The True Path of the Left
Question: 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 yet no one calls them the Left and 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. In using “conservative” and “liberal” when 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 esoteric 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 readers search my writings they 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 number 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.
To make things more confusing for some is the realization that the true esoteric Right hand path is really the true Center and the True Left takes us dangerously far from the True Center – this could be in either direction. 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 the Left or Right when the pendulum has swung too far in one direction. For instance, when the pendulum has swung to the Left, then extra attention must be given to the truths on the Right. This causes many disciples involved in politics to be 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 is 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.
[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 that 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. If a person really wants the truth he or she will want all light possible to sine on the subject.
[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 exposed to 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 Hand Path 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. Instead, 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 use 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.
In every marriage more than a week old, there are grounds for divorce. The trick is to find, and continue to find, grounds for marriage. – Robert Anderson
April 22, 2012
Join JJ’s Facebook group HERE
Easy Access to All the Writings
For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE
For someone who claims to value evidence from all sides, I’m seeing a distinct lack of evidence for anything you’ve presented in what you’ve written here.
> It’s probably time to clarify a few things since people do get confused about what is Left and Right.
Right off the bat, you’re claiming that there is a matter that everyone is confused about, but which you have the answers to as if you were one of the few enlightened beings on the planet. What is the evidence for that? Since you claim to value evidence, I await your response.
> 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.
Who are you speaking to exactly? Grandmas who just got out of Sunday school? High-school dropout rednecks? Putting libertarian in the same category as Republican-conservative-Christian is a pretty confused outlook of US politics.
> 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.
Even by esoteric standards, your definitions of these terms are completely out of alignment. In esoteric terms, the LHP involves an emphasis on individualism and personal empowerment, and the RHP involves an emphasis on collectivism and social norms. You are the source of confusion by trying to conflate these three different spectrums (your esoteric paths, the actual esoteric paths as they are commonly defined, and US politics) as if they can be reconciled. You cannot present an apple, orange, and a pizza as if they were the same thing without causing confusion.
> The Global Warming debate is 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.
There has been an abundance of debate. The so-called “skeptics” simply refuse the fact that they have no leg to stand on. That’s why they have to cherry pick details about climategate emails and frame those who embrace the truth as “orthodox believers” instead of as scientists. That’s why they go after non-scientists like Al Gore instead of address the source of science. If they did, they’d be handedly refuted.
There are two sides to the climate change debate, and that is what to do about it. Do we regress to a more primitive existence that minimally interferes with the environment, or do we continue on full speed ahead and use technology to solve these problems? Those are the two sides. The group of people saying human-caused climate change are the peanut gallery, not a side.
> 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
This is due to the futility of arguing with and indulging stupid, insane people. The Obama Derangement Syndrome (ODS) of that era had a neverending amount of wild accusations and made-up claims about Obama, all of them feeling entitled to be indulged. The birther issue was one of many.
> 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 that bunch.
At some point you have to come to terms with the possibility that it’s not a matter of hearing both sides, and you’re being ignored simply because your claims are insane, delusional ramblings. Flat-Earther’s also think they are a legitimate side with evidence, and they also have a lot of “both sides” rhetoric spewing from them. Should they be indulged too? Does it bother you that you’re compared to delusional ignorant people like flat-Earthers? If so, maybe you should look at yourself about it and see if that actually might be the case.
> 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.
Evidence has been examined dispassionately about climate change, the Obama Derangement Syndromes, and the shape of the Earth. They all belong in the same peanut gallery.
> Today the Left is attempting to see to it that that children in our schools are not exposed to any truths about God.
There are no truths about God. There is only what you personally believe to be a truth about God. School is for education, not grooming children to regurgitate and validate what you have personally decided is a truth about God.
> Whether it be lower or higher education the mere mention of intelligent design is anathema.
Yes, indoctrination is anathema to education. Goading kids into indulging ideas that provide no practical tangible understanding about the universe we live in is counterproductive to the process of education. Your personal feelings about the existence of God an intelligent design are not automatically true just because you have some strong feelings and emotions behind them, nor are they true because you managed to find someone with “PHD” next to their name who says you’re right.
> They will intimidate through name calling and labeling.
Again, you opened with this article labeling “people” as confused to set up your own stage as someone who is supposedly enlightened. This is a form of intimidation that seeks to set yourself up as an authority figure who shouldn’t be questioned.
> The ideals of equality of socialism and communism are not evil in themselves if they worked with free will. Instead, they advocate forcefully taking from those who have and redistributing it contrary to their wills.
So where is the side that doesn’t acknowledge the reality of free will? “Free will” is just two words. As someone who likes to chant “both sides” a lot, the side that sees free will as an illusion needs to have a place. As it is, there is no argument for free will that doesn’t ultimately reduce down to magic.
You trying to argue about esoteric and spiritual teachings with materialistic thinking is like a kid that only knows addition and multiplication arguing about how Algebra makes no sense.
Producing millions of words of fan-fiction about your favorite mythological beings and blending it with politics has nothing to do with spirituality or the esoteric. They have the quality of pretending to be spiritual, esoteric, and wise, but if your writings actually had any such substance to them, then that would be self-evident. By their fruits, you shall know them, but nothing you have written has yielded any fruit. I keep asking you to show me the fruit that your teachings bring, only for you to give this runaround.
> And He said to them, “Which of you shall have a friend, and go to him at midnight and say to him, ‘Friend, lend me three loaves; for a friend of mine has come to me on his journey, and I have nothing to set before him’; and he will answer from within and say, ‘Do not trouble me; the door is now shut, and my children are with me in bed; I cannot rise and give to you’? I say to you, though he will not rise and give to him because he is his friend, yet because of his persistence he will rise and give him as many as he needs. So I say to you, ask, and it will be given to you; seek, and you will find; knock, and it will be opened to you. ~Luke 11:5-9
This is something I believe in. As long as I am persistent in my probe of your teachings, I will eventually find out something of value: either I will find the fruit your teachings yield or, if that doesn’t exist, I will have greater revelation on how a fraud operates, which is a fruit unto itself. This is why I hound you with these questions, and it’s why I will never stop hounding you with these questions no matter how much you ignore me or give me the runaround.
Your cute little analogy to algebra might sound impressive as a rhetorical device, but until your teachings actually yield fruit, it’s nothing more than bark with no bite. So, I ask you yet again, what is the fruit of your teachings?
So are you going to show the fruits of your esoteric and spiritual teachings or not?
Where are all those millions of words when someone questions the great wisdom of JJ Dewey?