valuable if every student would read it so we could learn from the past and prevent a threat liked Hitler from surfacing again.

As it is, in the world today many erroneously compare every leader they do not like to Hitler with little idea of who the real Hitler was.

I thought that there was a problem with the presentation of history in my day, but it is nothing like the one today. The presentation was dry, but at least we gained a few details about Western Civilization, the Revolutionary and Civil Wars and famous figures such as George Washington, Franklin and Lincoln.

Today many students do not have a clue who we gained independence from, what was the cause, or time period. My generation watched those interviews by Jay Leno displaying current ignorance and we wonder what they are learning in school.

Seeing this ignorance makes one think of the famous words of George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

If students who become the leaders of tomorrow do not know the historical causes of World War II and other disastrous situations, then the danger of repeating them is high. The unfortunate thing is a World War III involving nuclear weapons could spell the end of civilization as we know it. This makes the learning of accurate history much more important now than ever before.

There are two problems that create gaps in the teaching of history.

First attention has been diverted to politically correct history with emphasis on minority studies. This would be fine if they learned the major flow of events first, but this diversion fills much of there teaching time leaving very little to examine the important historical events in detail. Consequently, very little attention is focused on our great figures such as Washington and Lincoln. Some educators are even suggesting we leave out much of history that we find disagreeable.

True history consists of the good and bad and should be presented truthfully with all its warts so students can make a correct assessment of it.

The second problem is bias. Many educators desire certain people and events be minimized or completely left out so history will read the way they desire it to have been.

The soul sees only those things that are true so the seeker seeking guidance from his Higher Self indeed needs to feed his mind with true facts so an accurate picture can be formed.

Fortunately, there are a lot of good historical books out there that can fill in the gaps for those who missed out in school, but only a handful are willing to make the effort to obtain an accurate picture of the past.

The assignment today is to assess your own knowledge and views of history. How much of it does your soul confirm is accurate?

Affirmation: “The past is a key to controlling the future.”


Day 120

Judging the Past

Soul contact will not give you all the true details of history but it will give you a sense of what is true and false and help you see the picture that is painted by it.

The language of the soul is the language of principles, rather than data, and inner guidance can help the seeker see the cycles and evolution of society as it moves through them.

One of the things about history that needs to be corrected by the souls of men is the erroneous idea of judging the people of the past by the values of the present.

In this age people are very focused on racial justice and civil rights. Many look back into the past and judge historical figures by their current values. This is a grave mistake as they are missing an important ingredient that affects the human mind.

That ingredient is sometimes called “groupthink.” This is a similarity of thinking that controls a group, a nation and sometimes the whole world. People are thus controlled by thoughtforms energized by the thinking and belief of the masses. The beast to control most of the people in the world uses these thoughtforms.

The errors in the past were caused by this groupthink controlling the beliefs and attitudes of the people. Today’s society looks back and judges the leaders there negatively, not realizing they are also controlled, and more enlightened people of the future will look back on us and judge us as primitive thinkers in many ways.

The accusers do not realize how strong these thoughtforms are and how difficult it is to break free of them.

For instance, one may witness a friend caught up in a cult and cannot understand why they cannot see the truth and break free. They do not realize the power of the illusionary thoughtform unless they have broken free of one themselves.

What is little realized is that same power that holds a person imprisoned in a cult holds many average people in their own destructive and distorted illusions, yet they know it not.

Some of the most potent accusations from the present is toward men honored by their achievements, but were slaveholders. Numerous Founding Fathers come under attack. Famous founders who owned slaves were Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison.

Some that didn’t own them were John and Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine and Roger Sherman.

It is interesting that all the non slave holders were from the North where slavery was not so needed and most of the slaveholders were from the South.

Those who were slaveholders found themselves involved by inheritance or necessity to need slaves to make a living. Even so, famous founders who were slaveholders evolved to see that the holding others against their will was a great evil. This is one reason that the Constitution laid the foundation for the eventual freeing of the slaves.

Here is what the famous founding slaveholders said on the subject.

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.”

— Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

“[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”

— James Madison, Records of the Convention, August 25, 1787

The magnitude of this evil among us is so deeply felt, and so universally acknowledged, that no merit could be greater than that of devising a satisfactory remedy for it.

James Madison

“There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.”

— George Washington

Washington sought to free his slaves in his lifetime but did so in his death by granting them freedom in his will.

“Slavery is …an atrocious debasement of human nature.”

Benjamin Franklin

Franklin who owned slaves in his younger yeas saw the error in it and became an abolitionist in later years.

Today many condemn the Founders without realizing the great awakening they had when compared to previous generations.

Since the beginning of recorded civilization slavery has been the norm and all people high and low accepted it as a necessity. It prevailed among all nations and no significant body of men promoted the idea that slavery should be abolished. Even Jesus did not speak against it. The word “servant” in the New Testament can also be translated as slave and none of the early Christians or the Jews seemed to have a problem with the idea.

Paul even gave this advice:

“Servants, (From the Greek DOULOS meaning slave) be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.” Eph 6:5

It was the Founding Fathers who broke new ground in human freedom and to do so they had to go against the groupthink of thousands of years of history where not only blacks were enslaved but all races took their turn.

We cannot judge the righteousness of the people of the past by comparing them to present norms, but must realize the powerful influence of the standards of their time and judge them accordingly.

Assignment: Consider other ways that people of the past are unfairly judged.

Affirmation: “I will see through the other person’s eyes before I judge.”


Day 121

Seeing the Past as It Was

A truth from history that needs to be understood is that the righteousness of an individual or a people must be judged by the standards of virtue that were accepted at the time. Until recent times slavery was the norm and few judged anyone as being evil for having them. Having slaves was usually viewed as a sign of success. Someone who mistreated slaves may have been subject to criticism but owners were generally given a pass.

In the more developed parts of the ancient world, such as Rome and Athens, slavery was seen as a necessity, for the people felt that without the practice civilization and quality of life for citizens could not flourish.

When the scriptures and wise teachers speak against an evil the people will often make an attempt to practice it, but there was nothing in the scriptures that advocated the freeing of the slaves. This quest for freedom had to foment in the hearts of the people and become manifest through humanity’s own initiative.

Instead of condemning the Founding Fathers we should acknowledge their initiatives in planting the seeds of human freedom for all.

On the other hand, there have been evils in the past committed where the people should have known better. For instance, the church and state killed, tortured and imprisoned those who merely questioned religious authorities. Persecuting people for their beliefs ran contrary to everything their founder, Jesus, taught. The leaders used threatening punishment to maintain their hold on authority for the beast and this type of action should be condemned in any time period as it goes against the teachings of the prophets and wise teachers of the past.

We have made a lot of progress through humanity’s mere awakening and going beyond the good that is advocated in the Bible and other scriptures.

The right for the people to vote for their leaders was a huge step forward. Then, later, to include all races and the female sex was another advance.

Then we have the restraint of religious authorities from having direct power over the people though government due to a separation of church and state. This is a step forward.

Another step is to give all races, genders and beliefs equal; treatment under the law.

Of course, no system is perfect, but civilization has made many advances. When we look in the past we must judge the people by the beliefs they had then rather than our own vision of right and wrong.

The average person sixty years ago would be judged to be extremely racist by most people today. For instance, most did not accept interracial marriage. One reason was their religious beliefs but another I heard expressed more often when I was young was that the culture and thinking of the different races was so different that it would make the marriage difficult. Just like today there were some who didn’t like people who were different than themselves, but most held their views because of groupothink – just as we in this generation hold many of our views because that’s what we are supposed to think.

The beast of unearned authority has used this groupthink or thoughtforms to control the people throughout the ages. Then when we make an advance and start feeling righteous because we are more right thinking than our ancestors the beast taps in to a new thoughtform that controls us and groupthink that takes us away from soul contact remains. The beast is far from being destroyed through our advances. Instead, he has just moved his power base.

It is very important that the correct learning and understanding of history be taught to our students. Students, of course, need to learn the facts of history, but more than that they need to put themselves in the shoes of the people of the past. When we do this we can learn while resisting the temptation to see ourselves as superior, for we have our own breakthroughs to make. If we understand how progress was made in the past then this will give us more power to make progress in the present and free ourselves from the authority of the beast and his agents.

Next we will examine the relationship of the beast to science. You would think that science would be pretty black and white not giving in to unjust authority controlling what is taught and practiced, but think again. Contemplate how unjust, unearned authority manifests there.

Affirmation: “I will replace feelings of superiority with humility.”


Additional comment in response to reader:

The point of the article was not to defend slavery as this has always been an instrument for the beast and still is today from a higher angle. The point is that for thousands of years slavery was accepted by just about all civilizations and usually the slaves themselves, unless they were brutally treated. There were a handful of of rebels when the treatment was harsh, but it took some enlightenment to see the manipulation of the beast in olden times just as it does today. The point is that we cannot judge the people of yesterday by the standards of today. Today we realize that many of the standards yesterday were misplaced just as future generations will realize the same thing about us. We must realize that the vast majority of people accept the standards of the day whether they be right or wrong.


Day 122

The Way Things Are

This quote from Jesus reveals an interesting truth about human nature.

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

“Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.” Matt 23:29-32

Jesus must have been privy to some of the discussions of the authorities of his day. Apparently, they voiced strong disapproval of those who persecuted and killed the prophets of the past and saw themselves as more enlightened and of superior caliber to past leaders. They felt strongly that had they lived in the past the would have accepted and honored Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah , Isaiah and other holy men.

Little did they realize that the greatest of all was in their midst and that they had murder in their own hearts toward him. Generations yet unborn would view them with much more disdain than the persecutors of the prophets before them.

People of today make the same mistake and think to themselves such things as, “If I had been one of the Founding Fathers I would not have had slaves. If I had lived in the South after the Civil War I would have honored civil rights and fought against the Ku Klux Klan. If I had lived in Germany during Hitler I wouldn’t have been a Nazi.”

One must be careful about judging himself so generously. Just like the authorities were mistaken about themselves and how they would have reacted in the past so are many today.

There is a very powerful force that the beast uses to control the souls of men. Previously, we linked it to groupthink or thoughtforms, but there is another phrase that clearly defines the current that sweeps the minds of the people toward a negative direction, but erroneously viewed as a positive one. Here it is:

“The way things are.”

The way things are is determined by the authorities of the world and are often full of error. It matters not if the way things are may be total wrong or harmful, if a person is a part of a group, state or nation where a way of life dominates and is accepted he will have much difficulty in going against the flow.

Suppose you were born and raised in a nation that put gays to death. Do you think you would resist with righteous indignation? All should think twice on this for often those who are positive they would be fair would be the strongest voices for enforcing the way things are with his own people.

Until recent times it was just accepted that might makes right. Most thought that if God were on your side that your people would prevail over any other tribe or nation and then to the victor goes the spoils.

Skeptics read the Bible and are appalled at how destructive Israel was in the wars it fought. But they were just following the way things were at the time. In those times the strongest prevailed and they either destroyed or enslaved their enemies. Even though ancient Israel did not live up to our standards of war they were above the standards of the day. They did not torture their enemies, unlike most tribes of the day. Neither did they sacrifice their children to the gods and they had laws that made them a stable society where other Hebrews and allies were treated fairly well.

Ancient Israel did not live up to our standards, but they were above the prevailing standards of the day.

And this is how a people or an individual must be judged. Do they just go along with the way things are and yield to the power of the beast or do they question and seek for greater truth and higher ground?

In this day and age most of the people of the world are controlled by the way things are. The way things are may be different for each nation or group, but the control is still there.

In the United States political correct attitudes are determining the way things are especially in our colleges and universities. Few are willing to buck the system and speak about controversies in old fashion clear language. Free speech is greatly suppressed. Many conform for fear of being ostracized by fellow students and may get expelled from their school. It is quite possible that a hundred years from now that such restrictions will be seen as outrageous.

Slavery existed for thousands of years with few speaking against it because that was the way things were at the time.

Violence and torture was common for the same reason.

Women were not allowed to vote because that was just the way it was. The blacks were enslaved and then denied civil rights because that was the accepted norm.

Seekers today must judge the people of the past by the currents that govern them and realize there are new currents today. There are numerous things today that “just are” and are wrong and few are going against the flow or presenting any challenges.

Let us not the mistake of condemning the people of the past for being caught in the authoritative flow of the beast when we may be doing the same thing today.

Assignment: Contemplate the way things are in your group and nation and ask your soul to show you how things really are.

Affirmation: “I will question the reality that others force upon me.”



Day 123

The Importance of Seeing the Beast

Some readers may wonder why I am putting so much attention on the beast. The reason is simple. Remember that the beast represents an outside controlling authority that most people pay more attention to than their own inner authority. If the inner authority yields to an outer authority then the inner voice of the soul will be ignored . If it is ignored then it will not be heard. If it is not heard then there is no soul contact.

If we only discuss the obstacles to soul contact in the abstract then many will agree but will not see how to solve the problems in real life. To solve this problem I must present some of the difficulties in real life where the beast hinders contact so the seeker can discover solutions.

One problem is that when some see where the true authority of the beast is that they will decide that they are on the side of the beast and desire to embrace him. They will feel that he is not a beast at all, but a source of authority they should trust.

Then there are a few others who will sense a light turning on within them when they realize what the beast really is, the extent of his power and the difficulty in freeing oneself from it in so many areas of life. Remember freeing oneself from the beast in one area does not mean you are free in all areas. Maybe the seeker will reject the beast in healthcare, but accept him in his own religion. The seeker must put the beast in his place in all areas of life.

Concerning science, one would think that the beast would not have much power there for do they not deal with mathematics, physics and facts? After all, scientists accomplish feats such as sending the New Horizons probe billions of miles through space on a 9.5 year trip and can predict the exact hour that it will arrive at Pluto.

Yes, where there are known facts and distances science can do a great job and produce exacting results.

The problem is that because science is accurate in dealing with known facts many assume that they are also accurate when dealing with the unknown when they present their theories and speculation. The beast takes full advantage of this assumption on the part of the public and uses its authority to control people’s thinking on the unknown and seeks to punish those who question his established authority.

I already mentioned two areas where this happens. The first is the attack on anyone who questions the beast’s view of creation by suggesting that a higher intelligence may have had a hand.

The second is the attack on anyone who questions the standard theory on global warming.

Real science makes progress through questioning, not by automatically going along with orthodox views, yet the beast in science, just as in health care and politics, does not like its authority questioned and will seek to destroy skeptics.

A quintessential example of this is the story of Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky developed some very unorthodox theories about the history of the solar system and the part electromagnetic forces plays in the movement of the planets. He studied legends and ancient writings from all over the planet and found numerous accounts that seemed to agree as far as catastrophic events on earth and in the skies. From them he developed a theory that around 1500 BC Venus was ejected as a satellite of Jupiter and passed by the earth in the time of Moses creating much of the destruction reported in the Bible and other literature from numerous ancient civilizations. He also presented a theory that Mars had changed its orbit.

He wrote a book, Worlds in Collision, attempting to prove this which was published by Macmillan and was a best seller being number one for eleven weeks.

The scientific community was inflamed by the book and not only ferociously attacked Velikovsky and his writings, but forced Macmillan to stop publishing it. Numerous scientists and universities told the publisher that if they did not cease publication that they would ruin their publishing business. This Macmillan became the first publisher to cease publishing and distributing a top selling book while still in demand of the public.

Fortunately, another publisher bought the rights and publication continued, but the attacks did not cease. Velikovsky has been a prime source of attack by the scientific world ever since. Even today, if a scientist dares to mention his name without adding condemnation, he is in danger of being fiercely attacked.

What is important here is not whether Velikovsky’s theories were right or wrong, but that the scientific community was so controlled by the beast that they would not allow their authority to be challenged and resorted to the equivalent of book burning by trying to prevent the public from even seeing his writings.

True science is happy to let all ideas compete and allow the best to win when more evidence comes in.

Continue to reflect on the different areas of life where the beast exerts his authority.

Affirmation: “I will not conform just because others are.”


Day 124

The Beast Attacks

Earlier we talked about Ignaz Semmelweis who came up with the discovery that washing hands could rid doctors’ hands of microscopic life, now called germs, and would prevent infection. Because this idea was a challenge to authority, supported by the beast at that time, Semmelweis was persecuted and eventually placed in a mental hospital where he died.

A similar fate befell Wilhelm Reich, the inventor of the orgone accumulator. Reich believed that there was a universal living energy in circulation that could be amplified with a device. He called this energy “orgone,” which fits the description of prana, the life energy that we get from the cosmos according to eastern teachings.

Once people sat in his orgone accumulator they felt like they had been recharged. He started offering it to people who were depressed or had various diseases and found out that they were greatly helped. Then he offered his services to cancer patients and reports came out about people being cured. The scientific and medial establishment felt their authority was on the line and came after him with all the power the beast had to offer.

Reich was condemned by all the major media which gave the authorities justification to go after him. Eventually, the medical community encouraged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to seek and obtain a court injunction to stop him from researching, writing, and speaking about orgone.

He didn’t conform to the letter so they invaded his facility and removed all his books and research papers and burned them. All together they burned six tons of his papers and books. Then they put him in prison where he died in 1957.

What a blot on the authorities in science, medicine and government – all coordinating to destroy this man and his work. Burning someone’s books and research goes against everything a free society stands for. Who knows what benefits we could have had if we still had his research papers today.

If the authorities in science and medicine were true and proven authorities then they would not fear any book or research done by any of their colleagues. An earned authority will allow all ideas to circulate and allow the public to go with the ones that are proven to be correct.

Maintaining authority over the treatment of cancer seems to be an important objective of the beast. Numerous innovators have been jailed or persecuted just because they have made statements to the effect that cancer can be cured, or helped, with their treatments. I met one such individual sometime ago who told me he developed an actual cure that was a combination of about 80 different herbs. He made the mistake of spreading the good news and sharing his discovery with numerous people and wound up in jail. After he got out of jail he was really careful about making any claims or going public. He did share his formula with a number of doctors under the table who used it and he told me that many people were cured of cancer by using the formula.

I read of many other accounts of doctors who have developed cures or medicines that greatly help people with cancer who end up being persecuted or prosecuted by the authorities. Part of the problem that really seems to bother the authorities is that many of the potential cures are very reasonable in cost whereas the orthodox cures are extremely expensive and make the medical establishment a handsome profit.

Here are four more doctors who been persecuted for their an unorthodox treatment of cancer taken from Dr. Mercola’s website:

Gaston Naessens – Dr. Naessens created a cancer treatment based on the theory that cancer is caused by a friendly microorganism called somatids “little bodies”) — which are present in all cells — that becomes unfriendly.

His formula, 714X, provides nitrogen to the cancer cells, thus causing this microorganism to cease excreting their toxic compounds, and mobilize your immune system to kill the cancer cells. He was subsequently put on trial for his cancer discoveries.

Stanislaw Burzynski– Dr. Burzynski, founder of the Houston-based Burzynski Institute, treats cancer patients with substances called antineoplastons. He was indicted by a grand jury in 1995 for his use of antineoplastons– his second trial that year. He was acquitted.

Ryke Geerd Hamer – Dr. Hamer’s “German New Medicine” (GNM), operates under the premise that every disease, including cancer, originates from an unexpected shock experience, and that all disease can be cured by resolving these underlying emotional traumas.

Dr. Hamer has spent time in prison for refusing to disavow his medical findings and stop treating his patients with his unorthodox techniques, and is currently living in exile, seeking asylum from persecution.

Science as it relates to medicine seems to be an area of much concern for the agents of the beast. Not only are large sums of money involved, but there is also a lot of authority exercised over the people, which thing the beast desires more than anything else.

Authorities in science, just as in other fields, do not like challenges anywhere to established authority. We will explore this further in the next lesson.

Affirmation: “I will question authority.”


Day 125

Closed Science

Authorities in science especially seek to control the debate concerning evolution, climate change and certain aspects of healthcare. They are very threatened if anyone not on their approved list obtains any type of voice that will challenge them in any way. Instead of debating and letting the facts speak for themselves they prefer to just silence their opposition.

The areas that involve big money, religion or public attention arouse the tightest control, but other areas of science are also subject to strong authority.

Einstein who, at one time, was the one challenging the accepted Newtonian system has now become the standard which is not to be challenged. His Theory of Relativity is considered almost sacred by all but a few scientists. Those who do have challenging ideas are quickly dismissed.

One of the interesting aspects of Einstein’s theory is how time is relative to speed. That is a faster you go the slower time goes. Scientists often gives the example of twin brothers where one twin stays on the earth and the other takes off in the spaceship to the nearest store system. In the journey the ship approaches the speed of light and by the time the twin returns the one twin that traveled may have only aged a couple years or as the other twin might have aged 10 or 20 years depending on how fast the twin traveled. They figure that the twin that traveled in the spaceship increased his speed relative to the earth and therefore time slowed down for him so he didn’t age as fast.

A twist on this at I’ve never seen answered is to reverse the relativity and see it from the viewpoint of the earth moving away from the twin’s spaceship. If you look at it in that light the twin who stayed on the earth should have aged at a slower rate.

Another sacred idea in science is the speed of light. The speed of light is about 186,000 milers per second in a vacuum and never varies no matter what. You could be on a spaceship traveling hundred thousand miles per second and shine a flashlight and relative you light will still go 186,000 miles per second. They say the speed of light always stays the same and we can never go beyond that limit.

We can’t really blame scientist for believing this because all measurements and mathematics seemed to verify it. Nevertheless a handful scientists believe the speed of light can be exceeded. For instance, the red shift of faraway galaxies indicate a speed faster than light.

What could solve all these ministries would be actual contact with an alien race. That brings us to another sensitive area of science. Most scientists are open to the fact that there is life out there somewhere in the universe since it’s so vast, but they’re closed to the idea that we may have been visited by extra terrestrials.

If we are ever are visited the first question I would want to ask is if they traveled faster than the speed of light to get here and if the idea of relativity about time slowing down actually played out for them in their travels.

Another area of science they don’t want to be challenged is the idea of the Big Bang. They say the Big Bang occurred about 13.8 billion years ago and before the Big Bang there was nothing except an infinitesimal point from which all things originated. This originating point was smaller than an atom, some say it was smaller than a quark. Some force completely unknown to science caused the point to just explode and create everything there is. When you think of it in some ways that’s much harder to believe then the ideas that some divine intelligence created the universe.

Some scientists challenge this theory providing evidence that some of the galaxies would have taken longer than 13 billion years to evolve. Some scientists think the universe is eternal and never had a beginning and others present evidence that the universe is not billions of years old but perhaps trillions. But scientists are not very open to alternative ideas especially if they involve any idea of God or higher intelligence.

Those who have challenged a lot of scientific theory have not got much traction and therefore the beast hasn’t come after them on these type of theories like they do on health, evolution and climate change. But if someone produced a best-selling book challenging Einstein’s theory or the Big Bang or something like that you would see the authority of the beast surface quite quickly.

Assignment: Religion and spiritual beliefs have been a favorite tool of the beast through the ages. Even sacred things such as the scriptures, the prophets and Jesus himself have been very useful tools. Contemplate on how this could be the case.

Affirmation: “That which appears to be is not always the truth.”

Copyright by J J Dewey

NEXT – Part 13

Links for the first 11 sections of this series.

Part 1,  Part 2,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,  Part 6Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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 6

This entry is part 6 of 73 in the series 2015

Belief in God and Intelligent Design

Back in the 1980s and earlier there was not much difference in the percentage of the political left and right who professed a belief in God and recognized some type of Divine Intelligence having a hand in creation.

Now all that has changed. The political left has taken a major swing toward the spiritual atheistic left whereas the Right has held fairly steady. Pew polls show that in 1987 there was not much difference between the Republicans and Democrats in their belief in God, but by 2012 we approached a great divide that has probably become wider since. In 2012 92% of Republicans had some type of belief in God compared to only 77% of the Democrats.

Another Pew poll revealed that in 2012 73% of the atheists voted for the Democrats and only 18% voted Republican. About twice as many Democrats reject the idea that some type of higher intelligence had a hand in the creation of the universe.

I think the polls actually understate the belief gap. I have participated in a number of forums where politics is discussed and if I, or another there, just mention any type of acknowledgement of Divine Intelligence the attacks and belittlement from the political left spew forth without mercy. Rarely does anyone from the Left even mention a belief in God in any form. Many of those on the Left who do have some belief in God often seem too ashamed to publicly admit it. The only supporting posts made in harmony with me was from believers on the Right and the strange thing is that many of those believers have a lot different view of God than I do. Even so, just the mere acknowledgement of Higher Intelligence is a unifying guidepost pointing in the direction of the Right Hand Path.

It should be a no brainer for a follower of the Bailey writings to side with the political right on acknowledging an Intelligent Designer. He says this:

The scientific way leads the aspirant into the world of energies and forces, which is the true world of occult endeavour, revealing the Universal Mind and the workings of that great Intelligence which created the manifested universe.       Rays and Initiations, Page 666

There is no hope for the future world except in a humanity which accepts the fact of divinity, even whilst repudiating theology, which recognizes the presence of the living Christ, whilst rejecting man-made interpretations of Him and of His message, and which emphasizes the authority of the human soul.   Problems of Humanity, Page 34

On this matter DK, as well as most any spiritual teacher, is much more in harmony with the political Right than the Left. The acknowledgement of God, as well as all the hierarchies, representing higher spiritual intelligence in the realm of creation are at the core of all his writings. He definitely sides with the political right in accepting intelligent design.

The most famous words of DK, The Great Invocation acknowledges God as our source of “light” “love” and “Will.” There is really no excuse for Baily students to side with the left on this matter.

Now some students siding with the left will say this: “Of course, I accept the idea of higher intelligence, but what I reject is the right attempting to teach their version of God and creation in the classroom. I do not want my kids taught that the earth was created in six days and is less than 10,000 years old.”

This accusation by the left that the right is demanding a literalist version of creation to be taught is something not centered in reality and conjured up by them as a means of attack to take the idea of divinity completely out of the schools.

First we must realize that the number belonging to the political right with such a literalist view is decreasing with each passing year. Many believers see the days of creation as unknown periods of time. Those who support Intelligent Design are not demanding that any literalist view of the Bible be taught but merely that there is evidence that a greater intelligence than humanity had to be involved in creation. That is an idea that echoes through the belief systems of all spiritual people and the various religions, but ridiculed by many on the political left.

Most on the political right who support intelligent deisign merely promote the idea that time be given to both sides of the discussion. After all, the idea that students should be exposed to the concept of Divine intelligence is in harmony with DK’s writings for he said:

“The college or the university should in reality be the correspondence in the field of education to the world of the Hierarchy; it should be the custodian of those methods, techniques and systems of thought and of life which will relate a human being to the world of souls, to the Kingdom of God, and not only to other human beings upon the physical plane; not only to the world of phenomena but also to the inner world of values and quality.” Education in the New Age, Page 49

So here DK advocates going beyond that which the right desires and teaching about the world of soul and the kingdom of God in our schools of which Intelligent Design would definitely be included.

He also said this:

“Until the aim of education is to orient a man to this inner world of realities, we shall have the misplaced emphasis of the present time. Until we can arrive in our educational objectives at the bridging of the gap between the three lower aspects of man and the soul (a bridging which must take place upon the mental levels of consciousness), we shall make but little progress in right directions and all interim activity will be inadequate to the modern need. … The objective of education should therefore be the training of the mechanism to respond to the life of the soul.” Education in the New Age, Page 11

Then he promotes “ the recognition of divine potentialities in man as well as the recognition of a divine directing Intelligence in Whom man lives, and moves and has his being.” Externalization of the Hierarchy, Page 192

Sounds like DK would be considered a right wing extremist if he were presenting his views today.

DK is in good company and in harmony with the words of Einstein who said this: “On the other hand, however, every one who is seriously engaged in the pursuit of science becomes convinced that the laws of nature manifest the existence of a spirit vastly superior to that of men, and one in the face of which we with our modest powers must feel humble. The pursuit of science leads therefore to a religious feeling of a special kind, which differs essentially from the religiosity of more naive people. “Einstein and Religion: Physics and Theology” by Max Jammer quoting an Einstein letter from 1936

Of course, not all who accept Divine Intelligence have their feet placed solidly on the right hand path, but this much we know and that is those who fight against the freedom to teach and merely expose the rising generation to the idea that there is a kingdom of the soul and Divine Intelligence are aiding those entities who support the left hand path.

May the sincere esoteric student choose wisely.

Revised March 9, 2020

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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 5

This entry is part 5 of 73 in the series 2015

The Left, the Right and DK, Part 5

Sex and Family Values

There is a significant difference in the philosophies of the political left and right concerning sex and family values, though there is some middle ground where they both agree. That middle ground is becoming slimmer all the time and is basically this.

We should love and support family members as much as possible and do our best to see children get the best possible care and start in life. Basically both sides claim to support the Golden Rule in relationships though both will often fall short.

The differences however, are significant. Concerning family values the right has placed a lot more focus on them, often to the extent that they are criticized for trying to monopolize the subject. They are also strongly criticized by the left when any individual from the right falls short of those values.

It must be realized though that such a criticism is often a cheap shot, for all fall short of perfection from time to time, so we should not discourage anyone from attempting to reach a high standard because someone in the group is a bad example.

So, why is the right criticized for monopolizing family values?

It is not because they are unwilling to let the left have their say but because they are the ones talking about them, trying to live them and placing emphasis on them. You rarely hear groups from the left even mentioning family values as a part of their philosophy. If the topic is brought up it is usually in the context of how people of the right are hypocrites because they do not live up to the standards they set.

The bottom line on the monopoly idea is this. If the people from the left do not want the right to have a monopoly on family values then they should lay claim to some of those values themselves and promote them as they did when DK was writing through Alice A. Bailey.

Now the divisions on the proper role of sex are even a greater divide.

A high percentage of the right believe that sex should be limited by certain constraints. Many believe it should only be had in the marriage relationship. On the other hand, the left widely believes in few if any constraints. The basic mantra there is “if it feels good, do it” and you will not be criticized or condemned.

Concerning birth control the right has become more liberal (as a whole) over the years and leave it up to the individual, but are not big on promoting it, especially if it leads to promiscuity.

The left takes a much more liberal view in assuming all should be supplied with birth control, free of cost if possible, to accommodate all who wish to have sex at any age from teens and above.

So, which side does DK and Alice A. Bailey gravitate to on this issue?

Here Alice A. Bailey echoes sentiments similar to DK which sounds more like the political right than the Left.

“It is needless, surely, to add here that the true student of meditation should not tolerate in his life promiscuous or illegitimate sexual relations. The aspirant to the life of the spirit conforms not only to the laws of the spiritual kingdom but to the legalized customs of his age and time. He, therefore, regularizes his physical every day life so that the man in the street recognizes the morality, the uprightness and the correctness of his presentation to the world. A home that is based upon a true and happy relation between a man and a woman, upon mutual trust, co-operation and understanding, and in which the principles of spiritual living are emphasized, is one of the finest aids that can be given to the world at this time. A relation that is based on physical attraction and the gratification of the sex nature, and which has, as its primary objective, the prostitution of the physical nature to animal desire, is evil and wrong.” From Intellect to Intuition, pages 258-259

Here DK reinforces this idea:

“Again, a divine son of God can surely function as freely and as effectively when in the married state as in the celibate; he will however brook no prostitution of the powers of the body to the grosser satisfactions, nor will he offend against established custom, nor lower the standards which the world has set for its highest and best.” A Treatise on White Magic, Pg 420

“They have tried—at the other extreme—to exhaust normal sexual desire by promiscuity, license and perversions, damaging themselves and laying up the basis for trouble for many incarnations ahead.” Rays and Initiations, Page 670

In addition, DK was against the too liberal use of contraceptives that lead to unregulated promiscuous sex similar to the right today.

“Again, we have evidence of a growing realisation of the race along this particular line (of population growth); that realisation is as yet distorted and much misunderstood and is today producing the promiscuous use of contraceptive methods. As the intelligence of the race is developed (and that is going on apace), as the Laws of Rhythm and Approach are grasped, it will then be found that there are certain innate reactions which will negate conception, and that then the mechanical means will no longer be required.” Education in the New Age, Page 134

In addition he tells us that a lack of self control in sex leads to a weakened physical body:

The dissipation of the vital powers through loose living and incontinence is the great sin against the physical body. It involves the failure to recognize the importance of the procreative act, the inability to resist the lower desires and pleasures, and a loss of self control. The results of this failure are apparent throughout the human family at this time in the low health average, in the full hospitals, and the diseased, enfeebled and anemic men, women and children everywhere to be found. There is little conservation of energy, and the very words “dissipation” and dissipated men” carry a lesson. Light of the Soul, Pages 198-199

So, overall here, DK sides much more with the example of a conservative like Tim Tebow, who regulates sex to within marriage, as compared to the typical liberal rock star or Hollywood type where everything goes.

Revised Feb 24, 2020

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

How Did the Universe Come To Be?

This entry is part 4 of 57 in the series Mysteries

Question Four

How Did the Universe Come To Be?

Scientists tell us that the universe is expanding.  They have measured the rate of expansion and calculated when the starting point began and what it must have been. These calculations show that the entire universe began about 13.7 billion years ago where everything there is was compressed into an infinitesimally small point, smaller than an atom.  They call this a singularity.

For some unexplainable reason this singularity exploded with unimaginable force, which created atoms and other particles in perfect balance. How that balance occurred they know not. They only know that it happened.

If you think creation by an Intelligent Designer is fantastic consider that this theory has it beat.  Let us pick just one part of the theory, that everything began with a very very small point of compressed matter. To understand how fantastic this is, consider the difficulty in reversing the Big Bang.

First you could take your body and compress it into a particle as big as a grain of sand. Then you could take the 7 billion other people and compress them into 7 billion grains of sand. Then you could take all those pieces of sand, which could create a good portion of a beach and compress all them into a single grain. If you think that is a good trick then look at the work we still have to do.  We have all the people of earth compressed into a grain of sand sitting on planet Earth, which is a pretty huge place.

Now we have to take the entire planet and compress it.  This would take some serious energy expenditure, but let us imagine it could be done. Voila! The earth and humanity are now compressed together into a piece of matter the size of a grain of sand, but the amazing thing is the mass is still there. Lifting that grain of sand would be like Atlas lifting the Earth.

Even though we have now accomplished the impossible we are just getting started. Now we need to compress the planets in our solar system.  We might as well start with Jupiter.  Wow, we are in for some serious compression here for Jupiter is 1330 times the volume of the earth and 318 times as heavy and that’s not counting its many moons.

Let us now compress Jupiter and its moons. Uuugggh.  What a job.  It is now the size of a grain of sand.  Now we move on to Saturn, Neptune and Uranus which are also much larger than Earth.  We do the impossible and compress them.  Finally we move on to Mercury, Venus, Mars, the asteroids, Pluto and the rest of the dwarf planets and compress them.

Now we have that done we tackle the sun, which has more mass than all the planets put together, somewhere around the mass of 1,000,000 Earths. To reduce this to the size of a grain of sand is a real miracle, but somehow we do it.

We still have the other stars to reduce.  Let us start with a big one, the Eta Carinae system.  We have our work cut out for us, for this sun is 250 times the size of our sun and a million times as bright. Imagine, though, we get the job done and it is compressed to the size of a grain of sand.

Hold on, we are just getting started.  There are around 300 billion suns, just in our galaxy and 100 billion known galaxies and who knows how many unknown. Now really strain your imagination and see each of these stars reduced to the size of a grain of sand and gathered together into one place.

What do we have before us?  Amazingly we have more sand than would fit in all the beaches and deserts on the whole of planet Earth. In fact, there would be enough sand for five or more planet Earths.

That is one heck of a lot of sand.

We still have our work cut out for us.  Now we have to take these trillions of grains and compress them to one individual grain. Okay, really stretch your imagination here. There, it is done.  The whole known universe is now reduced to a single grain of sand.

So… have we reproduced the original singularity that Big Bang theory tells us originated the universe?  Not really. Believe it or not, we still have a long way to go. The grain of sand is still much larger than the singularity.

Let’s get to work and compress more, but the mass of the universe is so huge this is getting difficult. Grunt, grunt, there, the grain of sand is reduced to a piece of dust. Is that the right size now?

No. Still a long way to go. The Singularity is smaller than an atom and do you know how many atoms there are in a speck of dust?

About four times as many as there are stars in the entire known universe.


So now imagine these trillions of atoms being compressed into the size of one atom.  How far away are we now from the size of the Singularity? Are we are now getting close?

Some say yes, some say no, but most say it was as small or smaller than an atom.

If you think of what we have done so far is fantastic, now consider this.

Take away the factor of some intelligence like us doing the work and imagine that all by itself this tiny Singularity, for some reason that defies explanation and imagination, just explodes and creates the whole universe with you and me in it.

The amazing thing is that scientists are not using their wild imaginations in visualizing this, but say it really happened.

So which is the wilder thought?

(1) The singularity as small as an atom exploded for no understandable reason and created all there is, or,

(2) Some type of Intelligence made it all happen.

Putting it this way doesn’t make Intelligent Design seem too difficult to believe, does it?

Hopefully, this dialog prepares the reader’s mind to consider something new.  Here it is.

Science is correct that the universe began with a Singularity which was an infinitesimally small point, but the point was smaller and much different than any of them supposed.

The point was not one of unbelievable condensed matter, but a point of pure Intelligence.  The matter that created the universe did not yet exist except in the mind of this Intelligence, for the current matter of the universe is not created from anything that is solid, as evidenced from the fact that regardless of how small we go into matter, solid mass cannot be found. All that can be found for sure are wavelengths.

And of what are the wavelengths composed?  If they are not composed of anything solid then what creates them?

Answer:  Thought.

And what originates the thought?


And where did the Intelligence come from?

The interplay of opposites.

This interplay and Intelligence co-exist and have always been.

Intelligence created matter out of Itself, and thus we have Intelligence within matter all throughout the universe.  This Intelligence moves the evolution of all things forward toward an end unimaginable to us at this time.

“There is no such thing as intelligence in matter,” says the skeptic.

To this we respond: “Are you intelligent?”

He answers, “Yes, of course.”

“Do you exist in matter, of which your body is composed, or are you some phantom?”

He has no intelligent response.

Copyright by J J Dewey 2014

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

This entry is part 8 of 25 in the series 2013

March 20, 2013


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?


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

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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 True Left

This entry is part 13 of 40 in the series 2012A

Dan writes:

You have said in the past that when you use the word “left” or “leftist” you are talking of those on the “left-hand (dark) path” rather than the mainstream (liberal, political) left. Is this still the case here?


It’s probably time to clarify a few things since people do get confused about what is Left and Right.

The first thing to point out is when I write for the general public I have to use terms they understand even if the common vernacular is not technically or esoterically correct.  Therefore, when speaking to them I understand that they will interpret the Right to mean the Republican-conservative-Christian-libertarian side of the discussion and the Left to be the Democratic-environmentalist-pacifist-redistribution side of things.

Even though the public has set ideas as to the meaning of words, when I use Left and Right I try to use them so they are correct in the eyes of the general public as well as esoterically correct.

For instance, when I talk about the Left attacking a belief in God I am talking about the true Left and not the Democrats, as many Democrats are believers. Poll show that 25% of evangelical zealots are Democrats and no one calls them the Left yet when one refers to the Left attacking a belief in God most just assume one is talking about Democrats.  Not true.  When I use Left, I mean the Left – not Democrats. There are also Republican atheists who attack the belief in a High Power.

So when I write political posts I will generally use Left and Right in its true esoteric meaning.  This will help clarify what I am saying for those who follow my esoteric teachings.  When the use of Left and Right becomes extra confusing I will then use more specific terms such as Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc.  When using “conservative” and “liberal”  writing to the general public I will use them as they are commonly defined to avoid confusion. For instance, when writing for the general public I will call an environmentalist, liberal, even though most are archconservatives attempting to conserve what is.

Another very important point to clarify is this.  When I use the terms “Left” and “Right” in political discussions I am NOT identifying people who are on the Right and Left hand paths. Probably less than one out of a million are actually settled on the actual Right or Left hand paths.  Most of the general public are mere pawns in a great game or contest that is being played out by those who truly understand the two paths.

DK talked about this.  I do not have time to find exact references but he basically said this:

Humanity as a whole lends their energy to the Left Hand Path, or the Dark Brotherhood.  There are only a handful of disciples who clearly see the two paths. The work of the Brotherhood at present is to lift the consciousness of the human race so they will lean to the Right more than the Left.  When this happens the door to evil will be shut. The conflict of World War II did a lot to push humanity toward a vision of the true Left and Right but we are still not securely there.

The bottom line is this. The average person of all political beliefs supports some elements of the Left and some of the Right but generally supports more from the true Left than the true Right.

So what represents the true Right hand path and the true Left?

By far the most important differentiating thing is the Principle of Freedom.  I’ve written a lot about this and if one searches my writings he can get a good idea of my thinking on this.  The principle of Freedom is the path to maximum freedom not unlimited freedom. For example, if we had unlimited freedom with no rules or laws then the burglar would be free to enter your house and take what he wants.  This would prevent maximum freedom from taking place for yourself. The Second Key of Judgment must be used so the right amount of rules and laws will be implemented.  Most people want too many rules or not enough and these, the vast majority, lend unknowing support to the Left Hand Path.

During this phase of my work when I am writing some political material my job will be to identify those illusions that support the Left Hand Path and do what I can to dispel them. In doing this to avoid confusion I will call the liberals in error the Left when talking to the general public.  Labeling conservatives in error as the Left would be confusing so I will merely identify them as conservatives and attempt to point out their illusion and move them toward the true Right.

To make things more confusing for some is the realization that the true Right is really the true Center and the True Left takes us dangerously far from the True Center. To make good judgment even more difficult for the average person is that the Brotherhood of Light often has to put extra attention on the direction of Left or Right when the pendulum has swung too far.  For instance, when the pendulum has swung to the Left, as it has at present, then extra attention must be given to the truths on the Right. This causes many disciples involved in politics to be currently identified as right wing in the current era when they are really just pushing toward the great center.

That said let us list some traits that that will help us identify when people give energy to the Left Hand Path.

(1) As stated they will support authority that limits maximum freedom. This is the biggie.

(2) They will be a dangerous distance from the true center.

(3) They fight having extra light being thrown on a controversial subject as the dark ones progress much more rapidly toward their own ends when the masses are in ignorance shielded from the light.

There are many examples of this playing out concerning which the masses.

(A) When two politicians run against each other you’ll find that generally one will be hiding who he really is.  On the Left he may have socialist or unconstitutional goals and on the Right he may have secret plans to implement his religious views against the will of the people. In not revealing their true agenda they support ignorance which plays into the hands of the Dark Brotherhood.

(B) The Global Warming debate us another example.  Those believers who claim the most light fight tooth and nail to prevent any of the skeptics’ views from surfacing. This has always been suspected but proved with the release of the Climategate emails. Al Gore and the rest of the orthodox believers refuse to debate the subject with skeptics and instead follow the path of intimidation and threats.  Check out this article:

(C) Obama’s birth certificate.  From the time this has been any kind of an issue Obama supporters have avoided talking about it like the plague; instead calling investigators birthers, haters, racists etc. When the issue was fairly new I was asked on a political forum if I thought Obama was born in the USA.  I responded that there seems to be evidence supporting both sides and I did not know but would give him the benefit of the doubt. I thought this was a fairly non confrontational statement but I was attacked by many on the Left with a zeal I have rarely witnessed.  Unless I would confess to them that I was 100% sure he was native born I was an outcast to this group, to be attacked and shunned at all costs.

I would have liked to present the evidence for both sides but they didn’t want to hear it and if I had pushed it any further I think I would have been in physical danger with this bunch.

It matters not if an issue is controversial or not – those supporting the true Right will allow all evidence to surface and are prepared to examine it dispassionately as much as possible.

(D) Religious dogmatists refuse to look at or even allow evidence to be submitted that would question their views.  Just try and present evidence of reincarnation to a staunch born againer and you’ll see what I mean. Try and present some obscure but controversial Mormon history to a true believer and he will refuse to check it out.

This reminds me of a time some Jehovah Witnesses knocked on my door and gave me a pamphlet to read.  I told then that I would read theirs if they would read mine.  I then grabbed a copy of my booklet entitled REINCARNATION AND THE BIBLE and handed it to them.  The poor gal held it in her hands, looked at the title and started shaking.  She then walked over to the coffee table and laid it down and retreated as fast as she could.

Conclusion:  The masses aid the path of the Left by refusing to allow light to shine upon the darkness.

(4) One way indoctrination. This is especially used in children but often on adults in countries ruled by tyrannies. Today the Left is attempting to see to it that that children in our schools are not taught any truths about God.  Whether it be lower or higher education the mere mention of intelligent design is anathema. Children and students receive a one way indoctrination that man was created by random forces with no intelligence involved.

In addition they are receiving close to one-way indoctrination on the environment and global warming in an attempt to prepare the rising generation to accept an all-powerful Big Brother to save us from ourselves.

On the political Right there used to be a lot of indoctrination from religious schools and still is to a degree but this technique of conservatives has largely shifted from the religious ones to liberal political ideologies.

(5) Threats, intimidation and name calling. If those supporting the True Left do not get their way they will threaten life and livelihood of those who stand up to them.  They will intimidate through name calling and labeling.  A prime example we can all agree on was the way blacks were manipulated after they were supposedly freed after the Civil War.

Presently we see these tactics used on teachers who even mention Intelligent Design or who express skepticism about orthodox global warming. Both sides will use these to a degree when it is important to them to get their way.

(6) They will support force to achieve their ends, even if that force runs contrary to majority will.

The ideals of equality of socialism and communism are not evil in themselves if they worked with free will but they do not.  They advocate forcefully taking from those who have and redistributing it contrary to their wills.

A certain amount of force is necessary when used in harmony with majority will to prevent murder theft rape, etc but excessive force contrary to majority will is part of the agenda of the Left Hand Path.

Force, lack of freedom and darkness are the ingredients those on the true Left Hand Path uses to control the unsuspecting masses.  Among these are many good-hearted idealist people who do not have a clue that they are making progress easier for the dark ones.

Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

(You do not have to log in to add comments)

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here