2014 – Page 3 – Freeread

Keys Writings 2014, Part 10

September 29, 2014December 12, 2022 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 13 of 33 in the series 2014

June 5, 2014

Another Radio Show

I was on the air again with Dr Lorraine Hurley Wednesday morning. Here are the links if you want to listen.

Hour 1

Hour 2

June 6, 2014

Fasting

Looks like they are finally doing a long overdo study on fasting. Check it out.

LINK

June 7, 2014

Introduction to the Molecular Relationship

Stephen has been putting together a couple web pages as kind of an introduction to the Molecular Relationship. He’s been running everything by me for approval and doing his best to put together materials that will help the new seeker.

Take a look at his pages and let us know if you think thee are things that should be covered that isn’t or improvements that would help.

LINK1

LINK2

June 8, 2014

More on Global Warming

It is difficult to arrange my thoughts within the 200 word limit but here they are for the next Statesman Letter.

The thinking of global warming alarmism is comparable to a crazy guy heading full steam ahead over a cliff while putting all his attention on trying to correct bad radio reception.

There are a number of threats many times more serious than an increase in the plant fertilizer – CO2.

Here are some.

(1) The threat of an asteroid. The question is not if but when this will happen. In the past an asteroid wiped out about 90% of life on earth and another hit could destroy the human race.

(2) A solar flare. The question is not if, but when. In 1859 we were hit by one that knocked out telegraph systems all over America and Europe. We are totally unprepared for another event like this which would create chaos and destruction.

(3) A magnetic pulse created by an atomic explosion in our atmosphere by a rogue nation would produce similar results.

(4) Nuclear missiles headed our way. This can be overcome by a missile defense envisioned by Reagan.

Future generations will look back on our judgment and by comparison the flat earth people of the Middle Ages will look pretty good.

***

Keith:

J.J. every item on your real threat list is likely to happen. The only question is in what order?

Statistically the asteroid would be number four in order. We are not likely to have a major threat from one for thousands of years though one could show up next week. We just had a close flyby of one large enough to destroy New York City.

A nuclear attack is not a sure thing but a solar flare is and we are overdue for another one. We could avoid disaster by burying our cables underground – a thing which some other nations have done.

***

Sorin:

“The current warming trend is of particular significance because most of it is very likely human-induced and proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years.” http://climate.nasa.gov/evidence

Wrong. Most researchers believe the Medieval Warm Period was warmer. In addition we had a period of about 1000 years with a midpoint in 1100 BC which was much warmer.

Take a look at this chart:

LINK

Sorin

“Ninety-seven percent of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities,1and most of the leading scientific organizations worldwide have issued public statements endorsing this position.

I’ve responded to this numerous times but it must have went over your head. The 97% answered a couple very nebulous questions – so much so that I would answer with the 97% and cannot understand why even 3% of the scientists answered to the contrary. The 97% merely agree that humans have some influence on the climate but there are no specifics on how much that influence is. Within the 97% the guesses (and they are guesses) range from 1% to 120%. You ought to read the convoluted reasoning as to how humans could be responsible for 120% of global warming.

Sorin

NOAA:

“Global climate is changing and this is apparent across the United States in a wide range of observations. The global warming of the past 50 years is primarily due to human activities, predominantly the burning of fossil fuels.” http://www.ncdc.noaa.gov/climate-information/climate-change-and-variability

First of all you are referencing the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration which places emphasis on ocean studies. You also need to check data from UAH, RSS, GISS and HadCRUT and then compare then to get a good feel of the overall picture.

So, if global warming is due mainly to humans activities then what has caused the non global warming, or the pause, in the last 18 years? Have humans ceased doing anything?

And how about the global cooling from 1940-1978? Did humans cause that also?

Overall we had global cooling from 1940-1978, global warming from 1979-1998 and then a pause from 1998 to the present. Did humans cause all these or just the warming from 1979-1998? Some basic common sense is needed here and many scientists lack this trait.

And if humans did not exist would climate change just cease to be? Using the logic of many of the alarmists that is the conclusion one would have to reach, which is ridiculous. Before humans arrived there were occasions where there was greater climate change in a week than the past 100 years.

You just can’t take in all that the beast of authority doles out to you or you will be deceived every time. You must look at the facts and put the together for yourself relying on your inner authority for the final conclusion. That is the path to be delivered from the mark of the beast in the forehead.

June 9, 2014

Faster Than Light?

Tom:

Physicists at the CERN laboratory in Geneva announced in September that

they had detected a neutrino traveling faster than the speed of light, a

finding that violated Einstein’s venerable theory of special relativity.

They retested the speed of the neutrinos and concluded they were not traveling faster than light after all. Overall Einstein was pretty accurate though even he admitted he made mistakes. He rejected the Big Bang at first and later accepted it calling his steady state theory his biggest mistake though his cosmological constant that seemed to be a mistake is being examined again to explain dark energy.

***

Failed Global Warming Predictions

I’m tabulating some failed predictions from global warming scientists and supporters.

FAILED PREDICTIONS

In 2005, the United Nations Environment Programme predicted that climate change would create 50 million climate refugees by 2010. This did not happen. It would be difficult to find a dozen such refugees caused by global warming.

They have attempted to erase that prediction from the web but are now claiming that it will be further into the future, and there will be 50 million refugees by the year 2020.

LINK

Over 4.5 Billion people could die from Global Warming-related causes by 2012 (Made Jan 8, 2007)

LINK

Prediction made in 2007: Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013

LINK

But in 2013, Arctic sea ice coverage was up 50 percent from 2012 levels. Data from Europe’s Cryosat spacecraft showed that Arctic sea ice coverage was nearly 2,100 cubic miles by the end of this year’s melting season, up from about 1,400 cubic miles during the same time last year.

Scientists predicted in 2000 that kids would grow up without snow. It was 14 years ago now when UK climate scientists argued that global warming would make snowfall a “a very rare and exciting event”.

LINK

May 15, 1989, Associated Press: “Using computer models, researchers concluded that global warming would raise average annual temperatures nationwide [USA] two degrees by 2010.”

They were off about 400%

LINK

“Arctic specialist Bernt Balchen says a general warming trend over the North Pole is melting the polar ice cap and may produce an ice-free Arctic Ocean by the year 2000.”

Christian Science Monitor, June 8, 1972

“I think we’re in trouble. When you realize how little time we have left–we are now given not 10 years to save the rainforests, but in many cases five years. Madagascar will largely be gone in five years unless something happens. And nothing is happening.”

ABC, The Miracle Planet, April 22, 1990

“By the year 2000 the United Kingdom will be simply a small group of impoverished islands, inhabited by some 70 million hungry people … If I were a gambler, I would take even money that England will not exist in the year 2000.” Paul Ehrlich, Speech at British Institute For Biology, September 1971.

Here’s a clincher:

95% of the climate models made by the scientists the left trusts so much are wrong.

LINK

Would you trust a wild eyed religious guru if his predictions were wrong 95% of the time? if not, why trust wild eyed Al Gore and his supporting band of U.N. scientists?

Conclusion: this teaches us to not trust the authorities of the world just because they say a thing is true. Look into it for yourself and then decide.

***

The New Key

Ruth:

Giving Glory to God is what Jesus always did.

You have mentioned the Key word which is “Glory.” Now the real question is what is the principle behind it and how does it work?

This is as far as I want to go in giving hints before the gathering. In the meantime the group can attempt to solve the key, and we’ll see who comes closest to the truth. We’ll talk about it shortly after the gathering.

***

June 10, 2014

Climate Change

Sorin

Did you just say that NASA is wrong and you are right?

It’s not just me who has an issue with NASA switching from concentrating on space to global warming. 50 former NASA astronauts and scientists had enough and wrote a letter protesting NASA’s dive into propaganda.

LINK

None of the current NASA employees had the guts to sign it because they were worried about losing their jobs.

Global warming activism at NASA comes mostly from James Hansen, a leftist and ideologue. Back in the Seventies he tried to start a campaign against global cooling but then switched to global warming when it became politically expedient. So, I guess NASA was wrong even from your view when Hansen warned of global cooling.

Sorin:

You misread. The text says “proceeding at a rate that is unprecedented in the past 1,300 years”. Your graph only shows a sudden rise in temperatures only for our current period of time. The medieval warm period had a much more slower heat increase rate. What caused this sudden increase? Maybe humans?

Even interpreting this literally it is still wrong. In this current time frame – that is the last 18 years – warming has pretty much flatlined. 2013 was cooler than 1998 so you can’t say that in the present time warming is proceeding an unprecedented rate.

From 1880 to 2012 the planet warmed a mere .85 degrees C which is not alarming at all and has made the earth greener and more productive. LINK We do not have complete records of the Medieval Warm Period but it is quite possible they had a similar rise in that length of time. It is guessing to say otherwise. Geologists tell us that the earth has had some quick temperature changes in the past.

Human caused CO2 has undoubtedly caused some warming, but the effect has probably been less than 20% of the whole.

The 97% merely agree that humans have some influence

Sorin

Did you just say again that NASA lied? The text reads “97% of climate scientists agree that climate-warming trends over the past century are very likely due to human activities”. I’ll go with NASA on this one too.

I wouldn’t use the word lie, but I would use the word “distort.” They present the idea that 97% of the scientists surveyed support the idea that warming is “due to human activities.” (And the survey was not done by NASA) They present it as an all or nothing thing which is absolutely false. The question is not whether humans are a warming factor. Instead, the question is HOW MUCH? If humans did not exist there would still be warming and cooling and this survey makes it sound like all warming is 100% due to humans.

Just about all scientists agree that CO2 is a warming factor but disagree on how much. The guesses range from less than 1% to 120%.

The reason, of course, they were not specific in their survey is that almost all scientists believe that human released CO2 does have a warming effect so if the answer can only be yes or no they will admit that humans do have an effect. I also claim they have an effect so I am with the 97%

Sorin

I have shown you that concerning the war in Iraq you where fabricating historical data to be in accordance with your view.

Your fantasies are getting out of hand here.

***

June 11, 2014

Cosmos Comments

Nathan:

You totally missed Tyson’s point JJ because, like you accuse of Tyson, you have the agenda of the global warming “skeptic.” Tyson did not deny that Venus being closer to the sun doesn’t contribute to its increased heat. Tyson was implying that a large portion of the increased heat is due to the CO2 content, which is absolutely true.

Here are Tyson’s actual words.

“The surface is hotter than a broiling oven, hot enough to melt lead.

“Why? You might think it’s because Venus is 30% closer to the Sun than the Earth is, but that’s not the reason.”

It sure sounds like he is discounting the fact that Venus being closer to the sun is part of the reason Venus is hotter. And he didn’t say that CO2 was a “portion” of the reason for the extra heat. He left the unscientific viewers with the impression that it was the total reason. And I think he made this distortion in an attempt to scare us into thinking the earth may become like Venus if we do not fall in line with Climate Change Agenda.

Like I said he would have been correct if he had said. “that’s not the total reason.”

The truth here is so obvious, I’m surprised you are trying to argue with it.

Nathan:

Venus is farther from the sun than Mercury, so how could Venus be slightly hotter? Perhaps it has something to do with, oh I don’t know, lots of the greenhouse gas CO2 in the atmosphere?

You need to argue with what I say, not with what I do not say. Of course there is a greenhouse effect on Venus. There is also the effect of the high pressure of the atmosphere being 90 times that of earth which also creates some heat. My point was that Mercury is closer to the sun and has a surface of about 800 degrees, which is very hot and the heat is only due to the sun illustrating that being closer to the sun does cause a planet to take in extra heat. This point should be beyond any argument yet Tyson made it sound like Venus being closer to the sun than the Earth made no difference in temperature.

JJ Quote

But if we go upward about 30 miles we would arrive at an atmospheric density similar to that of the Earth, and get this. The temperature is no longer boiling hot but actually a lot like of our planet.

How can this be when the atmosphere is 96.5% CO2. Looks like we have the opposite of a greenhouse effect with CO2 there experiencing more earthlike conditions.

Nathan

Are you being serious right now JJ? Have you ever been up a mountain and have gotten that sensation of pressure in your ears? That’s because the atmosphere gets less dense as you go higher up. Everyone knows this. The same is true on Venus, so therefore even if the atmosphere is still 96.5% CO2, there is still much less of it and therefore much less greenhouse effect.

You missed my point completely. Of course all atmospheres get thinner as you go higher. That was what I was saying yet you are using it as a point of argument. That is very strange.

When you ascend on Venus until you get to the same atmospheric pressure as the Earth’s surface atmosphere the amount of CO2 is still 2400 times more in quantity than on the earth, yet the temperature is fairly cool like earth. So we have an example of an area (Venus’ upper atmosphere) where CO2 in an atmospheric pressure as on earth is fairly cool even though the concentration of CO2 is 2400 times as much as exists here. You’d think that with the extra solar radiation and the high concentration of CO2 that it would be a lot warmer, but it’s not. This indicates that scientists may be giving too much weight to the greenhouse effect of CO2.

***

Brat’s Amazing Victory

Here is an interesting piece of data concerning the election upset:

“Cantor’s office spent more money renting out steak houses for campaign events than Brat’s office spent during the entire election cycle, according to FEC campaign finance data.”

I’d say that if Cantor unsuccessfully spends $5 million to defeat an unknown candidate who only spends $100,000 that he needs to go.

LINK

June 13, 2014

The Fifth Key

We’ve just had a couple stabs at the principle behind the Key since I acknowledged the Key word is “Glory.”

Here are three members going the right direction:

Duke:

I see two aspects to the word “Glory”. One is, giving credit where credit’s due. The other is, a sending up of energy.

Ruth:

The Principle would have to be something along the lines of “Acknowledgement”..

Giving Glory to God is what Jesus always did.

These are all effects of the principle but not the principle itself.

The name of the Key is

“The Principle of Glory.”

There is a principle that brings glory. What is it?

***

Wind No More

Looks like the environmentalists will soon be protesting wind power as it is causing a huge disturbance in the animal kingdom.

LINK

Then solar power is also frying some birds that fly to close so if they get their way we’ll eventually be left with our own body eat as the only desirable source of energy.

***

Nathan:

No I’m afraid not JJ. There are no environmentalists that are protesting wind or solar power.

I was speaking of the future, but it is already happening and will just get worse.

Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most famous environmentalists in the country and the other Kennedys are not far behind, but have protested and enacted lawsuits to prevent the contraction of wind turbines way out in the waters of Nantucket Sound because they will destroy the pristine view even though you need binoculars to see them from land.

Link 1

Here are three other links of environmentalists protesting wind power.

Link2

Link3

Link4

Here are three links concerning protests of solar power. The last one takes place way over in China.

Link1

Link2

Link3

***

Nathan: “You are not referencing mainstream environmentalists.”

Wow, you are really a moving target You said nothing about mainstream environmentalists, but said: “There are no environmentalists that are protesting wind or solar power.”

On the other hand, you cannot get any more mainstream than Robert F. Kennedy Jr, one of the most famous environmentalists in history suing to stop production of wind power..

If you Google it you can find dozens of stories of environmentalists unhappy or protesting with aspects of wind and solar. I gave seven and that should have done the trick. One link was bad. Here it is again LINK

Nathan: “The only exception was with the one in China which protested a factory of solar panels, not solar power itself.”

That is like saying that people are not unhappy with oil itself, but the byproducts of oil. The manufacturing of solar panels is part of the whole package. No one protests energy itself, but many are upset at the processes that bring it to us including wind and solar.

June 14, 2014

Re: Wind No More

I answered Nathan’s letter last night but it seems to have disappeared into the ethers. I’ll briefly answer it again.

Nathan claims that I am painting all environmentalists with a broad brush saying that all, including RFK, are against wind and solar.

Nothing could be further from the truth and not sure where he is finding this in anything I have said.

He gives an incomplete quote from Kennedy. Let me repeat what I actually said.

“Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is one of the most famous environmentalists in the country and the other Kennedys are not far behind, but have protested and enacted lawsuits to prevent the contraction of wind turbines way out in the waters of Nantucket Sound because they will destroy the pristine view even though you need binoculars to see them from land.”

Now did I say there he is against all wind? No. He is against wind in his own backyard while claiming to support it. He compares putting the wind farm out at sea so far that you need binoculars to se it as the same thing as putting a wind farm in Yellowstone. That is a ridiculous hypocritical comparison. Wind farms at sea create a lot less distraction than many I have seen in California as I have driven though those distractions from nature.

It is an ironclad truth that some (not all) environmentalists are protesting some wind and solar production. This is not because they claim to be against wind and solar in principle but they are increasingly finding details with which they disagree that make it difficult to produce energy from these sources.

(1) They are growing concerned about, pollution during the manufacturing process

(2) They are concerned about wind and solar disturbing the environment, insects, birds, animals etc at planned locations.

(3) Windmills killing birds that fly into them and solar plants frying birds that fly into the hot zone.

(4) As we increase production, wind and solar becomes an eyesore on the natural environment. This causes an increase of concern not only to the environmentalists, but the general public.

My point which Nathan did not seem to understand is that environmentalists concern over the impact of wind and solar will only increase as the years go by. Even if breakthroughs are made in the technology and it appears that we can have unlimited energy from them I suspect that this will not make them happy and they will increasingly find reasons why more wind and solar cannot be installed just as they did with nuclear and hydro – the two cleanest, as far as release of CO2 goes.

I don’t know why that one link did not work. Here is the actual address. It works when I cut and paste.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?nid=1914&dat=19941028&id=zps0AAAAIBAJ&sjid=IGsFAAAAIBAJ&pg=4643,6205779

June 15, 2014

Laggards

Ruth,

So did the Jew laggards lose the game in the previous universe, and now the game is harder for them in this universe, to learn from, of course.

In each round you lose some and you win some depending on where we put our attention. In the last solar system (according to DK) those who are now incarnated as Jews concentrated too much on the material aspect and not the spiritual and had come to earth at this time to learn additional spiritual lessons.

In many ways life is easier for them because they have, as a race, a lot of material savvy under their belts. That is why they have always been good at accumulating money and possessions – until their neighbors become jealous. Because they are old souls many of them have excelled at whatever they attempted because they have more experience than most other humans.

***

Re: The Fifth Key

The group has posted some good insights related to the Fifth Key but no one has enunciated the principle.. When you discover it you will see that it is really quite simple and makes a lot of sense and explains a lot.

I don’t want to reveal it here before the gathering but I will give these additional hints in questions.

If one expects to receive glory what must he not do, and what must he do? What must he receive from his associates and why?

***

Ruth:

Are we a talking about Glory as Praise or Glory as Light?

We are not talking about brightness or shining light and neither does praise always produce glory. Obama has received tons of praise from the media but will go down in history with very little glory.

We are talking about recognition of true achievement.

The group keeps naming good qualities that the person receiving glory should have. Yes, good qualities are important to good achievements but has little or nothing to do with how the principle works. A person can be trustworthy, honest, kind, loving etc and complete screw up the Principle of Glory because he does not understand it and has the wrong focus.

***

Larry Woods is dancing around the edges of the principle but no one

has stated it. It is like it is neatly tucked away in a box and

everyone is looking outside the box. Larry’s post looked at the edges

of the box.

***

Good comments from all but we are looking for the principle not definitions. We are not looking for the leaves of the tree but that which gives the tree life. Think. What is the principle that determines whether man, angel or God receives glory for his work? It is very simple but no teacher I know of has taught it in fulness.

I do not want to give out a lot more here as I do not want to acknowledge what the principle is until the gathering. So far only the edges of the box has been approached.

***

John Crane brought us closer to looking into the box in one of his posts. I can’t give many more hints without telling the group the key outright. Think again. What needs to happen before a person receives glory and what would be the sentence that encapsulates the principle?

June 18, 2014

Re: The Fifth Key

The group says some good things but no one has moved any closer to the principle since John Crane posted.

Here is a huge hint for you that illustrates the principle.

When he noticed how the guests were trying to secure the places of honour, he spoke to them in a parable : ‘When you are asked by someone to a wedding-feast, do not sit down in the place of honour. It may be that some person more distinguished than yourself has been invited ; and the host will come and say to you, “Give this man your seat.” Then you will look foolish as you begin to take the lowest place. No, when you receive an invitation, go and sit down in the lowest place, so that when your host comes he will say, “Come up higher, my friend.” Then all your fellow-guests will see the respect in which you are held. For everyone who exalts himself will be humbled; and whoever humbles himself will be exalted.’ Luke 14:7-11 New English

***

Someone is opening the box and coming very close. I’m not going to say much more in the way of hints till after the gathering. I will give one more tonight. I will say this. The principle is hiding in plain site in the parable.

***

Johann

This must be it, start at the bottom and work your way up. The same applies for each new incarnation. Then the achievements are plainly seen for what they are, in time, and the respect that comes with them. Again this forms a chain moving ever higher.

Great discernment, Johann. That is not the principle of Glory but worthy of further contemplation.

That is the irony here. Individuals are looking for the truth in various directions and hence are finding truth; so even if you are not the first to discover the Principle of Glory you are likely to find something interesting.

Why?

Because you are looking.

***

Dan:

Seek not for glory, follow the highest you can perceive, and glory will find you.

That’s not the Principle of Glory, but a great statement of truth. It could be in the famous quotations section someday.

June 19, 2014

The Key

Major Hint.

The Key is hidden in plain site in these scriptures.

John 7:18 He that speaketh of himself seeketh his own glory: but he that seeketh his glory that sent him, the same is true, and no unrighteousness is in him.

John 8:50 And I seek not mine own glory:

John 17:4 I have glorified thee on the earth: I have finished the work which thou gavest me to do.

John 17:5 And now, O Father, glorify thou me with thine own self with the glory which I had with thee before the world was.

John 17:22 And the glory which thou gavest me I have given them; that they may be one, even as we are one:

***

Ruth:

But we can’t guess the key before you have given it out at the Gathering……….?

Two or three words fit in here, but I am sure someone else might find the exact key word…….so I will add these in, because it is something along these lines…..

Sure you can guess it. That’s what the group is trying to do. If someone gets it I may not fully acknowledge it until after the gathering, but no one has got it yet though one has come close. You already have the key word which is glory. The challenge now is to explain the principle in a way that shows you understand it. In the past day the group has been saying some good things, but drifting away from the box.

June 20, 2014

More Hints

My Friends,

Thanks for your effort in attempting to grasp the understanding of the Principle of Glory. The group continues to make good observations but has come no closer despite the powerful hints. Some wonder how in the world can the principle be lying there in plain sight in several scriptures and hints and not be able to see them.

It’s a little like the story of Columbus and the egg.

After discovering the New World, a dinner was held in his honor. Afterwards they were talking and one of the guests stated something like this:

“Columbus, what you did was really no big deal. Since you have sailed to the new world, many others have done the same thing. What makes you think you have done anything great since others are now doing the same thing you did.”

To this challenge, Columbus took an egg off his plate and handed it to the heckler and said: “Take this egg my friend and see if you can make it stand on its end.”

The man looked at the egg and said: “It’s impossible.”

But Columbus urged him on: “You’re wrong. It is possible. Go ahead and try.”

The man tried several times and each time the egg rolled over on its side. After he failed several others tried it with the same results. Finally the frustrated audience handed the egg back to Columbus and said: “We do not think that such a feat is possible, but if you really believe that it can be done please show us how.”

Columbus then took the egg back and smashed it on its bottom end on the table. The bottom of the egg was crushed into flatness and the group stared at the egg doing the impossible – standing on its end. Then Columbus taught them an important lesson. “Now I’ve shown you how to do it, the easiest thing in the world is to follow.”

He was right. A minute before no one could make an egg stand on its end. A minute afterwards everyone could.

Similarly, there are many great principles hidden in the words of the masters and the prophets and we do not see them. I have had various scriptures memorized for maybe 30 years and then just driving down the road with my mind blank the scripture comes into my mind bearing a new meaning that I had never seen before. When this happens I almost feel like slapping myself for after such an event the meaning seems so obvious.

Even so it is with the Principle of Glory. The principle is very simple, more simple than some of the explanations that have been given here. It will seem obvious after I give it out. I’ll give it out to the group here shortly after the gathering.

One last hint.

Do not look for definitions or concern yourself with what glory is. We all have the general idea. Look for the principle that creates glory.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 9

September 9, 2014December 12, 2022 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 12 of 33 in the series 2014

May 25, 2014

Question Five

When seekers learn about the left hand path and the Dark Brothers they instinctively assume that they are not a part of that direction. And why do they assume this?

Because their intentions are good. Not only this but they want all kinds of good things – like world peace, eliminate poverty, equal rights, sharing wealth, do away with weapons of mass destruction, increase the level of education, increase human rights to name a few. Surely this seeker with such good values couldn’t be one the bad guys side, could he?

Don’t be so sure.

If a hundred randomly selected people were to meet a representative of a the Dark Brothers and talk with him over coffee, a good ninety of them would go away thinking the guy was a nice guy with good intentions and ideas. They wouldn’t have a clue as to what his true intentions were or where they would take us.

A small handful would sense that thee was something off in the guy and pay a lot of attention to the exact wording that comes out of his mouth. These would read between the lines and see that something was amiss.

If you meet a supporter of the dark side he is not going to stand out as some sinister figure who wants more crime, prostitution, slavery child abuse etc. Instead he will often come across as squeaky clean.

Take a look at that list of good intentions we made. He would be for all of them.

Let us pick just one – world peace.

The Dark Brothers and all their representatives want world peace and will openly call or it. The problem is that they want it on different terms than the Brotherhood of Light. They want to establish world peace by suppressing, by use of force, all dissent and points of view contrary to their thinking. Their idea of world peace is something like North Korea where there are no challenges to authority because all the people are controlled by fear.

Of course, they will not tell you this but they will tell you how much they are in favor of peace and such talk will sound benevolent to those who ignore their own souls.

The Brotherhood of Light will tell you what they want to accomplish and then proceed to do it. The Dark Brotherhood will pretend they want to do the same thing but then cleverly steer their acolytes toward a different end that was hidden from them.

The main dividing line between the two brotherhoods is the Principle of Freedom. This tells us that we should seek maximum freedom through the use of minimal force.

For more on this principle go here:

LINK

Now what creates a inroad for darkness is that it is necessary that those on the right hand path use some force. For instance, the threat of force must be used to prevent murder, rape theft etc. Unfortunately, this gives the Dark Brotherhood an inroad to use more force than necessary while claiming that they are no different than the good guys.

The Dark Brotherhood teaching on the use of force at first will seem reasonable, but then they will, inch by inch, turn it up a notch at a time until a bewildered following will discover that they are no longer free.

On hindsight the wrong use of force, which is in the direction of slavery, seems obvious. For instance, just about all people today see that the Southern States were wrong in using force to keep slaves. But it was different if you were back there. They saw the work the slaves did by force produced good results so this made it a good thing in their eyes.

For instance, maybe a community needed a new school built and several slave owners donated their slaves for labor. After the school was finished the people looked upon the structure and declared it “good” and thought to themselves how good it was that they had slaves to build this for them.

Most people today can look back on this and see the illusion the people were under.

But does the illusion still persist?

It does and only the circumstances have changed.

Today many slave away working hard hours to pay more taxes than they desire or think is just. The government takes the money from this slave labor and builds many government buildings and employs many bureaucrats to work therein and they stand back and say: “This is good. It is a good thing that we tax these people more than they want to pay so we can do all these good works.”

Question Five: If the slave labor doing good works in the first example is wrong then is the slave labor to pay the unwanted taxes for good works today wrong also?

Will a future generation look back on us as we look back on the illusion of the slave owners in the South?

Explain your thinking.

***

Dan

Being the “soul of the universe” just means the current focus of interplay between spirit and matter is on humanity – as it was on the quarks in their time and the atoms in theirs.

We are just getting started in our function of the soul of the universe. Our soul energy in our bodies use intelligence to give them their form from the cells to the whole body itself. The organization of the universe by humans hasn’t really began yet as you can tell by looking at the random forms out there organized mainly by gravity, inertia and other forces.

The imagination of man cannot fathom what will take place among the stars and galaxies when human beings throughout the universe assume their rightful place billions of years hence.

***

March 26, 2014

The Trap of Illusion

Duke:

I don’t consider myself a slave. I consider myself a free man with responsibilities and obligations, one of which involves paying taxes. I look around at the country I live in, and really don’t begrudge paying my fair share for its upkeep and support.

And neither do I begrudge paying a fair tax to support my country. That was not what I was referring to. I was talking about taxation that goes beyond fair and every person has a line where that may be, including yourself.

Apparently the taxes you now pay is an amount you consider just, so of course this doesn’t make you feel like a slave. But suppose you had to pay a 90% tax and your children were going hungry. Then how would you feel?

Actually, if we include all the hidden taxes the average person in the United States pays more than a 60% tax. Because much of it is hidden we tend to not feel so cheated. In ancient Rome it was common to have a slave run a business and the master took a third of the profits and allowed the slave to keep two thirds. This proved to be a good incentive to keep the slave working hard. Variations of this practice was carried on by some in the Old South. Some slaves actually made pretty good money and dressed quite flamboyantly. Others were not so lucky.

The point is that many pay more in taxes than slaves in times past and, unlike you, they feel they are paying more than their fair share and a good portion of their money is being wasted. This causes numerous people to work for many hours where they could be enjoying themselves instead. If you are contributing in a way that you consider fair then of course you would not feel like a slave, but if you have to give much more money to an all powerful government than you desire or think is fair then you are a slave to a powerful master.

What we have to look at here is not what certain individuals consider fair but what the taxpayers as a whole feel. I’m not in a high federal tax bracket so I would not grumble for myself there but I am just as outraged if my neighbor has to pay an unfair tax as if it were myself. As far as other taxes go I think the payroll tax is too high for what we get, our sales tax too high and property tax is too high. If the money were well spent and efficiently managed I would feel much better about it.

The Swiss have a lot fairer system than we do because the citizens prevent the federal government from getting out of control. The maximum federal tax there is 11.5% and if a married couple make less than $30,000 they pay nothing. The capital gains rate for individuals is zero and they pay about a third of the property tax of the United States. On top of this they have no national debt.

Now if our country were run like Switzerland there would be few who would feel like slaves to the system and people like me would be happy to pay their fair share – because it would actually be fair.

Switzerland, the most Democratic nation on earth, with a history of Democracy for 800 years does definitely not fit into the accused stereotype of an irresponsible people voting themselves free stuff to their ruin. On the other hand, we as a republic are following this path.

Duke:

I associate slavery with misery.

A slave isn’t necessarily miserable. Many slaves in the Old South, after they were emancipated, said they were happier as a slave than a free person. After the fall of the Soviet Union many didn’t know what to do with their new freedom and were said to be happier in their slave state until they adjusted. That, of course, doesn’t make it right, for maximum freedom of choice is the destiny and right of all humanity.

In addition, many can be happier in a bad situation because they have a good attitude than others in a good situation with a negative attitude.

Duke:

I would like to know whether you think I’m aligned with the Dark Brotherhood because of my current beliefs in this area.

I think you are one of the most honorable individuals I have met and you do your best to follow the highest you know. The world would be a much better place if there were more like you.

That said, all those who have not passed the Third Initiation are susceptible to the trap of illusion and even people with the best of intentions may find themselves throwing support behind an idea supported by the Dark Brotherhood now and then. Way over 99% of the population support some type of beastly authority for instance.

The key for seekers is to follow the highest they know. When they do this their illusions will eventually be revealed. When revealed the highest they know will move up a step and to stay on the right path they must then take that step.

Only when illusion is dispelled can the disciple make a conscious choice to follow the right or left hand path. Until that time he must follow the highest he knows.

***

May 28, 2014

Global Warming Logic

Here are some of the highlights of my posts to The Statesman on Tuesday.

The logic of the Left makes absolutely no sense. They want to place our top priority on dealing with the effects of an increase of CO2 while placing other probable disasters that would be much more catastrophic on the back burner.

This is comparable to a crazy guy heading full steam ahead over a cliff while putting all his attention on trying to correct bad radio reception.

For one thing, we have had about eight times the current CO2 in our atmosphere in the past and life continued to thrive. There are a number of threats many times more serious than an increase in the fairly harmless CO2.

Here are some.

(1) The threat of an asteroid. The question is not if but when this will happen. In the past an asteroid wiped out about 90% of life on earth and another hit could destroy the human race. We have more technology to deal with a threat like this than we do climate change, but we are at the mercy of chance if the threat comes.

(2) A solar flare. Again the question is not if but when. In 1859 we were hit by one that knocked out telegraph systems all over America and Europe. If one happened again and knocked out all our electrical systems chaos would be the result and some estimate that this would result in the deaths of the majority of Americans through starvation and mob rule.

For less than $79 billion we could take measures to protect our grid from this event, which is overdue.

(3) A magnetic pulse created by an atomic explosion in our atmosphere. This could be accomplished by even a rogue nation such as North Korea and the results would be similar to a solar flare.

(4) Nuclear missiles headed our way. This can be overcome by missile defense and if Reagan’s plan were carried out without Democrat protests we could be safe right now. Instead Obama has cut funding for missile defense and reduced support for our European allies.

This may be the greatest threat we face but we want to place many times the attention on human caused CO2 emissions instead.

Future generations will look back on our judgment and by comparison the flat earth people of the Middle ages will look pretty good.

What is amusing about comparing my approach and that of the Left to global warming is this.

I am about 10% as concerned over the danger from humanity as they claim to be but about ten times more willing to support projects that will actually reduce CO2 emissions. Go figure.

***

May 29, 2014

Question Six

We’ve established that we should only borrow money as a nation for national emergencies. Wouldn’t it be great if our leaders understood this simple idea?

The main source of revenue is our taxes and we are often hit up for tax increases nationally, state and locally.

What kind of situation or demand would justify a tax increase?

Here are some that are often put forward.

(1) Additional benefits for the poor, minorities, disabled, unemployed etc.

(2) More money for education

(3) Defense

(4) Healthcare

So, what do you think justifies a tax increase and who should bear the burden?

***

Fun Site

Check this site out. Enter your last name and it will search through 250,000,000 names in the United States and tell you what percentage of them voted Republican or Democrat.

LINK

***

May 30, 2014

WMD’s

Soryn:

It is interesting that JJ said that Saddam was a big threat to global freedom, but many people see America’s intervention in Iraq as abusive, politically and oil driven. It turns out, Saddam had no nuclear weapons after all. So unless you can foresee the future, you will be inclined to say that the US commit an abuse by invading Iraq and interfering with the freewill, the sovereignty and the maturity of Iraqi people.

Any opinions on this JJ? You did argue for the caterpillar principle and so on.

First, let me compliment you for standing your ground and taking the heat here while continuing to be polite. We have no problem with different opinions if they are presented respectfully. Unfortunately, on many forums, like the Statesman, this does not happen.

Just imagine what would have been the result if either the United States or England had decided to take Hitler out in 1938 just before the start of the war. They would have been subject to enormous criticism and attack. Many would have claimed that Hitler was not a real threat and we were just war mongers interfering with a sovereign state.

This would have been one of the most benevolent actions in the history of the world yet no one would have known. If something does not happen then it does not exist, even as a possibility in the minds of most people. Few would have believed that Hitler was going to unleash such mayhem on the world.

So it is with Saddam Hussein. Because he was stopped in his tracks it appears to many that he wasn’t much of a threat after all.

In truth there was a lot more evidence that Saddam was a threat than there was for Hitler in 1938. He attacked a free country. He invaded Kuwait and forcefully occupied it. Why did he do this? It was a first step for him in acquiring domination of the oil in the Middle East. He was going to continue his aggression until he had the power to control other nations that depended on middle eastern oil. At that point he could have merely bought nuclear weapons from several nations.

Fortunately, he was stopped by George H. W. Bush. That did not stop his desire for conquest, however. After Saddam was captured we learned quite a bit from him, thanks to the expert interrogation of George L. Piro, an FBI agent who was assigned to develop the former dictator’s cooperation. After creating a positive relationship and some trust Piro got quite a bit of information out of him. Saddam did say that he was successfully disarmed of his weapons of mass destruction after the first Gulf War and he created a great bluff to make the world think he had them. He said that his goal after the first war was to get sanctions removed and once this happened he would rebuild his arsenal and develop nuclear weapons.

He came close to getting the sanctions removed several times and if George W. Bush hadn’t taken him out then it would have only been a matter of time before this happened. France and Germany were already dealing with him on the black market and much of Europe was looking forward to buying his oil again.

Once the sanctions were removed and Saddam had lots of revenue he could have purchased nuclear technology from North Korea, as they had a close relationship.

We have plenty to worry about in the world at present, but I am convinced we would have a lot more to deal with if Saddam was not taken out. I felt this in the core of my being from the time of the first Gulf War and was very disappointed the Bush One did not finish the job and take him out then.

***

DK on socialism, capitalism and education

JJ places a fairly high credibility on AAB/DK. But quotes like the ones you gave point out to me a fairly common mentality of the time, one susceptible to the fallacies of the day, and not one inspired from a higher level. Just my view. I don’t place nearly as much value on the AAB/DB writings myself.

Even though he is a master he is not infallible. The Beaver Principle applies here. Even though the beaver is in a lower kingdom than ourselves he can still build a better beaver dam than a human can.

DK is far removed from human affairs, especially the business world. The principles he teaches in support of freedom apply well but sometimes he is way over idealistic about how supply and demand should be handled – and this is because is is not involved in the fire of human day to day living as we are.

I’ll comment more on this shortly.

***

May 31, 2014

DK Quotes

Soryn quotes DK;

The control of labour by capital or the control of capital by labour must also go.”

Soryn

The control of labor by capital: for instance, money driven corporations with no social awareness whatsoever.

I have never encountered a corporation with no social awareness. Can you name one for me? I’ve called on many thousands of business and corporations in my sales career and I never came across one without some social awareness. Most of them are very concerned about their community.

Actually, I think DK spoke correctly here but worded it in such a way that many wrong and damaging interpretations could apply. Some could use this teaching as an excuse to use force to implement this ideal and that would be contrary to his teachings about freedom.

If the Molecular Business were universally adopted then this statement would come true, but it would be accomplished through free will and not the use of force – which DK was against.

Soryn:

The control of capital by labour: freedom for science, art, education and spirit from dictators or from the private interest of big businesses and corporate powers that seek to commercialize everything.

That is a stretch to get all that out of DK’s statement. For instance, for science, education and art to prosper in today’s world capital is needed. Without it, not much research or education would get accomplished.

We cannot just snap our fingers and use force to accomplish DK’s idea but it will take some time to evolve through free will. In saying this I am not saying you believe in such force.

Let us examine the statement. He says two things must go:

(1) The control of labour by capital

Here is the negative part of the situation created by those in power over labor as related in my treatise on the Molecular Business:

Since the beginning of business history the basic mode of operation has been the same: the man with the bucks has power to initiate a commercial endeavor. If he has a degree of common sense he succeeds and makes it profitable. In the process he hires a number of employees to work for him. Because he is the initiator he has full life-and-death power over their jobs, of which there is always a scarcity. Because of the scarcity of employment the initiator (or “boss” as we will call him) assumes a position of tremendous power over the lives of these subordinates. Any hint that they may be terminated fills them with foreboding fear and distress. Thus the boss assumes life-and-death power (concerning career) over his subjects just as a king, or dictator, has life and death power over his people.

The boss, therefore, establishes for himself a little kingdom, and for eight to ten hours a day he rules with supreme authority. Only after the workday ends do the subjects regain their freedom to run their lives, hobbies or additional work as they see fit.

As a kingdom grows, so grows the bureaucracy of the king. Alone he cannot control (or govern) the lives of all his subjects, so he selects others who agree with his philosophy and gives them power to be governors, or overlords, over the lives of the people. The people have no voice in the selection of these overlords but are chosen completely by the decree of the king. Each overlord has the same power as the king over the subjects, but controls a smaller group. The overlord is subject to the king just as the people are subject to him and he maintains his power as long as he pleases the king and stays within the guidelines of His Eminence’s philosophy. Thus, the overlords are not free, for they are also subjects, but they do have the advantage of power of dominion.

Correspondingly, we can easily see that as a business grows, it becomes a microcosmic kingdom. The boss cannot control the whole enterprise so he selects a bureaucracy of overlords. These overlords (executives, vice presidents, supervisors, foremen) direct the working lives of the employees and have the same power over their lives as the Number One Boss, except over a smaller number. The employees have no voice in the selection of these overlords but are chosen completely by the decree of the boss. The overlord is subject to the boss just as the employees are subject to him, and he maintains his power as long as he pleases the boss and stays within the guidelines of His Eminence’s philosophy. Thus, the overlords are not free, for they are also subjects, but they do have the advantage of power of dominion.

(2) The control of capital by labour must also go.”

And how does labor control capital? It does this through the unions and other means of making demands. I believe that what DK was looking for was the end of the unhealthy condition where the worker feels like a slave under his boss and company. Then because of dissatisfaction he seeks to control his destiny through unions and demands. Both sides of this coin hurt productivity, hinder happiness and peace of mind.

The coming cooperative society patterned after the molecular business will make these problems unnecessary for in this system the employees will own the company and have a say on wages received and how the company is run. The election principle will do away with the feeling that you are being suffocated by an unjust boss and ownership will do away with the need for unions.

Soryn quotes DK again:

“The new world order will not impose a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations. The sovereign rights of each nation will be recognised and its peculiar genius, individual trends and racial qualities will be permitted full expression. In one particular only should there be an attempt to produce unity, and that will be in the field of education.

Notice he says “an attempt to produce unity I education. He does not mention the use of Big Brother type of force. Here is what he did say about unity from the same book – Externalization of the Hierarch

“Cooperative unity differs from an enforced unity in that the subjective spirit and the objective form are functioning towards one recognised end.”

Cooperative unity through free will is the goal. This is not something to be had with most governments today.

Soryn quotes D K again:

There must eventually be a closer tie-up between the educational system, the legal system and the government, but it will all be directed to an effort to work out the best ideals of the thinkers of the day.”

Sorin

Public education: free from the arbitrariness of private interest or from government abuse. Affordable for everyone, with no discrimination in the advantage of the rich and powerful.

He doesn’t say that private interest will be out of the equation. A private system can be as much or more cooperative than a public one. He’s also speaking of a future when there will be greater freedom and democracy. In a free world there will be nothing to stop the creation of a private educational system if desired. The point is that when a system is demonstrated that works well then others copy it and a cooperative union is the natural result.

Soryn quoting DK

“The new world order will recognise that the produce of the world, the natural resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all. There will be no nations under the category “haves” and others under the opposite category. A fair and properly organised distribution of the wheat, the oil and the mineral wealth of the world will be developed, based upon the needs of each nation, upon its own internal resources and the requirements of its people. All this will be worked out in relation to the whole.”

Sorin

Like those corporations and rich countries that exploit the resources and the labor of the 3rd world countries (via force and raw violations of the human rights).

He is talking about a system that will evolve in the future, perhaps hundreds of years in the making. Part of that evolution involves corporations helping third world countries by employing their masses so eventually they become wealthier and independent. There is no easy way to go from poverty to abundance in the world at this time, but it is slowly happening.

The above quote is one of the worst statements he has made and can be used to promote communism by force as Benjamin Crème does. DK is either just plain wrong or used bad wording to express his views.

Let us suppose that we adopt the idea that the “resources of the planet and its riches, belong to no one nation but should be shared by all.”

If we take this literally then we need to invade the oil rich middle eastern countries and force them to share their oil and riches.

I think that what he was getting at is that as the nations become more free and prosperous that they will develop a natural inclination to share. People will share with people and nations with nations through free will.

In your quote he said, “The new world order WILL NOT IMPOSE a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations.”

Soryn quoting DK

“National material assets and the needed commodities will all be provided for under an entirely new system. – Private enterprise will still exist, but will be regulated; the great public utilities, the major material resources and the sources of planetary wealth – iron, steel, oil and wheat, for instance – will be owned in the first place by a governing, controlling international group; they will, however, be prepared for international consumption by national groups chosen by the people and under international direction.”

Again, this is poor wording or he is just plain wrong. For one thing it disagrees with the quote I just gave. Let me give it again:

“The new world order WILL NOT IMPOSE a uniform type of government, a synthetic religion and a system of standardisation upon the nations.”

In the quote you gave it sounds like the guy with a few acres raising some potatoes and wheat couldn’t do what he wants with the produce but would have to turn it over to an international organization for redistribution. If so, he would have no incentive to work as happens in communist countries like the old Soviet union.

That is crazy talk whether it comes from a master, angel or devil. It sounds like he is advocating a similar doctrine to Hitler and he despised Hitler and all he stood for. He is usually very encouraging of freedom. It makes me wonder if Alice A. Bailey got the transmission right on this.

If he envisioned a sharing through free will of the people and nations, fine I support that, but his wording could be interpreted in other directions where freedom is compromised.

Your comments have been in so many directions that I cannot possibly comment on all of them. Let us try and cover one subject at a time instead of the shotgun approach.

***

Soryn:

Another example: the majority in the US decided that the idea of Obamacare is best so they voted Obama. Do you have anything against this decision taken by the majority? I sure don’t. … Bottom line is: the majority must be respected.

Where do you get the idea that an elected president follows the will of the people??? Every president does a number of things that anger the majority. There has never been a proven majority in favor of Obamacare and if many lies had not been fostered on us a great majority would have opposed it from the beginning. There are still a lot of people uninformed about it.

As it is, the latest news from the Obama supporting Washington Post tells us that the majority, 55% presently disapprove of Obamacare. I personally think the number is higher than that. LINK

If we had a system where the people have the final say, as they have in Switzerland, Obamacare would have never passed. It is a nightmare in progress.

***

Where do you get the idea that an elected president follows the will of the people???

Sorin

I didn’t say that.

It sure sounds that way. Here are your actual words:

“Another example: the majority in the US decided that the idea of Obamacare is best so they voted Obama. Do you have anything against this decision taken by the majority? I sure don’t. You like it or not the majority decided FOR universal health care (and maybe for a good reason,”

It really sounds like you are saying that because the majority voted for Obama we voted for universal health care.

In voting for most of us it comes down to these choices for president.

(1) A candidate that rarely represents the voter’s will.

(2) A candidate who will sometimes represent his will.

Soryn:

It seemed reasonable to think that people voting for Obama also voted for Obamacare, as it was one of his main “selling points”.

There was somewhat true in 2008 but not so much in 2012. The main reason Obama won a second term was because he very successfully portrayed Romney as a mean, evil SOB that didn’t care a whit about the little guy. For many it was the choice between the corrupt guy they knew and the one who would be even worse.

***

I have never encountered a corporation with no social awareness. Can you name one for me?

Sorin

Well, that’s because you only look at what’s happening in the US.

You make a link that shows abuses made mostly by governments and people but no corporation is singled out as the bad guy. Let me repeat again:

Can you name one corporation for me that has no record of social awareness?

***

June 1, 2014

More on Floating Cities

LINK

***

Curiosity on JJ’s ethnicity

Sorin:

JJ, just a small curiosity.

I get this vibe from you that you are biased towards business, commerce, material abundance, individual freedom, capitalism and libertarian-ism. You also seem to side strongly with the right and oppose the left all the times. Dewey seems to be a Jewish name, so I would make a wild guess and say that you are probably 99% Jew. Am I right?

You’re picking up the wrong vibe on the Jewish blood. None that I know of. Most of my ancestors are from England. My consciousness is far removed from the typical religious or materialistic Jew. I have devoted my life to the spiritual path, often at the sacrifice of material things.

It is only the Left Hand Path that I am opposed to and that is the side that decides against the Principle of Freedom. With freedom comes free enterprise and abundance – and that is only a good thing from a higher point of view. Also workable social programs will emerge in a free atmosphere compared to those that do not work when forced upon us.

***

Keith

Creme’s comment that the ‘world is full of disciples’ is wrong. The world has only a handful of active disciples on the physical plane. The world has legions of aspirants and a small number of probationary disciples, but very few accepted disciples.

Sorin

That quote is actually from Alice Bailey and DK. 😀

Though is seems to be a description of what Creme is doing now.

DK said in one of his books that there were only a little 300 disciples on the whole planet so Keith is correct in his perception that the world is not “full” of them, at least as we understand the term.

***

Huge Mistake

Sorim:

Let me ask you something. If you were to vote for the ideas and the system proposed here by DK, based on your understanding of how economy and human coexisting work, would you vote Yes or No?

DK did not clarify exactly what the system was to be except to indicate the people and nations of the future will be more cooperative, more sharing and more benevolent and I vote yes in proceeding that direction.

There seems to be a point that you really misunderstand and that is this. All systems and enterprises and customs relating to the life of humanity do not function perfectly and many flaws are revealed on the road to relative perfection. This includes the gift of freedom as compared to a state of being controlled by the authority of the Beast – or outside source.

On hindsight we can see many flaws in the Old Soviet union where there was very little free market (mostly the black market) and the people were severely controlled.

After its fall and the people had a lot more freedom and some complained. Even though most liked the freedom others concentrated on the flaws revealed. People had to take more personal responsibility and if they did not then they seemed to suffer even more than before. Chaos seemed to reign for a while but after the people adjusted few now would want to return to the old system. The extra freedom revealed flaws that needed to be addressed but that didn’t mean freedom was evil.

Whenever you compare two systems you will almost always find that the one with the most freedom to act will be the one that is most successful and beneficial to the people.

This applies to endeavors to create abundance, choose your mate, your fiends, choose what you want to join, how much you want to participate in any legal interest, choose who to represent you, choose where you want to live and what kind of residence, chose the food you eat and what supplements you take, chose your doctor, healthcare plan etc.

Some would agree with all that except he free market. They think this must be controlled by force. In this attitude they are making a huge mistake.

Would you want someone stepping in after you fell in love and telling you that you must never see your true love again?

Of course not. Yet some would tell a person in love with his business, which provides much happiness to his customers that he has to change it into something he soon will not even recognize.

Maybe this same authority tells him that relationships has too many risks. Sometimes people even kill each other. Marriage is bad, therefore, for your own good, I am saving you, even if it is against your will.

Sounds ridiculous but this is what many try to do with free enterprise. Because everything does not turn out to be sunshine and roses some want to take away all (or a lot of) freedom in free enterprise.

The key piece of knowledge is this. In an atmosphere of freedom there will ALWAYS be more progress toward the desired goal than in an atmosphere of control by a self appointed elite.

Huge mistake.

Either a person believes in the Principle of Freedom or he does not. If he does then he can be of use to the Brotherhood of Light. If he does not then he will be of very limited value for they do all in their power to bring the desired results through the power of maximum free will.

***

June 2, 2014

Free Enterprise

JJ Quote

Sorin

So in the lack of a definite response from you concerning capitalism, I will assume that you recognize the obvious flaws of capitalism, contrary to what you previously believed.

Where do you get the idea I am changing my mind on capitalism or free enterprise? I believed in free enterprise yesterday and do today.

And what response do you want? No system is perfect but for our present consciousness it is the best we have. It certainly has proven more beneficial than communism and gives European countries the prosperity they have.

I think maybe Larry Woods had a good point in using a consistent name. Free enterprise encapsulates the Principle of Freedom as it applies to making our economic machinery work. Some crony capitalism is not so free, where the government decides the winners and losers. Free enterprise is more representative of those who can manage their business without undue interference or contributions from governments.

Just because we are not perfect human beings does not mean free enterprise is evil as you insinuate. It would make just as much sense to say that windmills are evil because they kill some birds.

Sorin:

Now, let’s get to your principle of freedom.

This is another case where you fail to see the forest because of the trees, because you fail to see how this principle is dependent upon other principles.

As I said, the maximum individual freedom exalted by capitalism and libertarianism will quickly shift toward maximum material individual freedom, which is exactly what is happening today

And freedom to pursue material things like a new car is a bad thing in your mind? Wow.

Sorin:

where you get a small minority of insanely rich people, that have tons of individual material freedom

And how does someone who works hard, creates jobs and produces products people like hurt you or me? I’d guess that any hurt to you is in your imagination because Bill Gates getting wildly rich has not hurt me or anyone I know in the least.

On the other hand, governments increasing our taxes or making a dumb regulation can instantly affect our lives for the worse.

Sorin:

but the freedom of the majority is severely affected

What have you been smoking? How does Bill Gates getting wildly rich take away from the freedom of the majority? The technology he developed has enhanced the freedom of the majority.

Sorin:

and the exalted individual freedom of that minority

Bill Gate’s wealth has given him some extra freedom. And my knowledge that I have gained has given me a lot of extra freedom also. Those who gain extra freedom through effort do not diminish the freedom of others. Just because I have some extra spiritual freedom takes away nothing from you and neither does Bill Gates with his material freedom.

Sorin

is corrupted by separation and materialism.

Some rich are corrupted but so are many of the poor. What else is new? Humans are not perfect.

Bill Gates is giving away billions of dollars to help the less fortunate. It sounds like he is trying to be a good guy.

Sorin

Applying the principle of freedom does not always entail pacifism. This is where you are confused.

I’m not confused on this at all.

Sorin

On the one hand, you agreed with FORCE, in the case of removing certain dictators – Saddam

Yes, Saddam invaded another country and tried to exterminate the Kurds, without provocation and needed to be removed to unsure maximum freedom for the whole.

Sorin:

but on the other hand you demand PACIFISM when it comes to SEVERE and DEMONSTRATED corporate abuses on 3rd world countries.

I do not know of any corporation that has invaded a country and enslaved them. Show me such a thing and I’ll definitely support a change of leadership by any means possible.

Paying low wages in the third world where such wages still improve the quality of the people’s lives is not a bad thing for it gives the people more freedom That is why they take the jobs.

Sorin:

As a matter of fact, the US invading Saddam was a clear violation of both your principle of freedom and caterpillar principle.

Wrong wrong wrong. It enhances freedom to remove a dictator who invades other countries to enslave them and seeks to exterminate a people, just as removing Hitler enhanced freedom. If you don’t think removing a Hitler type of aggressor enhances freedom then you have a problem.

Sorin:

Second, because the US imposed their political ideal – democracy – to Iraq, thus violating their freewill and the caterpillar principle.

You can’t really impose freedom or democracy. You can only offer a people a chance at it which we did. Whether or not they are successful is now up to them.

You do not seem to understand the Caterpillar Principle. The principle is you do not interfere with a circumstance where the life is moving forward on it’s own struggle. Suppose some stupid kid took the cocoon and buried it in some dirt where it had no chance to survive? If I saw such a thing I would remove he dirt to help it where it could not help itself, but then leave it to grow through its natural struggle.

Similarly we had to help the Jews during World War II because they were in a circumstance where they could not liberate themselves. We also had to help the Kurds to save them from extermination from Saddam.

Sorin:

While, my idea of enforcing human rights respects BOTH principles:

How about the right to operate your business as one sees fit? That is a pretty huge human right you seem to oppose.

Sorin:

First, the imbalance created by the big businesses (that rule America and the civilized world) are a sure threat to world peace, justice and FREEDOM.

Are you living in the Twilight Zone or what? Where are these businesses that are so threatening? No business is forcing me to pay them anything. None of them are taxing me, regulating me or making me buy anything I do not want. All they do is offer me products and services I can take or leave. None of them force anyone to work for them. Why you think this threatens world peace is an amazing thought.

It is the leaders of governments who threaten world peace. An argument can be made that the bankers sometimes assist but they are intertwined with governments and heavily regulated.

Sorin

So enforcing human rights acts purely on the basis of the principle of freewill.

It depends on the situation. Most human rights abuses are caused by the governments of the planet and it is those entities that you need to target.

Just because you accuse a business of human rights violations does not make it so. I haven’t seen you give one clear cut example yet. You throw out all kinds of nebulous stuff but never come up with one good example to support your accusations. Platitudes and talking points are not convincing.

Sorin:

Bottom line: I recognize that we have an issue. That issue is world imbalance created by big businesses that threaten the stability of both developed and developing nations and ultimately the peace and freedom of the world. What should we do? Let’s start with those human rights that everybody accepts but nobody respects, shall we?

I do not see any major human rights denied because of free enterprise but see many that are greatly enhanced. On the other hand, there are many human rights violations caused by governments. We could start by doing something to give females in the Middle Eastern countries basic human rights and to be free from female mutilation. Then in some places Christians are being persecuted or exterminated because they will not convert. I do not know of any business that comes close to a human rights violation like these.

***

Sorin:

The dark brothers are having a good laugh at you for supporting GW Bush invading Iraq.

You have strange logic indeed. You think the Dark Brothers are happy when a tyrant they support is overthrown but are gleeful when a private enterprise employs people in a Third world giving them an opportunity for a better life. Your reasoning is upside down just like Benjamin Crème who you seem to idolize.

Sorin

I just demonstrated you in plain simple logic and factual evidence that Bush committed an abuse of power. He even regrets it himself as stated below!

Cutting and pasting does not make your case which is extremely weak with an appeal to the low information crowd.

Sorin:

He disrespected the UN security council, and quickly started the war preventing the ongoing diplomatic approach that was preferred by the UN security council (Saddam already did what the UN asked of him in 1990-1991). US then proceeded to impose their political ideal to Iraq by MILITARY FORCE (while they made use of Saddam before when they supported him invading Iran and ignored his usage of chemical weapons).

You obviously haven’t studied the history but are merely repeating talking points. Instead of dealing with the actual principles of freedom you are creating a diversion into a topic that we have already spent a book’s work of discussion about. If you really want to find the truth of the matter go to the archives and read the many thousands of words covering this subject. We have covered this so much most are weary of I and do not want to go all over the arguments again. I’ll just sum it up with these words:

According to UN Resolution 687 authority was granted to resume the war in Iraq at any time.

The fact is that the first war with Iraq began because it attacked Kuwait with the intention of further expansion. The world community justly responded to stop this Nazi-type aggression and made war against Saddam and drove him out of Kuwait. After this the war was not declared over but a cease fire was arranged through U.N. resolution 687. The deal that Saddam signed on to in order to enact a cease fire and save his skin was that he would destroy all his weapons of mass destruction and not build any more. He also agreed to honor the civil rights of his people.

The deal was that if Saddam did not live up to his agreement (WMD and civil rights) then the cease-fire could end and the war would resume. No time limit was placed on this.

Bush and Blair enforced resolution 687 as well as the new one (resolution 1441) that was unanimously passed November 2003. Bush is accused of initiating a new war. It is not a new war, but an old one that was legally resumed. Bush and Blair merely enforced UN resolutions that others dragged their feet on because of their own oil contracts with the tyrant, Saddam Hussein. After 1441 Bush did not need a new resolution saying basically the same thing all over again.

Sorin:

By supporting Bush’s intervention in Iraq you advocate for a violation of the principle of freedom

I haven’t seen such upside down thinking since reading Benjamin Crème.

You think that removing a tyrant who seeks to exterminate a people (Kurds) is contrary to freedom yet a company giving people jobs is against freedom. You are a piece of work.

***

June 3, 2014

The Blur Factor

Even though there have been some excellent comments it is useless to drag on this conversation on the Gulf Wars any further. We covered this ad nauseum years ago to the point where members complained and now we are doing it again. Sorim has his mind made up and we are not going to change him.

This argument illustrates just how difficult it is for many seekers to see and understand the Principle of Freedom. Both sides are intelligent but see things in a totally different light. Part of it lies in degrees of discernment but that is not all. Another big part concerns the values held by the individuals in this and other debates. I’m not just talking about this group but people throughout the world.

Group one places a high value on group and/or individual freedom believing that being able to pursue goals with a minimal hindrance and control will bring the greatest possible happiness and prosperity.

Group two believes that too much freedom is reckless and leads to abuse and must be regulated and controlled for the greater good. If it so happens that the greater good does not materialize then they do not retreat but want more controls.

The interesting thing is that both groups will say they support the idea of freedom. It is easy to see why group one believes this but how does group two justify believing this?

It amounts to basically this. Too much freedom brings abuse, which they see as interfering with the greater good and reducing freedom in the end. Therefore, freedom must be regulated and controlled so we can have even more freedom. That may sound strange, but it is basically their mindset.

Here is where the blur factor comes in. Group one does support some control for obvious reasons. They support laws that suppress the actions of the thief, the murderer, rapist and the general harmful lawbreakers.

Group two will take these controls with which all agree and say, “A certain amount of control is a good thing and actually enhances freedom. We propose a few more that will be for our own good.”

The problem with group two is when they get their additional controls they are never satisfied but always want more and if they are unchecked tyranny will be the end result.

The difference between the two approaches is group one will specify the controls they want and that will be it. Very seldom do more controls need to be added.

Group two cannot specify how much they want to control us for our own good for they do not even know themselves. They merely watch for unseemly results they see from human nature and when it occurs their solution will be more control. The problem is that even when they manage to secure their controls humans will still misbehave and then still more controls will be needed. When group two gets involved in this vicious cycle and is not checked the freedom of the masses becomes suffocated until the time comes that they can’t even celebrate a touchdown because Big Brother will not approve.

The Principle of Freedom is what separates the two brotherhoods. The Brotherhood of Light supports progress in the arena of maximum human freedom and the Dark Brotherhood see humans as too stupid to have such freedom and that they need to be controlled and told what to do for their own good. The leaders are highly motivated because they see themselves as deserving power over the many but will have the freedom that they will deny to others.

The freedom they think they are obtaining is an illusion because they are slaves to their own selfish desires which will eventually become their undoing.

***

June 4, 2014

Re: The Blur Factor

My reply to Keith had so many typos I deleted it and am herewith posting a corrected copy.

Keith;

As long as we continue to view all ideas as coming from either the left or the right, we are never going to evaluate the merits of the ideas themselves.

We must also consider that there is a difference between the right and left hand path and the political left and right.

The main difference between the two paths is the Principle of Freedom, and we do not want to synthesis the two paths here at all. Do we want a combination of 50% maximum slavery with 50% maximum freedom or do we want 100% maximum freedom?

I, for one, want 100% maximum freedom and will struggle for this as long as I have breath.

Actually a permanent synthesis is close to impossible, as the two sides will always struggle until one prevails so you will end up with the people in a state of freedom or slavery.

The political Right is appropriately named because it supports the Principle of Freedom from the spiritual Right more than does the Left but has far from a perfect record. When dogma is at stake they will often be on the side of the Beast and the political Left will be on the side of freedom. As far as sex, drugs and rock and roll, the political Left has the Right beat in the freedom area. In areas where religion does not have a strong influence the political right usually has an edge in the freedom department.

So, yes a synthesis of the two political views would be good, but a synthesis of the right and left hand path would mean a victory for the Dark Brotherhood.

“I am a point of light within a greater Light.

I am a strand of loving energy within the stream of love divine.

I am a point of sacrificial Fire, focussed within the fiery Will of God.

And thus I stand.

I am a way by which men may achieve.

I am a source of strength, enabling them to stand.

I am a beam of light, shining upon their way.

And thus I stand.

And standing thus revolve

And tread this way the ways of men,

And know the ways of God.

And thus I stand.”

Those who seek the right hand path must stand and stand firmly.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 8

August 4, 2014December 12, 2022 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 10 of 33 in the series 2014

May 17, 2014

Freedom Dialog

Soryn:

One of the issues with capitalism is that everything’s for sale. Capitalism is like a spoiled child completely out of parental control. It gave people all the freedom in the world (to buy guns and cars and houses and airplanes and lands and people and even countries), but at the same time people ended up having no ethical limits to guide their “freedom”.

You’re not making any sense here. Are you saying that in a capitalistic country you can buy guns and cars and houses and airplanes and lands etc but in socialist France or Denmark you cannot? Last time I checked you could buy stuff in socialist countries just like you can here. Even in communist Cuba you can buy stuff for money. Some would almost sell their kids for a good internet connection there, or a T-bone steak.

And why is capitalism any more like a spoiled brat than a socialist country? There are spoiled brats in both locations. A spoiled child though is one who will abuse others for his own selfish will and I think you’ll find this type of individual in a lot larger numbers in socialist bureaucracies than in capitalist businesses. I don’t recall ever meeting a free market individual that was as spoiled as the average government bureaucrat.

Soryan

This poses a particular problem when it comes to food, because it is one of the prime necessities for survival. Survival – this is a good criterion to distinguish between capitalism and socialism. When it comes to basic needs of survival, socialism should kick in.

Does not compute.

North Korea and Cuba are as socialist as you can get and their people are starving. The only thing keeping Cuba afloat all these years is an underground economy using U.S, dollars. In North Korea the people have to eat tree bark and grass to survive.

In history we find that the greater the enforcement of socialism is the less fresh food is available.

In the last 100 years American has fed the world more than any country in history thanks to freedom and capitalism. That may be coming to an end as we are selling our freedoms down the river (not rover – typo in the last post)

Soryin;

Basic needs are a general good and a human right.

And who decided this? If a guy wants to cease all work and just play and have fun does he have the right to be supported by the rest of us? I think not.

In a free society do we have an obligation to help those in need who cannot help themselves? Yes. And in a free society this will happen.

Let’s go back to my youth when free enterprise flourished much more than today. When I had the accident in 1958 I spent over a month in the hospital and had two operations. Health care was so cheap that we paid it all off in the worst of circumstances. My mom and Dad just divorced and my Dad took off to Central America. We had no child support, no food stamps, no welfare and we had to pick fruit to survive in the summer or my mom worked for a minimum wage at other times.

Then I needed some reconstructive surgery that called for an expensive specialist. We couldn’t afford it so my mom found a private charity that helped and they paid for two more months in the hospital and four more operations.

We received all this help from these spoiled capitalists. Thanks to government attempts to help us and the restrictions of freedom imposed on the medical system today a fruit picker could never pay for a month in the hospital today nor could he find a charity with deep enough pockets for an additional two months and four special surgeries. The best hope today would be to get help through Medicaid, but that is not free. Every taxpayer pays through the nose for Medicare and Medicaid whether he uses it or not. The charities that helped me cost the taxpayer NOTHING. Everything was given entirely through free will.

Soryn:

Let’s make sure we live in a just world by allowing people to get on their feet where it is required. Let’s allow them, at least, to be able to make a failure or a success of their lives.)

And that is what happens in a free society.

After my accident at the age of 13 the only job I could get was orchard work – mostly fruit picking. I usually worked with my friend Wayne who was very competitive and if he picked more than me he would brag about it and rub it in. I decided I couldn’t let that happen so I increased my skills. Wayne and I were generally he fastest pickers in the orchard. We made around $20-$40 an hour in today’s money.

I bought all my school supplies and clothes. And I bought the finest clothes money could buy at the time, thinking that would impress the girls. Then I went in with my mom and we bought a car together.

I helped out with the food budget. If there was something I wanted to eat that my mom thought was too expensive I would buy it myself. Then I hunted a lot and brought home pheasants and ducks on a regular basis. I also fished a lot and brought home bass, bluegill, crappie and catfish – more than we could eat. In addition I raised pigs and chickens.

My mom was thrifty and industrious and her winter work at the potato plant later turned to full time and overall we had pretty good life by standing on our own two feet. I didn’t know anyone who was doing without food or going hungry. A lot of people thought our little family was the worst off they knew, but we didn’t see it that way.

Everything seemed to just work a lot better economically in those days. If we had the technology of today and the freedom of the past era we would have more abundance than we would know what to do with.

Soryn

Food. Something needs to change here. Raj Patel offers some insights on the matter. I would say that competition is overall bad when it comes to food. Investors trying to sell their products invest more on advertising (package), on durability and grow through unhealthy chemicals.

Reality does not bear out your competition idea. Countries with little competition like North Korea, Cuba, the Old Soviet Union have shortages whereas the U.S, has always had abundance.

Advertising is the necessary fuel to make the market and distribution system work. Countries than ban advertising unusually suffer food shortages or starvation.

I’m with you with the unhealthy chemicals. As people get educated they are buying more organic foods of their own free will, forcing many large companies to change their ways.

Soryn:

You see products imported from the other side of the planet because they are cheaper.

And why is that a bad thing? It allows many poor people to earn a living.

Soryn:

Most of the food supply should be localized – this creates less competition.

Where do you get that idea? We rarely imported food when I was a kid and everything seemed as competitive or moreso at that time. I think that growing our own food for health purposes and self sufficiency is good but it doesn’t eliminate competition.

Soryn;

The principle at stake here will be a socialist one. My grandfather had a piece of land that he harvested with some shared technological means. They were using some big machines to fertilize and to harvest the lands. At the end, they would split the production. Everyone got his share of food. And boy that farmer food was delicious, as opposed to the garbage that you find now in the supermarket.

Shared gardens are popular here in the United States and this idea can flourish in a free society.

Soryan

Private versus public property is another good criterion. Investors trying to buy the park where I go each day to take a breath of fresh air and replace it with a massive complex of skyscrapers of steel and glass should be restricted to a public decision.

Private parks are run much better than public ones and the visitors are much happier. Check out these videos.

VIDEO 1

VIDEO 2

Soryn:

The actual people that live in that place should decide whether or not it is in the public’s interest to allow the investor to swipe the park.

This can happen with a private park. Again, check out the video.

Soryn:

False advertising needs to be regulated (I’m tired of products being advertised in the falsest way possible). Also, safety and health measures (socialism) need to be in place.

These things can be controlled through the threat of legal action in a free society.

Soryn:

I just wanted to add that I think we have the technological means to greatly reduce the food problem across the globe.

Here we agree, but this cannot be accomplished by a dictator giving out orders. The second video link gives an example of how the pilgrims solved the food problem.

Soryn:

Reducing corporate exploitation and pollution can greatly improve the lives of those people that provide food to rich countries.

There are areas where people do complain of corporations who overreach, but these are often in countries that are highly regulated wit little free enterprise for the individual.

Abuse is not limited to corporations. Communist China makes U.S., corporations look like Mother Teresa. Here are two examples from Wikipedia:

From 1993 to 2003, 2.5 million people were evicted in the city of Shanghai. In preparation for the 2008 Summer Olympics in Beijing, many of Beijing’s densely populated neighborhoods were torn down in order to make way for new developments and infrastructure projects. The Center on Housing Rights and Evictions estimated that 1.5 million people in and around Beijing were forced from their homes, often with inadequate compensation. Chinese authorities maintained only 6,000 families were relocated, and that all received proper compensation.

From 1995 to 2005, an average of 86,754 people were evicted annually in connection to the Three Gorges Dam, totaling an estimated 1.4 million people. Recalcitrant residents in the city of Chongqing had their water and electricity turned off in order to force them to move; the residents said they had not yet left because proper resettlement hadn’t been arranged.

Soryn

Let me give you another example of what socialism can mean nowadays.

In Paris you are not allowed to build anything that is not compatible with the esthetic and architectural design of the city. You cannot build buildings higher than a couple of stores, and you cannot build ugly glass and steel skyscrapers nonsense. Amazing isn’t it? That’s called urban planning and design. Or the taste of a community for beauty and living conditions.

Communities in the United States do the same thing without government involvement. Each community has their privately written covenants and restrictions that people agree to when they move in or build. If they do not like them they can purchase elsewhere.

Well, this is not the simple one piece at a time approach I was talking about. I’ll try to get back in that direction shortly.

More Freedom Dialog

Here’s the question I was trying to steer us toward:

“Some of the ideals of socialism are in a good direction such as relief from hunger, poverty, discrimination etc.

“The question is – how many freedoms are we willing to sell down the river to accomplish these things and can they be accomplished in a state of maximum freedom (which has never existed in modern civilization).”

Okay, time to get more specific. There are some types of force that is accepted by most citizens on both sides of the equation. It is accepted by the vast majority that there should be police power to restrict obvious criminal activity such as murder, rape, theft, etc. A handful of criminals may not agree with this but most would not think the criminals are subject to a tyranny of the majority because of the high degree of agreement of the people.

Taxes, or the increase that a government takes from citizens through the threat of force is the biggest source of disagreement. But even here way over 90% of the population support some sort of taxes for essentials such as defense, roads, police, fire etc. Few would consider taxes collected and spent for purposes on which almost all agree as a tyranny of the majority, or a minority.

The problem enters in when a minority begins demanding an increase in taxes for a social program that is not essential and could be accomplished by citizens through free will.

Notice, that I said, “minority.” That is because these type of movements are always started by a minority and then when they are implemented, and people become dependent on them, a majority often end up supporting such things, even if they lead to ruin.

The point is if the use of force is restricted to things that has a large majority of support (such as keeping criminals off the street) we will stay on the path of safety.

That said, the majority of the taxpayers are reluctant to support government force in taking more money out of their pockets to give to someone else who did not work for it.

Now the people, as a whole, feel it is morally all right to tax the people to support true essentials, so the question is this. What percentage of the people who have to pay should agree to an increase in taxes to support a social program that is for a good cause such as giving the poor some extra support in food stamps and welfare?

Suppose 70% of the taxpayers are against it but the 30% are in power. Are the 30% justified in for forcefully taking money out of the pockets of the 70% for something they do not support and feel is theft?

Soryn:

Scandinavia is the best example of creating successful models of democratic socialism countries.

According to the following index: The Human Development Index (HDI) is a composite statistic of life expectancy, education, and income indices used to rank countries into four tiers of human …

they all rate higher than US in terms of inequality adjusted indexes. They are on par when it comes to abundance.

And why is that a good thing? North Korea has the most equal bunch of robotic government controlled people in the world and I certainly would not want to live there. Equality for the sake of equality is meaningless.

Soryn:

Are higher taxes a sure way to disaster? Well check this out:

LINK

Denmark taxes its people with a whooping 46% per revenue, almost half goes to the state! They have abundance and they obviously rate higher than US when it comes to social inequality. And according to that site “Small businesses thrive, with over 70 percent of companies having 50 employees or less”.

Demark has it good. We pay close to 70% here when all taxes are added up.

In 2006 a family with a median income of $48,201 paid the following to Uncle Sam.

Federal – 19.14%

Payroll – 7.65%

15.3% if self employed in 2008

State & Local – 11%

Corporate taxes which are passed on as higher prices – 6.68%

Excise and other taxes – 3.24%

Cost of compliances to regulations and taxes – 11.33%

Inflation due to government overspending – 3.2% (going up soon)

Total taxes

If self-employed 69.89%.

If working for someone else it would be 62.64% plus another 7.65% your employer pays on payroll tax that he could give to you in a raise if Uncle Sam did not take it.

You can’t really use the United States as an example of results from low taxation.

Soryn

Those countries are also healthier. More social awareness means less commercialization and less food market nonsense competition.

And that can be due to a number of things. Diabetes has risen dramatically in the past couple decades in the United States because we have switched from regular sugar to fructose?

And why did we do that? Again because of government meddling. Price supports for beet and cane sugar raised its prices and forced business to switch to the cheaper fructose and the switch has caused a plague of diabetes.

Almost every problem we have can be traced to some type of government action aimed at helping the poor unwashed.

May 18, 2014

The Molecular Business

Larry Woods and Duke want to know why a molecular business can’t start small and grow big. After all, Apple computer started out with a couple guys working in a garage.

A product or service central to a business is a lot different animal than the business enterprise that manufactures, sells and distributes the products. Apple itself has changed its business model a number of times while seeking the highest profit possible. For instance, they have gone from doing all their manufacturing here in the United States to doing most of it in China.

To think the Molecular Business wouldn’t be viable if it can’t be started successfully with three or four employees is like saying a car is not a good idea if all you have in your possession are the tires. To create a successful car you need all the ingredients, not just part.

If one starts a business with a few dedicated people you’d have to start it the normal way. Why?

Because the key ingredient to the Molecular Business is equality of pay and the guy who starts a business on a shoestring generally has to be motivated by making enough profit to feed his family. In addition to this when you have a handful of people in a small business the labor intensity is so different that similar pay could cause some problems. Also, a small business is often very sales intensive and salespeople, especially in a small business, need to be motivated by some type of commission or bonus for their skill and hard work.

Any business that starts with a handful of people needs to be started pretty much the way people do it now.

I have a small business and there is no way I could make it molecular unless I expanded to the point where I could hire 20-30 employees. We’ve had employees in the past but for now it is just my wife and I and we’ve had to scale it down since we’ve been taking care of her elderly mother.

Larry says: “Many here are perfectly willing and able to act on faith. We can begin with volunteer labor.”

That’s news to me. You really think that many from the group would be willing to quit their jobs, leave their families and move to a central location to start a business on faith with no guarantee of success?

On the other hand, if I had the funds to set up such a business and offered a reasonable salary I’d have no problem filling it with local people and some keys members may even move here to help.

And, by the way, the Molecular Business is not meant to just be for the enlightened but it would attract a wide variety of people.

Duke:

Is there any reason why a non-molecular business couldn’t choose to transition to a molecular model?

Yes. In a regular business there are many pay grades and those making the most money, which are also those with the most power, would not want to give up half or more of their salaries. Making the switch with a regular business would be almost impossible at this time. Starting fresh would be quite easy if one had the money because it is easy to hire an unlimited number of people if you offer a reasonable base salary. Then the management could be drawn from the entry-level people.

Duke:

Why 24 people? I understand where that number comes from (the Molecular Relationship), but why would it also apply to a business?

I didn’t pick 24 because that is some absolute number for the business. You’d just need a business organization with 20-30, or more people to implement the principles.

I’ve got plenty on my plate now trying to make my publishing business take off while still taking care of old customers from my sign business. If I wanted to expand the sign business from scratch in an attempt to make it molecular then I’d have to take my attention off writing and some other important things I am pursuing and put it all on the business. It takes close to 100% attention and effort to get a business off the ground when you are limited with capital.

I’ve put the Molecular Business ideas out there and anyone who is enterprising can attempt to run with them. Unfortunately, I am limited in what I can do and have to put my attention where I deem it to be most important and at the moment that is getting a book before the public that will catch their attention.

It is interesting that since I first came up with the Molecular Business idea around 30 years ago that many businesses have moved much closer to the model. The most successful grocery store in this area is WINCO, which is employee owned, and workers are treated much more equally than the regular business model.

I do not know of any business following the full molecular model, but the day will come whether by my hand or another, whether this life or another. It is just a matter of time.

May 18, 2014

The Question

Dan;

Thought I would point out to future answerers that JJ’s question is NOT “what % of people should agree to an increase in taxes …” but “what % of people THAT HAVE TO PAY should agree to an increase in taxes …” – which is an entirely different animal.

Good perception Dan – applying the Third Key here.

Dan:

IMO, in the perfect community/society, force would never be used in such a way (take from one to give to another) period.

In the eventual Zion society that will be established all group financing will be accomplished through free will donations o some type of free market endeavor. Unfortunately, the general consciousness of the people is not there yet. This is one reason there has to be a gathering of the pure in heart who are willing to give what is necessary to make things work. When a significant number prove it can be done then others will follow.

By the way, you gave a good selection of quotes on freedom. I enjoyed reading them even though I wrote them. i forget a lot of what i have written so sometimes my quotes seem new to me, but still familiar and in line with my current thinking.

Duke:

In the hypothetical, I don’t know how dire the need is.

The need would be what it is now. Note the wording of the question:

“…such as giving the poor some extra support in food stamps and welfare?”

This does not involve a choice as to whether the poor receive any help at all, but “extra” help.

Basically though the principle of force applies to all situations. The point is though that 70% would not resist helping others if they thought they could afford it ad the request was reasonable.

Duke:

But a lot of very good ideas (like abolishing slavery) started out as a minority position. Did their minority status make them any less the “right thing to do” at the time?

A lot of people think this but it is not quite true. A majority of the states before the civil war were against slavery and did not allow it and the majority of the people in the country were against slavery.

The majority usually make the right decision and the top 70% just about always do.

Duke:

The abolitionist movement began many generations before the Civil War, and it’s unlikely that it was a majority position from the beginning, considering how long it was before the Emancipation Proclamation. I’m talking about those early days, before it was the majority position – was it right? Or did it not become right until it became the majority position?

The majority were definitely against slavery in the years leading up to the Civil War. There is no way of knowing if this was true at the founding of this country. I would guess that it was close to fifty-fifty. A lot of the Founders were against slavery but allowed it in the Costitution in order to create the new nation, which would not have happened if they would have opposed it. Some figured they could abolish it later which is what happened.

In ancient times, slavery was so common among all races that the people just accepted it. From my study of history I don’t think a lot of them questioned whether it was right or wrong but was just something that had to be. Most of the slaves didn’t even see slavery as evil unless they were mistreated by their masters. Even Jesus said nothing about it. Hypocrisy was the evil that bothered him the most in that age. Everywhere you see the word “servant’ in the New testament it comes from the Greek word for slave.

The bottom line is consciousness has to change before customs will change.

The majority usually make the right decision and the top 70% just about always do.

Duke

Then perhaps we should just watch the polls and side with the majority, especially if it’s a large majority. That would be much easier than making up our own minds. Let some outside authority (in this case the majority) make up our minds for us.

I have never ever given the slightest indication that the majority view should be used to make up our minds as to what is true or right. What I have said is the majority, when presented with the facts, will usually head in a common sense direction and if 70% or more choose a particular side of a debate, it is usually correct. For instance, close to 70% of the people want more investigation to find out the truth about the Benghazi attacks and that certainly sounds like a common sense direction to me. It is difficult to find an area where 70% of the people want to go in a totally illogical direction.

The majority is not that great at seeking subtle truth though and one certainly wants to use his own soul to discern that rather than following the majority. Just over 70% believe that reincarnation is a bunch of mumbo jumbo, for instance, but this does not effect the quality of my life.

Some of the things the majority supported 1000 years ago as being good are seen as evil today and some of the things the majority support today will be seen as evil 1000 years hence. Even so, the teachers of the race must work with majority will to move our spiritual evolution forward and little by little the next correct step is seen.

May 19, 2014

The Second Question

Here was the last question:

Now the people, as a whole, feel it is morally all right to tax the people to support true essentials, so the question is this. What percentage of the people who have to pay should agree to an increase in taxes to support a social program that is for a good cause, such as giving the poor some extra support in food stamps and welfare?

We received quite a bit of comment on this but not many specific answers of which there were only three:

Keith 51%

Dan 60%, or what people agree upon.

Johann 75%

Ruth kinda said 100% and Matthew kinda said 51%. Soryn is mysteriously silent on this.

So far the group believes that the taxpayers should not endure a tax increased unless a majority or more agree. And, as Dan noticed, I specified the will of those who are affected. If non taxpayers get a benefit by raising the taxes of those who pay then close to 100% of them will think it is a great idea because they will not be negatively affected. If the majority will of those who actually contribute is considered then the taxes will never reach an unreasonable level.

The figure arrived at here has nothing to do with the cause, whether it be food stamps or defense or research the sex lives of bugs. We must realize that if the cause is really just or important that an informed majority will generally support it no matter what it is. If it is completely unnecessary or frivolous then they will not.

True, the majority is not always right, but it has been coming much closer to the correct path than the President or Congress. No human system will be right all the time so we must seek to implement the highest that the consciousness of the people can accept.

Next question.

Suppose 70% of the taxpayers are against it but the 30% are in power. Are the 30% justified in forcefully taking money out of the pockets of the 70% for something they do not support and feel is theft?

Everyone who answered this agreed that the 30% would not be justified. What many do not realize is this is pretty close to what is happening today. The will of about 30% of the taxpayers are forcing increases on the 70%.

Next Question; Many social programs, such as Obamacare have to be mostly financed, not with taxes, but borrowed money that our children must pay interest on. How urgent must the need be before we borrow more money to help certain citizens? Give examples.

Duke:

Personally, I am much more comfortable with the idea of using good judgment to the best of one’s ability in whatever the circumstances may be, and that may or may not include giving weight to the majority opinion.

But my good judgement has no weight with Congress or the President. The best we can do is take our good judgment and attempt to educate and change the future direction.

Duke:

Getting back to your first question: “What percentage of the people who have to pay should agree to an increase in taxes to support a social program that is for a good cause, such as giving the poor some extra support in food stamps and welfare?”

In a democracy that does not distinguish between those who pay taxes and those who do not, if the majority will (as expressed through the elected representatives in our case) is to raise taxes, then that is the will of the people.

It doesn’t matter whether or not taxpayers are distinguished the question can still be answered.

The representatives often do not represent the will of the people just because we elect them. We generally have the choice between two establishment candidates out of touch with the people. When they raise our taxes and then give themselves as much as a 25% pay increase so they will be insulated from their actions this does not represent the will of the people.

Duke:

If you are advocating a democracy that allocates voting power according to taxes paid, then that’s a different form of government, and in that case presumably the consent of a majority of the taxpayers is required. To what extent should voting power be proportional to taxes paid?

I never said anything about the amount of taxes paid, but about half the people do not pay any federal taxes at all and they are getting more and more power to influence representatives to “tax the rich” which winds up being an increase on all taxpayers. Our representatives should give high consideration to the will of the taxpayer since he is impacted by federal taxes where the non taxpayers are not. The payroll tax would have a much wider net. In a direct democracy (which we do not have) only the taxpayers should be able to vote on a tax increase.

Duke:

However if the 30% came to power in a fair election, then I have little pity on the 70%. They chose to be divided, and so they have been conquered. But hopefully only until the next election.

Well I certainly have not chosen the current outcomes of legislation. We often have the choice between two people who will take us the same direction so that is no choice at all. That is why I have proposed the system of Molecular Politics outlined in themajorityspeaks.com. This will give much more power to the peopl

“Here was the last question:

Now the people, as a whole, feel it is morally all right to tax the people to support true essentials, so the question is this. What percentage of the people who have to pay should agree to an increase in taxes to support a social program that is for a good cause, such as giving the poor some extra support in food stamps and welfare? Soryn is mysteriously silent on this.”

Sorin

Well, majority means 51%, don’t know what else to comment.

We know what majority means but you still did not answer the question. I am curious what your answer would be.

May 20, 2014

The Swiss System

I made a delightful discovery today. I found that the government of Switzerland operates very close to what I have presented in my treatise Molecular Politics.

I have known for some time that the people there voted on various referendums there, but I always assumed their referendums worked something like our system.

I was wrong.

What kind of piqued my interest was hearing the news story that the Swiss had rejected a $25 minimum wage, and before and after this vote they have had no minimum wage. Actually in U.S. dollars the amount was $17.60, not $25.

In an application of direct democracy 76% of the people voted no on the measure.

I read up on the Swiss form of government and here are several areas where their democracy works better than ours.

Here if Congress passes a bad law or the Supreme Court interprets it in a certain way we are stuck. Changing it is almost impossible.

In Switzerland, if the people think the law is bad they can call for a vote of the people and throw the bill out the window.

We do not have national referendums here but many states have them. The trouble in the U.S. is that even after the will of the people express themselves in a majority vote the legislators will often go to court to overturn it. This happens a large percentage of the time here.

Not in Switzerland. There the will of the people is the ultimate power. This is what our Founders wanted to happen through establishing a jury system that could throw out bad law but it has been corrupted.

Citizens can also initiate measures. All one has to do is collect 100,000 signatures and then it will be presented to the people for a vote.

They still have a representative government that handles all the mundane legislation, but when something comes up that is considered important the people step in and make the decision.

The fact that the people are the final power that can trash bad legislation keeps the legislators in check. It stops them from funding a Bridge to Nowhere.

The fact that they have one of the most vital economies in the world is a testament that their democratic system works. Their GDP is steadily rising, their unemployment rate is around 3%, they export more than they import, they have no national debt, citizens can openly carry arms on buses yet the crime rate is very low, they have strict control over their borders, no minimum wage, fewer regulations, employers are free to fire anyone, but if you want to work you can usually get a job. They have a welfare system that is not needed that often but works on a local rather than national level – a little like charities used to be here.

And they have achieved this high economic standing without the benefit of oil, as is the case in Norway, Sweden and the UK.

One may wonder why such a high minimum wage of $17.60 got on the ballot to begin with – which would have made it the highest in the world. The reason is that 90% of the people make more than that. The average wage there is $37.00 an hour and only 10% of the people would be effected by the minimum wage and of those the effect would have been small because most of that 10% made close to $17.60 an hour already. Even so, 76% of the people thought it was not necessary and rejected it.

I’m going to look deeper into the Swiss system but so far it seems to provide a lot of evidence that a direct democracy where the real ultimate power lies in the hands of the people is indeed workable. I’m mystified that I haven’t heard more about it.

Sorin

This form of direct democracy (which is binding) exists in some other countries, like Croatia, Italy, or Hungary.

See this for a list:

Also, in some countries the constitution can be modified only by referendum (binding).

In Romania, the president can call for a referendum on any subject, which has binding power. Same in France. Also, in Romania any modification of the constitution is approved through referendum. There is no institution that can cancel the will of the people.

The referendums in those countries have a lot more restrictions than the Swiss. For instance, of Hungary it says:

The Constitution imposes a number of prohibitions on matters on which a referendum can be held, including amending Constitution, budget, taxing, obligations from international agreements, military operations, etc. Required voter turnout for the referendum to be valid is 50%. The decision made by a referendum is binding on the Parliament.

A Swiss referendum usually gets a little less than 50% turnout so by Hungary’s guidelines it would be negated right there.

Sounds like some of the countries have referendums on the books to give the illusion of participation by the people. The Swiss seem to be the only country that has democratic participation with real teeth.

May 20, 2014

Jefferson & Democracy

Good comments on juries lwk. You say:

As to what the Founders wanted, there is considerable documentation of their distrust of direct democracy as practiced in Switzerland.

They were divided over that. Jefferson, for instance, was a big supporter of the will of the people being supreme.

Here’s some quotes:

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

“Laws made by common consent must not be trampled on by individuals” –Thomas Jefferson to Garret Vanmeter, 1781 ME 4:417, Papers 5:566

“If we are faithful to our country, IF WE ACQUIESCE, WITH GOOD WILL, IN THE DECISIONS OF THE MAJORITY, AND THE NATION MOVES IN MASS IN THE SAME DIRECTION, ALTHOUGH IT MAY NOT BE THAT WHICH EVERY INDIVIDUAL THINKS BEST, we have nothing to fear from any quarter” –Thomas Jefferson to Virginia Baptists, 1808 ME 16:321

“THE FIRST PRINCIPLE OF REPUBLICANISM IS THAT THE LEX MAJORIS PARTIS (THE LAW OF THE MAJORITY) IS THE FUNDAMENTAL LAW OF EVERY SOCIETY OF INDIVIDUALS OF EQUAL RIGHTS; to consider the will of the society enounced by the majority of a single vote as sacred as if unanimous is the first of all lessons in importance, yet the last which is thoroughly learnt .” –Thomas Jefferson to Alexander von Humboldt, 1817 ME 15:127

“[Bear] always in mind that a nation ceases to be republican only when the will of the majority ceases to be the law” –Thomas Jefferson: Reply to the Citizens of Adams County, Pa, 1808 ME 12:18

“The will of the people is the only legitimate foundation of any government, and to protect its free expression should be our first object” –Thomas Jefferson to Benjamin Waring, 1801 ME 10:236

“The measures of the fair majority ought always to be respected” –Thomas Jefferson to George Washington, 1792 ME 8:397

“I subscribe to the principle, that the will of the majority honestly expressed should give law” –Thomas Jefferson: The Anas, 1793 ME 1:332

“All being equally free, no one has a right to say what shall be law for the others. Our way is to put these questions to the vote, and to consider that as law for which the majority votes” –Thomas Jefferson: Address to the Cherokee Nation, 1809 ME 16:456

“[We acknowledge] the principle that the majority must give the law” –Thomas Jefferson to William Carmichael, 1788 ME 7:28

“This [is] a country where the will of the majority is the law, and ought to be the law” –Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786 ME 17:85

“Civil government being the sole object of forming societies, its administration must be conducted by common consent” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia QVIII, 1782 ME 2:120

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

“The voice of the majority decides. For the lex majoris partis is the law of all councils, elections, etc, where not otherwise expressly provided” –Thomas Jefferson: Parliamentary Manual, 1800 ME 2:420

“It is the multitude which possess force, and wisdom must yield to that” –Thomas Jefferson to Pierre Samuel Dupont de Nemours, 1816 ME 14:492

“The Lex majoris partis, founded in common law as well as common right, [is] the natural law of every assembly of men whose numbers are not fixed by any other law” –Thomas Jefferson: Notes on Virginia QXIII, 1782 ME 2:172

“Every man, and every body of men on earth, possesses the right of self-government. They receive it with their being from the hand of nature. Individuals exercise it by their single will; collections of men by that of their majority; for the law of the majority is the natural law of every society of men” –Thomas Jefferson: Opinion on Residence Bill, 1790 ME 3:60

May 20, 2014

The Teachings

Sarah:

I have always resonated with www.freeread.com since the day I found it, however no matter who I tell or in which way I convey tid bits of knowledge about JJ’s books to….no one I have shown them to in 4.5 years has grabbed hold of it the way I did. I have run the gamut of approaches and I pretty much now am very non-schalant about it and wait for anyone to ask first….but people never do.

Just seems odd, like why do I clearly see these teachings as being so profound….but others I show do not delve into them?

Yes, this seems odd even for me. It seems that te majority cannot see the difference between mumbo jumbo and teachings that speak to the soul.

I am in good company for DK’s teachings still are not widely read though he is becoming widely recognized. Here is something interesting he said:

Each generation should produce those able to ascertain subjective fact for themselves; they will utilize that which is exoteric and known as stepping stones on the path to perfect knowledge. They will know, and they will give out, and only the next cycle of fifty years after their work is accomplished will see the recognition by the many of the truth revealed by the few. TCF, Page 707

May 20, 2014

What or Who is the 144,000 exactly?

JJ quoting DK

May 20, 2014

Jefferson on “Republic”

View Source

As for an example of the tyranny of the majority goes – I cannot find one example in history. The best example the quoted author comes up with is:

Great Britain, the state of New York enacted harsh measures against Loyalists and British subjects. These included the Confiscation Act (1779), the Citation Act (1782) and the Trespass Act (1783). All involved the taking of property.

In Hamilton’s view, these Acts illustrated the inherent difference between democracy and the law.

What he forgets to note is is that those acts were not passed by a democratic vote but by Representative governments. Where there is tyranny it is almost always the tyranny of the minority. A majority may get a little out of hand once in a while. For example right after 9/11 the majority wanted revenge any way they could get it but that didn’t last for long. On the other hand, a minority like Castro will suppress his people as long as he has breath.

May 21, 2014

Direct Democracy

Duke:

Regarding the National Referendum system embraced in various forms by Switzerland and several other European nations, would it make any sense to draft a proposed Constitutional Amendment?

Getting a Constitutional Amendment through is extremely difficult. That is why I created a system that would create even more Democracy than Switzerland has with no changes to the Constitution necessary. Once I get the public’s attention through one of my works I will plan on promoting it.

Those who have not read the plan can check it out here.

May 21, 2014

The Caterpillar Principle

Soryn:

While I advocate for pressure (international applicable regulations) from the international community to regulate the exchange of natural resources and services between poor and rich countries, I am curious to see what is your position on this?

The articles you referenced point out that the countries who won the lottery of natural resources generally wind up as much poorer than nations that have to rely heavily on the ingenuity to thrive. This if often blamed on the greed of the corporations that supposedly exploit them which silly.

The principle behind this could be called the Caterpillar Principle. The saying goes that a caterpillar needs the struggle of breaking out of its prison cocoon to gain the strength to survive and if you help it that it will die. The same goes with a chicken breaking out of its egg. You could kill it by helping it too much.

The truth of this principle is illustrated not only by nations who win a lottery by discovering oil or some other commodity, but by lottery winners themselves. I have followed the stories of many lottery winners and almost all of them, after a couple years of winning the lottery, curse the day they won for they wind up broke and alienated from all their friends.

What happens is as soon as friends and family discover they won big money they start hitting them up for a piece of the winnings or for a loan or investment that is never paid back. Then as soon as the winner starts running short and cuts off the funds his friends become angry and start hating his guts.

Now what is the core reason that the lottery winner winds up with such a problem? Do we blame it on his greedy friends and family?

As I said, that is silly. Bill Gates and Warren Buffet have also encountered a lot of greedy people and they didn’t lose their wealth because of it?

If free stuff is there for the taking then self-serving people will come out of the woodwork. Bill Gates is just smart enough to know how to handle them.

What is the solution to the lottery problem? Should we establish regulations to control how the winner spends his money and how his friends can approach him for loans?

Of course not. That would be interfering with free will. Even though most winners will use bad judgment with their wealth we must let them learn by their own experiences. Believe me, the lottery winner who has lost everything has learned some important initial lessons about human nature and the misuse of money.

Even so goes it with nations that win the lottery. Some may want to exploit them or even help them by getting them to invest in a good cause but the fact that most such nations wind up poor is not their fault. It is the fault of the nation itself just as it is the fault of the lottery winner if he gives away all his winnings or invests the money in some well-meaning scheme.

Just like it is not a good idea to regulate lottery winners and their friends, it is not a good idea to regulate the wealth of a nation or the greed of the people dealing with it. If some entity attempts to take the resources by force then that is another matter.

Just like there are some lottery winners with enough common sense to use their money wisely even so, some oil rich countries do also. Two examples are Qatar and Kuwait.

Japan is an example of a country with few resources that overcame the handicap through their ingenuity and became prosperous. Sixteenth Century Spain is an example of a prosperous country that became poor by discovering or stealing the riches of gold and silver from the New World. As soon as they started relying on all that gold they became lazy and went dramatically downhill economically and as a world power.

Soryn asks me about charities such as such as the Bill Gates’ foundation.

If anyone wants to start a charity or donate money to help the disadvantaged that is fine with me and is usually about 500% better spent than government money which is generally just thrown at problems.

If we really wanted to help the Third World the first thing we would do for them is make sure all people on the planet have clean drinking water. We now have the technology to take clean water right out of the air.

Check this out:

Ruth W:

I can tell you from experience that child labor was a very good thing for me. After the great depression our family struggled to survive. By the time I was 13 I was delighted to get a job on a farm working 10 hour days and feeling happy about it.

Yes, child labor not taken to excess is a good thing. I did lots of work for money from the time I was four and it was good for my soul and work ethic.

From the ages of 4-13 I did things such as pick fruit, manage lemonade stands, pick up bottles for recycling, sell seeds and cards door to door, thin apples, various orchard work such as dig around trees fertilize and pick up brush, worked in a packing shed, danced for money in bars, and even sold some beer.

I never felt abused in the least and was thrilled to make some money.

To Soryn:

Can you point to one country where the standards of living were made worse by corporations coming in and hiring people?

Look at the two countries where this does not happen at all: Cuba – where they are now having toilet paper shortages and North Korea where the people eat grass to survive.

JJ wrote:

From the ages of 4-13 I did things such as …. danced for money in bars …

Dan:

You’ll have to forgive me if I just not only CANNOT but WILLNOT picture you as a pole dancer 🙂

I thought that should get a rise from someone out there. Here’s the story. When I was a kid my parents spent most nights out in bars and if they were not home when they said I took my younger sister, walked uptown, and found them in one of the bars. Once there they usually were not in the mood to come home. The patrons would offer me and my sister money to dance for them so we thought, “What the heck?” and did our best. It earned us some money to buy candy.

May 22, 2014

Third Question

The Last Question:

Many social programs, such as Obamacare have to be mostly financed, not with taxes, but borrowed money that our children must pay interest on. How urgent must the need be before we borrow more money to help certain citizens? Give examples.

Good common sense answers on this.

The government borrowing money and accumulating higher and higher interest payments that must be met is much more serious than the average person realizes. Those who do the math realize that if we do not curtail this borrowing the day will come that the amount of the payment will exceed all other spending and lead to insolvency.

And how do you think the Chinese will respond if we tell them, “Sorry. We just don’t have the money to pay you this month or year?”

We shouldn’t be borrowing a dime to expand any social program. The only thing that would justify more borrowing would be a war for self preservation or some type of disaster where people need relief.

Everyone in the group who commented agreed that 50% or more should agree to spending on a good cause if an increase in taxes would result. They were even stricter when the money would be borrowed.

Question:

Either everyone here is an extreme right-winger or we are just smarter than the average voter. Every year we borrow more money, not for emergencies, but to expand government and social programs. Why do people put up with this? Are they mentally challenged, just not paying attention or what? Why can they not do the simple math that would tell them that we will have a day of reckoning if we continue this borrowing madness?

May 22, 2014

Correct Translation

Soryn giving a quote:

“I believe that the free enterprise system is the greatest engine of prosperity the world’s ever know, I believe in self reliance and individual initiative but I also believe that everybody should have a fair shot” says Obama.

You have to translate what Obama says to get the truth because he says what people want to hear instead of giving his true intentions – such as “If you like your insurance you can keep your insurance” a total lie.

Translation:

“You’ve had your free enterprise and used initiative and self reliance in the past and this has resulted in an unfair division of the rich and poor which I will correct with a master plan of forced redistribution.”

Soryn:

Forced redistribution is currently a reality. People pay taxes and the money is redistributed by the government.

If the taxes due are a fair amount that the taxpayers support and those who contribute actually get benefits in return then it is not considered forced redistribution. It is considered forced redistribution when those who have worked hard for their money are ordered to pay more than they consider fair.

This has happened with Obamacare. Here is an example from a letter published in my local paper this morning:

“Liberals lied about Obamacare, saying that we could keep our plans and doctors. Liberals told us our premiums would be $2,500 less. My premiums have risen 400 percent so I can pay for liberal freeloaders.”

You can’t blame this guy for feeling he was not treated fairly.

Soryn:

Not trying to defend Obamacare or anything, we can read the following on the official site:

“ObamaCare’s cost is estimated at up to net cost of $1.36 trillion dollars by 2023.”

“Obamacare is projected to cut the national deficit by over $200 billion during its first 10 years and over $1 trillion over the next two decades. This helps offset the up-front cost of ObamaCare.”

So it seems like in the short-term it creates a great deficit, but in the long run it brings a benefit.

Wow.. I am amazed at the depth of your self-deception if you believe that propaganda from Obama sites. The costs estimated by those who actually do the math are to be three times as much as this estimate and I’d be willing to bet that is a low figure. If you think Obamacare will reduce the deficit then I have a great bridge I’ll sell you cheap.

Every cost estimate the government gives us on a social program is always way way off. Medicare costs more than ten times the estimated amount.

If you want to know Obama’s thinking look at his past and his actions rather than his words. Take a look.

LINK

May 23, 2014

Ratio of Men to Women among spiritual seekers

Larry W

If you go among any Church or spiritual seekers, this is the trend. I mentioned this recently when I attended an esoteric group of seekers in Oklahoma City. 40 women, four men. So tonight I got the idea to go look at pics from Keysters. Every year we pose outside a restaurant or someplace or two for group pics. You don’t always get ALL attendees in such pics, but it gives you a pretty good idea who attended. I looked at several group pics from KOK (Keys of Knowledge) Gatherings. In each one I count equal number of men and of women. Interesting.

What does that imply? I don’t know. But it shows SOMETHING is different about the Keysters compared to most other seeker groups.

Interesting point Larry. I have heard a number of comments over the years about the fact that we seem to draw an even number of male and females at various meetings whereas other spiritual groups, especially new age and metaphysical ones draw mostly females.

In each gathering we have had we always do something in a circle where we arrange them male/female and in each gsathering they have been very close to even. This also happens in various classes I give.

I think the reason I draw a fairly even number is that I am one of the few spiritual teachers who puts emphasis on logic that appeals to males as well as the mystical which appeals to the female side.

Ruth:

Don’t forget that the Keysters also include all those members who do not attend the mini gathering every year, so the ratio of men and women might be a bit different to just a group picture of a few of the members.

Good point. It is interesting that even a greater percentage of the Keys are male than happens at the gatherings – at least among those who participate. This is also highly unusual amoung spiritual metaphysical or New Age groups.

LWK

If and when government forces higher wages than are economically justified the end result is always fewer jobs, and/or higher prices for goods.

Good point Larry. Switzerland is one of the few countries that refuses to pass a minimum wage and the average wage there is $37/hr. and unemployment is about 3%. Few people make less than $20/hr.

The Left does not seem to realize that reality is not what they feel but what actually happens.

Larry W

I find myself extremely tempted right now to come up with The Pole Dancer Principle.

Actually the pole dancing idea came entirely from Dan’s fertile imagination. When my sister and I danced for the drunken crowd we kind of copied what we had seen in the movies which was a little swing type stuff. We made it up as we went. Sometimes I also got free beer out of the deal. It was a lot different world back then.

May 23, 2014

Question Four

It is interesting to contemplate the difference between the political Left and Right. The Right just cannot understand why the Left cannot add 2+2 and support a balanced budget and the Left see the Right as heartless beasts who refuse to help the poor and disadvantaged.

Question: What is the real difference between the two sides and why do they not understand each other – or do they?

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 7

July 21, 2014December 12, 2022 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 9 of 33 in the series 2014

May 4, 2014

Good and Evil

Joan:

I attend a monthly “shadow group” with 4 other women where we try to work out deeper issues that seem related to unconscious material. Which brings me to the idea of evil. (I get evil and sickness mixed up). Does being sick (mentally or physically) necessarily mean that evil is present?

I all depends on how you define evil. In the old days people had a pretty simple view of good and evil. Evil was basically that which angered God and good was something that pleased Him. Today some people have gone the other extreme and watered down the definition so much that nothing is evil.

When you think of it, it is silly to claim that the reality behind a word does not exist for all words represent something that does exist. If good and evil did not really exist then we should completely eliminate them from our language. We do not, because they represent something real just as all words do.

When we talk about the meaning of words though we should have their meaning clear in our minds and see that meaning in the language of principles as much as possible. Here is the definition I gave of good and evil the other day.

Good is that which moves us forward in the direction of greater freedom, health, happiness, peace, love, understanding and spiritual living. Evil is that which takes us away from these things.

I added in “freedom” here as it is an additional ingredient I left out.

So to answer your question, yes, sickness implies there is some force present, taking one away from health and happiness. It is of course, not evil in the form of some dragon-like devil afflicting a person, but it is technically caused by an evil force.

The trouble with the word “evil’ though is it is a strongly polarized word and unless great harm is being done it may be advisable to use something else in its place. Saying that sickness is caused by a lack of balance or wrong life choices is not so harsh as labeling it an evil thing.

Joan

I kind of see what you mean but sometimes I see “evil” as simply ignorance or lack of awareness due to any number of reasons and many times when one is able to finally see and literally wake-up to the truth, the “evil” disappears.

Ignorance does lead people in the direction of evil Many people followed Hitler in ignorance of where he was taking them. Ignorance can lead to a loss of freedom, health and happiness, which takes one in the direction of evil. Again, if someone makes a mistake through ignorance we generally do not label them as evil as it is such a charged word. A seeker’s language should be as harmless as possible, but always silently understand the meaning behind events.

Joan

Anyway, one question I have is, if Jesus could make such “evil” disappear when he was literally walking the planet….could he not do the same today if he is alive on some other level, say in the heart of man–or in the dimension just beyond us? In other words, what would keep such an avatar from performing miracles in the present moment and curing us of disease, (should it be God’s will) and we ASK for help, for Him to do so?

Anytime one exercises enough true faith the door to the miraculous becomes open. However, each avatar has a different mission and plan behind it. Jesus performed a lot of miracles as a part of the great plan. Abraham Lincoln, another avatar, performed none (in the normal sense). Unless one is a high initiate, such as the Christ, he either needs to work with great faith of the patient or have assistance from an unseen entity who has decided to assist.

Joan:

Which brings me to the next issue I was hoping you could also shed light on for me. My friend, (and the leader of the “shadow group” I am involved in) believes that the only way a person can heal from darkness (evil, disease, negativity) is by facing and healing the shadow or unconscious.

This is often true, but not always. Many illnesses are caused by denial or suppression of emotion and before the healing can take place those thoughts and feelings must be revealed, faced and sent to their right place.

Joan

I guess this friend of mine believes that prayer does not have enough power to transform a person. So now I am wondering the same.

Prayer is very helpful and a positive thing to do, but by itself does not transform a person. Some of the most annoying people I have ever met have been huge on praying very regularly. The most important thing for spiritual development is how you actually treat your brothers and sisters. In the parable of the Good Samaritan the injured man was ignored by a priest and a Levite, both of whom were known for their long prayers. The Samaritan, one not known for prayer, actually helped the guy. Jesus said:

Luke 10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

Luke 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Luke 10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

It sounds as if your group teacher may be on to some good things but I do not know enough about her to give much more judgment on her.

If there is anything you need greater clarification on, please ask.

May 5, 2014

Gospel of Banabas

Tom:

Was Jesus really crucified because this old Bible says he was not and Judas dressed as Jesus and was killed in his place????????????? Give your point of view on this.

This book claiming to be from the time of Christ has not been tested to authenticate its age. Most experts think the Gospel of Banabas was written after 700 AD and if this is so then the writer knew fewer real facts about the crucifixion than we have available today.

For many centuries alternative views ha e been put forward on the details of the cucifxion. The idea that two people were involved probably came about because some of the inner circle taught that two people were involkved in the mission of the Messiah – Jesus and the Christ…Christ did exit the body at the crucifoixion causing Jesus to compain thgat his Lord had forsaken him. So technically Christ wasn’t crucified, but the man Jesus was.

Does it make sense that the government would publicly put a famous person to death for all to see and execute the wrong person? Not likely.

May 6, 2014

John Paul I

There seems to be a little confusion on my teachings concerning John Paul I and Jesus. Yes, I said that Jesus came in the person of John Paul I but how he came is explained in more detail later by me. Here’s a quote from the archives:

Pope John the First who was only in office thirty-three days before he was killed. What we believe happened there is from DK who said right around the time Pope John I came into office The Master Jesus would attempt to take over the Catholic Church from the Vatican. What happened, is, I believe, Jesus overshadowed John Paul First. John Paul the First was not Jesus but Jesus worked through him. John Paul the First came to the Vatican and he was going to fire everybody and completely rearrange the Vatican. He saw the corruption there and he was making big changes. There is a book written about him that gives tremendous evidence that he was killed. poisoned. He was only in office thirty-three days!

Jesus was just working through John Paul the First. He was overshadowing him and working with him very closely. Jesus wasn’t reincarnated, just working with him very closely.

Archive #2306 LINK

I didn’t set 2020 as a date written in stone for another attempt but said it “may” happen as early as that. It is also quite possible that the Hierarchy is working with the current Pope as he is much more humble and receptive to change than anyone since John Paul I. It is also possible he may be preparing the way for the real attempt that may come soon. I am concerned about his disparaging remarks about capitalism and would like to know more details about his real beliefs about freedom and communism. Sometimes a disciple will talk about the rejection of materialism in such a way that he sounds like he is against free enterprise when he is not. He may merely be advocating attention on the spirit side of things rather than matter.

Ruth asks:

If Jesus overshadowed John Paul, then wouldn’t Jesus have been able to intuitively pick up the DBs thoughts about their plan to murder John Paul…

Someone asked the same question at the 2003 gathering and here is what I said:

Well, it depends on how closely he was listening at the time, I guess. You know maybe he did receive a warning. The person in the body is the one who makes a decision related to the body. There were times in my life where I received a warning about something and I thought, “this will be really awkward to obey this warning” and I found out the warning was correct. Maybe he did receive a warning and just ignored it. Maybe he couldn’t believe his brethren would betray him.

May 7, 2014

Earned Authority

Ruth says:

If that was the case, then JJ would have taught us the truth on this matter by now, surely. To be an earned authority means one is reliable enough to teach the Truth.

First, I want to stress again that I am not infallible and students must run teachings by their own souls whether they come from me, an angel, a god or the National Enquirer.

Even an earned authority can never replace soul confirmation. What we should do with an earned authority is give a lot of weight to what he or she says, but not accept without question if something seems amiss. For instance, DK is an earned authority with me. Ever so often I come across something he says that sounds a little unbelievable. When this happens, because he is an earned authority, I do not automatically discount what he says, but give it a lot of weight and attempt to figure out how the words may be true. For instance he says that Jesus took the fifth initiation as Apollonius of Tyana. The problem is that Apollonius was born at the same time that Jesus was supposed to have been. That means hat Apollonius was seemingly alive at the same time Jesus was and it would appear that Jesus could not have been born as him.

If most teachers presented such a contradiction I would write it off as a highly probable mistake, but because DK is an earned authority I have spent a lot of thought reflecting on how this could be true and have come up with a number of possibilities.

When I first read DK’s teachings about the overshadowing of Jesus I had a difficult time accepting it because it went against my belief system at the time. But I gave his words weight and later received confirmation of the principle.

I have not taught all I know and neither do I know all things. There are a few things in history I have either received a revelation on or an intuitive glimpse, but on most things I have no greater advantage than anyone else. My gift in this life is the understanding of principles, the language of the soul. I have not placed much attention of finding he details of history in the Akashic records.

Keith is going the right direction in contemplating all possibilities, even if they go against the grain. There are many details of the life of Jesus that are hidden from all but the masters or those who have received a revelation for some purpose. There are many things I do not know for sure about the life of Jesus and many other things in history. Finding out what really happened in history will be one of the fun things to learn after death – for those who are ready.

There are several mysteries connected to the death and resurrection of Jesus that I do not know for sure and I, like the rest of the group, look forward to learning them.

Larry gave some good comments on this statement of Keith’s: “Judas suddenly going bad doesn’t make sense.”

He pointed out that people who are supporters can indeed turn on you. I have found this to be the case. Before writing The Immortal I had several teaching groups and gathered a number of people who were dedicated and it seemed they would do anything for me. But before the dust settled a number of them became enemies and probably would have sold me for 30 pieces of silver if someone would have offered.

Here is what I have found from my own experience. When a seeker finds his teacher and shares the spiritual energies through the soul, he becomes altered, and if he goes against those higher energies his mind becomes dark and he loses his spiritual direction.

The words of Jesus were certainly true:

Matt 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Matt 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

When coming across a greater light the seeker has a chance to be “full of light” or great darkness. This is one reason in this age the Brotherhood is cautious in giving out endowments of spiritual energy to seekers.

May 7, 2014

The Apollonius Mystery

Keith says:

I might have a solution for the Apollonius mystery. I have just finished reading Michael Newton’s book ‘Journey of Soul’s’ which I highly recommend. Michael takes clients into a theta hypnotic state in order to apprehend a persons history between lives. Michael has come across the occasional phenomena of highly developed souls splitting their essence into two different physical personalities at one time. If anybody is evolved enough to live two lives at once Jesus/Christ definitely fits the bill.

So Jesus and Apollonius were alive at the same time because Jesus/Christ split their soul essense between the two. Who knows maybe even more than two?

Good thinking Keith. That is one of the possibilities I also came up with. Great minds think on parallel lines they say.

Here’s another possibility. Jesus survived the crucifixion, as many legends relate. Something happened to the real Apollonius so Jesus assumed his identity because surfacing as Jesus made him a big target.

May 8, 2014

Global Warming

Here’s another letter to the Statesman that ought to get some comment.

Those in power who seek to scare the uneducated over an impending doom due to climate change say they want to save the planet, but their actions testify to the contrary.

How can this be?

Because they fight any energy source or breakthrough that has a chance of making a real reduction in CO2.

Nuclear energy has saved us from pumping over 28 billion tons of CO2 (many times that of wind and solar together) in the atmosphere in a 60 year period yet most alarmists fight it tooth and nail.

Natural gas has saved over 25 billion tons over coal yet alarmists show up protesting fracking.

Hydro may be the cleanest of all yet this bunch wants to tear down the dams.

Electric cars are now available, but most alarmists drive gas guzzlers and the wealthy ones fly without concern in private jets. Al Gore’s carbon footprint for just one of his mansions is about 20 times average.

What can we conclude from this? This bunch really isn’t concerned about saving the planet at all, but have another agenda which is to use global warning as an excuse to impose their political agenda on us.

May 9, 2014

The Good Guys

Keith:

I haven’t watched the Vikings yet, but my oldest daughter keeps telling me to watch the show. She tells me its better than Game of Thrones which I love. I asked Janine what Loki is like, and she said a dirty smelly blind guy who people like to lick. Thanks J.J. I think I’d rather be Loki. Lol

Your daughter is correct. The Game of Thrones is boring compared to the Vikings. The nameless seer reminds me a little of you and he’s probably no more smelly than the rest of the bunch. He kind of plays the Obi-Wan Kenobi role of that time. They do have the odd custom of licking his hand after a reading. Not sure if the Vikings of history did that or not. It is interesting that the story is based on real history.

Keith:

I haven’t received an impression about Obama being a former pharaoh, but he gives me the definite vibe that he was.

I don’t get a Pharaoh image of him but I do get the impression of a Roman Emperor. Nero comes to mind. He was more interested in being a celebrity than he was in good government and seemed to get out of being blamed for the decline that set in.

Keith:

It amazes me how the good guys get bumped off so easily. Examples being Caesar, Joseph Smith, Lincoln, Kennedy’s, Rev. King, John Paul I. It’s almost seems they are extremely careless. On the other hand getting rid of the bad guys is like trying to scrap the last bit of dog shit off ones shoe.

Good point and I like your imagery. DK actually talks about this problem the good guys have and points out that one of the reasons for it is they attempt to move their reforms too quickly and upset their enemies who see that their world could come crashing down. He tells us that a lot of persecution and danger can be avoided by disciples by assessing the long term situation more accurately and moving ahead with wisdom and in a way that doesn’t overwhelm enemies with threats. Jesus spoke along these lines telling his disciples to be as “wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”

There are times though that there is no way to move safely ahead. Lincoln was in a situations where he moved forward in about the best way possible and still he was killed. There is always risk, but many disciples draw much more pain to themselves than necessary.

You would think these good guys would be more sensitive to inner warnings. Lincoln received a dream of his funeral shortly before the assassination.

According to Plutarch, a seer had warned that harm would come to Caesar no later than the Ides of March. On his way to the Theatre of Pompey, where he would be assassinated, Caesar passed the seer and joked, “The ides of March have come,” meaning to say that the prophecy had not been fulfilled, to which the seer replied “Aye, Caesar; but not gone.” (From Wikipedia)

I read once that JFK had a negative feeling about going to Dallas.

Joseph Smith knew that he was going to be killed if he returned to Nauvoo.

Yes, the good guys often do not pay enough attention to the inner voice. I have found that it is wise to follow it even if you suffer a lot of inconvenience.

And you’re right. Some of the bad guys just do not seem to go away. Castro is a great example. That guy just keeps hanging on.

And you’re right about Seth. Even though it was direct voice channeled the books still have some good information in them. I would say they are the best teachings that have come out of an unconscious medium. Of course, they must be read in the light of the soul.

Keith:

O.K. I know – I got Spielberg and Lucas mixed up. I’m laughing at myself. Anyway my altimiers kicks in every now and then. Sometimes I can’t even remember the names and birthdays of my kids.

JJ I thought you were talking about Schindler’s List Where Speilberg did identify the true good guys and bad guys. It is easy to recognize the bad guys in hindsight, but much more difficult in the present because they are usually highly accepted by the media. Until the vstart of WWII the media was soft on Hitler and Mussolini, even praising them at times, and were especially enamored with Stalin. They hated Lincoln with a passion.

May 9, 2014

The Pope

This doesn’t sound good. Any forced redistribution doesn’t help the rich or poor and leads to tyranny.

(AP) Pope Francis called Friday for governments to redistribute wealth and benefits to the poor in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the “economy of exclusion” that is taking hold today.

Francis made the appeal during a speech to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the heads of major U.N. agencies who met in Rome this week.

Latin America’s first pope has frequently lashed out at the injustices of capitalism and the global economic system. On Friday, Francis called for the United Nations to promote a “worldwide ethical mobilization” of solidarity with the poor.

He said a more equal form of economic progress can be had through “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”

Francis urged the U.N. to promote development goals that attack the root causes of poverty and hunger, protect the environment and ensure dignified labor for all.

LINK

May 11, 2014

Atheists After Death

Ruth asks if atheists really realize there is an afterlife after they die and if so, would they take that realization to the next life?

It is amusing that many atheists would rather be right and suffer annihilation than to be wrong and have a chance at eternal life. After death, many of them are surrounded with a dark cloud because they expect nothing but eternal darkness. After a time though they all come to the realization that they still exist and start to explore the spirit world.

The fact that they learn there is an afterlife doesn’t mean they will take it with the knowledge with them in their next life. We knew many things in a higher state in the spirit world that we do not know here. When we are born, we are born with a clean slate. All we bring with us is our basic intelligence.

That which we assimilate during earth life, especially the understanding of principles, is strongly imbedded and much more likely to carry over into the next life than something we learn in the spirit world.

The material form is a very powerful veil that blocks spiritual knowledge and power until the time comes that the seeker sees through the material illusion and masters it. When he places spirit as master over matter then the door of the soul swings open and more pure knowledge from his higher self becomes available.

Also all atheists do not go to the same place just as all believers in God do not. An atheist who is kind and loving will go to a place where others are kind and loving whereas a mean spirited one will go to a place where there is a lower vibration.

May 11, 2014

Socialism vs Free Enterprise

Fifty years ago before the government stepped in to help us poor folk even the poor could afford good medical care and pay for it themselves. As proof I will relate a personal experience I have given out several times.

In 1958 I was injured in an explosion. Altogether I had six operations over several years and was in the hospital for a total of over three months. My first hospital room, when my stay was for a month, cost us $8 a day. That’s around $80 in today’s money.

My mother was recently divorced and received no child support and had no assets. She and I picked fruit in the summer and she worked for minimum wage at a potato processing plant in the winter.

We paid off the all the medical expenses with no help from the government. It would be impossible for a fruit picker to pay off such a bill today, but back then even the poor folk could afford to go to the doctor and the hospital.

Back then sometimes the doctor would put a person in the hospital overnight for observation because it was affordable by most.

Unfortunately today, a night in the hospital can cost around $4000 a day compared to the $80 (adjusted for inflation) that we paid. You don’t hear of anyone paying out of his own pocket to go there for a relaxing night of observation these days.

People complain about big oil but they have done a much better job of controlling prices than big hospital. Back in 1958 the price of gas was 39.9 cents [USD] per gallon and my hospital room was $8 a day. If the price of gas had escalated as much as a hospital room then we would be paying about $200.00 a gallon today instead of around $3.50.

In other words, we have $200.00 a gallon health care costs, and who do we look to for solutions? The same people who created the problem in the first place — our friends in the government.

Just think. If we had health care costs low like they were in 1958 then even illegal aliens and fruit pickers could afford to stay in the hospital. If costs were this low we wouldn’t even be thinking about socialized medicine as there would be no need for it.

I spent two years (1964-66) in England and was able to compare their socialized system with ours before the government started helping us. Even though medical services in England were free we didn’t save much because our costs in America were already very low. On top of that, the doctors in England were really overworked as people went to them much more. I knew people who went to the doctor once a week whether they were sick or not. No one I knew in the U.S. went to the doctor unless they had some kind of need.

Because the doctors were so overworked they rushed the patients through. I remember one time a doctor started writing me out a prescription when I was just in the middle of telling him what was wrong. U.S. doctors were never rushed like that in my experience.

Then I went to a private doctor in England once that had to be paid outside the system and he was relaxed and took his time, just like an American doctor.

Even before Obamacare the U.S. medical system was about 60%socialized. If you want to see how effective and efficient a real free enterprise system would be all we need to do is look back to the good old days before the government offered their help. Those were the days when a fruit picker could have a serious accident and pay off all the expenses of a three month stay in the hospital and six surgeries with no government help.

Government help has also driven up education costs. Most of my friends and I paid our way through college (early Sixties) by working in the summer and working part time as we went through college. None of us had to take out a loan.

Reagan spoke truly when he said that the most terrifying words a taxpayer can hear is, “I am from the government and I am here to help you.

May 12, 2014

Re: Socialism vs Free Enterprise

What, which country are you from, Soryn?

Soryn:

A few observations though. Beginning with the title: the idea that a few socialist principles integrated into the society stand against free enterprise is incorrect.

It depends on whether the socialism is imposed by force or created through free will. Generally, when it is imposed by force it is called socialism and when done through free will it is called a cooperative or some other name reflecting what it is. A cooperative implies free will because cooperation is normally a free will endeavor. When that which someone sees as the ideal or a good plan is imposed by force then cooperation does not enter in much and the term socialism is usually used.

We could technically call a cooperative free will socialism for it accomplishes a similar objective much more efficiently without the use of force.

I do not know if you have read my treatise on the Molecular Business, but it accomplishes the objectives of socialism, but with no force imposed by the government. Everything in it is accomplished by free will and the battle of free will vs the ideal imposed by force is the main dividing line between the Brotherhood of Light and the Dark Brotherhood.

To read the treatise go to the archives at:

LINK

And read sections 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 201 and 205

Soryn:

People should still be able to get rich but it would prevent the rich from transforming certain shared facilities (such as education) into a money making business which defies their purpose.

Who cares if people make money teaching or running a school if it works well and does a good job of educating the kids? Many private schools do a great job. In fact the last two presidents, Obama and Clinton, who were supposedly big supporters of public schools sent their kids to private schools. Jimmy Carter was the last president to send his kid to a public school.

Soryn:

To be honest, I have nothing against private medical care as long as it is affordable to everyone, but that’s where the natural profit tendency of capitalism comes in and starts to favor people with power and money.

It doesn’t matter whether you go to a socialist country or a partially capitalist one (there are no fully capitalist counties available) the rich will always have an advantage. The only way to take that advantage away is to make everyone rich and we are a long way from that.

The system we had in the U.S. before forced socialized medicine was introduced worked much better than anything in any European country today and it took no taxes at all to support the system. Like I said even a fruit picker could afford the best of care.

Soryn:

I agree that doctors that work for the state are overused since the service is free, but solutions can be found to this (such as a better queue system for non-urgent cases).

I do not think any country on earth with socialized medicine has solved this problem. But the problem did not even exist in the United States before 1964. Instead of going back to what worked, most want more of what doesn’t work.

Soryn:

Also, I totally support the idea of local food and small local entrepreneurship; most of those corporations are capitalist mutants that are driven by the simple idea of buying cheap and selling big. They go into China and India, buy and manufacture everything cheaply, and then go and sell it in the US and Western Europe. This is capitalist savagery in my eyes.

The large corporations work on the same principle as the local food entrepreneur. If you go to a farmer’s market you’ll see a wide variety of prices and much of the produce is a lot higher than the same thing at Walmart. A lot of the big corporations that are accused of being greedy operate on a lot lower profit margin than the little guy. Often a small entrepreneur has to mark his goods up 50% or more just to survive whereas a big company can operate on a margin of 20% or less.

Does this mean the small guy is the real greedy one? No. Both are doing what is necessary to make the wheels of commerce work.

Many harshly criticize corporations for going into the third world countries and using their cheap labor, but do not realize that they are doing the people a favor. The employees realize this and gladly line up for the jobs.

You have to look at it from the corporation’s point of view. If Apple, or any other company, decides to expand their manufacturing they have two choices. Hire locally and pay a high wage or expand overseas and pay a lower wage. The disadvantage of expanding overseas is there are many other expenses besides the labor plus there is always the danger that some dictator could take over the facilities, as has happened many times in history. As they examine all the costs and risks low wages is often the deciding factor. Without the possibility of low wages they would not expand abroad but at home.

And what would be the result if no companies expanded abroad?

There would be much more starvation disease and death than now exist. People in a poor third world country are not going to have money drop in their laps by magic. Some business enterprise must enter their nation to help them move forward. The solution is to start with low wages rather than none at all and the people strongly desire something rather than nothing and starvation if business does not expand there.

Once business interests get anchored in a country then wages start going up. China now has almost as many rich people as the United States and are buying as many cars as we are. A generation ago the well-to-do were lucky to be able to afford a bicycle.

After World War II Japan offered business very low wages and it seemed that all the cheap products bore the label, “made in Japan.” A short time later Japan became a wealthy nation and our products now say, “made in China.” The wages are now going up in China, just as the did Japan. A country seeking to gain prosperity cannot just start at the top of the ladder but must climb up a step at a time just the way the United States and other countries have.

The problem with the thinking of many idealists is they think the problems of the world could be easily solved if government just forced people to do good. Hitler and Lenin tried that and both of them failed miserably. There are not enough goods and services available on this planet to make all comfortable if we just share everything. The solution is to increase the amount of goods and services through free will by freeing up the human spirit to innovate. Human innovation will eventually bring abundance for all. How long that will be will be determined by the amount of freedom the people have.

May 14, 2014

Only 4% think they are below average intelligence.

LINK

May 15, 2014

Global Warming Again

Soryan

JJ, how would you comment those climate change proofs laid out on those sites?

They seem to have a lot of scientific evidence.

From what I understand, you say that global warming is only a construct for the government to take more money from people.

There is not what I have said. There has been some global warming the past century but any construct made of it comes from people not the warming itself. Governments desiring more control and taxes are using it as a scare tactic and an excuse to gain more control.

Soryan:

Even if the global warming is not affected by CO2 emissions, the air in the big cities is certainly affected and something needs to be done in my opinion. Taxation can be a solution in some instances.

Global warming is affected by CO2. That is not the debate. The debate consists of two things.

(1) How much effect does CO2 have? Estimates are the warming is less than 1% to 100% caused by CO2.

(2) What we should do about it.

CO2 does not pollute our cities but is a plant fertilizer and the increase we have experienced has caused an increase of plant growth of around 15% which has wound up saving many lives from starvation.

Coal does give off a lot of pollutants and we should be working to replace it.

I have just placed a chapter from my book on global warming at freeread. Take a read here:

Global Warming

May 16, 2014

Handwriting of Ayn Rand

LWK asked me to look at Ayn Rand’s handwriting. I found a some samples on the internet so I’ll briefly say a few things.

First, if I had to imagine how her handwriting would look from what I know of her history and her writings I would have imagined quite close to what it turned out to be.

It shows she is intuitive, good powers of concentration, a self learner and one who is very curious about how things work. She doesn’t like complexity and always tries to break the complex down to its simple parts.

She looks at things, even relationships from a mental rather than an emotional perspective, though she can be quite passionate when she lets herself go with the flow.

She has strong interests in the abstract philosophical side of life as well as the practical material side – something that definitely comes out in her writings.

She is a quick, accurate thinker – one that rarely gets deceived by outward show. Overall, her intelligence is very high.

She is very sure of herself that she is right and the only way to change her mind on something is through the use of some very good logic.

She is honest, but careful about what she reveals.

One thing that is a little surprising is a pessimistic attitude. She doesn’t fear the future and is happy to move toward it, but she’s not very trusting of human nature and not surprised when people make bad choices. She hoped for the best, but anticipated the worst.

It would be interesting to see the handwriting of Raj Patel who is the polar opposite of Ayn Rand, but can’t find any.

Larry:

JJ, what do you think of my idea here? Is this a worthwhile idea or just a waste of time? Should we try to coordinate our talking points and should we try to “sound bite” them so people, like Soryn, can understand lwk better and see that we speak with one voice (and visa versa)?

It’s always good to be on the same page as far as the definition of words go, but even when you make a great effort to have two in disagreement use the same definition, problems occur. Remember a while back several had different definitions as to what “legal” was and I tried to get all parties to use the same one and they refused so real communication came to a standstill.

The bottom line is that if two really want to understand each other they will make an effort and do so. If a person’s only goal is to be right then he will not understand the other person no matter what.

What is needed is a huge grass roots effort to teach the masses about the principle of freedom and how it can be wisely used in a free market, or a free market capitalism as well as how social programs can be tested with free principles.

The trouble with social programs today is that when they do not work someone then dictates that we do more of it. A free society does not do more of something that is not efficient but makes changes until the ideal is reached.

Larry W

Could we start very small and make that business carry its own weight — bootstrap…?

A small business operating on a shoestring would not be able to demonstrate the principles. The first one should be some type of manufacturing, production or possibly a service, and start with at least 24 employees. A pure sales organization like real estate, wouldn’t work though a molecular business could incorporate salespeople. The first person who starts a successful one will have to have some reasonable financial resources to put it together and make it work.

May 16, 2014

Raj Patel

Soryn referred us to Raj Patel’s book and several other materials. It would take several books to appropriately comment on them all, but I will say a few words about Patel.

I first heard about him several years ago on Benjamin Crème’s site. There he was pretty much portrayed as the Second Coming of Christ. That kind of raised a red flag for me for rarely does Crème say anything that turns out to be accurate or correct. Every prophecy I know of that he has made has failed miserably.

Crème is also a communist and most people he endorses are Marxists also – so I anticipated that Patel would lean that direction – which he does seem to do.

He has a strange combination of teachings. He emphasizes a fairly nebulous direct democracy on one hand, and then voices support for big government and central control on the other. He can’t have it both ways.

On his video he tells us he is an Obama supporter but has been disappointed that he hasn’t used more executive power in getting things done. He says he is encouraged that Obama is getting more “belligerent” and using a more aggressive approach.

He supports Obamacare and thinks that climate change is a major problem. He also has praise for regulations and seems to want more of them.

On the positive side he wants (as do I) to feed the hungry people of the world, for people to raise more of their own food and to go in a more organic and sustainable direction.

He wants all the poor people to have some land so they can grown their own food, but doesn’t say how to accomplish this. He’s participated in several protests, (such as the Battle of Seattle in 1999) so perhaps he wants to forcefully take land from the rich and give it to the poor as Castro claimed to have done.

Some of the problems he articulates are real problems, but the solutions must take place through a maximum of free will and educating the public rather than dictating to them.

Soryn:

You say this and that about what Patel said. Can you link the video and the text please?

I’ve read a number of things about him and watched a couple videos on his web page at:

LINK

Raj discusses how individuals are working to take back the food supply system Tweet

View on rajpatel.org

Preview by Yahoo

One of the two that I watched there that was most revealing was “UCF – Global Perspective.” That was where he was glad that Obama was starting to use a “belligerent” approach to get things done.

Actually, I was thinking of continuing on the socialist – free enterprise subject for a while but instead of using the shotgun approach we should break it down to simple parts and talk about them.

First, the core difference between the left and right is in the use and constriction of freedom

On one extreme we cannot have anarchy and some destructive actions (like burglary, rape, murder etc) need to be restricted and on the other it is easy for those in authority to take away too many freedoms.

Some of the ideals of socialism are in a good direction such as relief from hunger, poverty, discrimination etc.

The question is – how many freedoms are we willing to sell down the river to accomplish these things and can they be accomplished in a state of maximum freedom (which has never existed in modern civilization).

I’d like to see some comments on this subject.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 6

July 9, 2014December 12, 2022 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 8 of 33 in the series 2014

April 8, 2014

Lights on Mars

This is pretty mysterious.

LINK1

Also this:

LINK2

April 9, 2014

Mars, Sound etc.

Tom:

Could their be intelligence life on Mars…what do you think JJ?

There is life on all the major planets, but not always on the physical surface. There are many other places to look. Most planets have some type of life form under their surface. Just as there are many complex parts within our physical bodies even so, a planet has a complex interior with a number of functioning life forms. I believe the gas giants such as Jupiter, Saturn, Uranus and Neptune have a number of gaseous life forms within their thick atmospheres.

I would also expect to find some type of life form under the surface in water in places such as Jupiter’s moon, Europa or Enceladus which orbits Saturn.

As far as intelligent life goes, scientists can’t find evidence that any exists in the solar system, but they do not realize that each planet has many more components than the dense physical plane. There are the higher ethers and the astral and mental planes with their divisions. Most of the planets and even the Sun has intelligent life on some plane of its existence.

That light on Mars captured by the Rover is quite intriguing. If there is a natural explanation I’m not sure what it could be. It could be an outpost left by an ancient civilization or interplanetary visitor. Then it could be from inhabitants of the etheric world who descended to the physical to check out the Rover.

There are some other interesting pictures indicating that life has been or is there. Check these out:

LINK1

LINK2

LINK3

Tom

I’m doing Seti@home which uses users computers to try to find radio signals from outer space. Have you done any citizen science projects.

No, I have my hands full at the present but that sounds right up your alley.

Jarek

I have a question for You (and the other keysters):

When being in silence with a silent and still mind (like in meditation), do You hear a constant high pitched sound/noise (quite similar to the noise the old CRT TV’s had back in the days, but even a higher pitch, so high that it seems to be on the edge of perception of the real and imagination)?

The reason I asked You about the high pitch sound is that from all the people I personally know, those few who are fairly enlightened and are seekers of truth on the Path, hear it also, so I thought You might too 🙂

Yeah, I hear a number of background sounds and see a number of lights. Just you bringing up the subject drew my attention to the sound. Unless there is some message involved I just usually tune them out as they can be a distraction.

As to what your purpose in life is that is for you to figure out. Your purpose or mission is decided by you before you were born and when you find it, it will just feel right. Keep in mind that one life out of seven is a Sabbath and your main purpose in that life is to rest, recharge and just take things in.

April 11, 2014

Cosmos Again

I’m continuing to watch the Cosmos series hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson. I was glad to see that in the last episode, the fifth, that he stuck to science and didn’t insult the intelligence of those who believe a Higher Intelligence is behind creation.

One interesting thing I learned which I didn’t know was the first institutionalized book burning took place a couple centuries before Christ and was ordered by Qin Shi Huang, the first emperor, and unifier of China.

Tyson tells us that he took a continent and turned it into a nation that now bears his name China.

Most of us know Emperor Qin for the army of 7,000 terra cotta warriors that guard his tomb.

In Emperor Qin’s drive to consolidate his far-flung empire, he took drastic measures to standardize everything within it.

This included mandating a single coinage, making uniform all weights and measures, the widths of carts and roads, as well as the precise way the Chinese language was to be written, including what you were allowed to write and think.

Emperor Qin’s philosophy– the only one permitted– was called “legalism,” which is just what it sounded like, do as the law says or else.

It’s a philosophy that’s not highly conducive to questioning authority.

that all the books of the hundred schools of thought shall be be burned, that anyone who uses history to criticize the present shall have his family executed.

The works of MoTze and Confucius and other philosophers were destroyed in the world’s first book burning.

Hundreds of scholars bravely resisted by trying to preserve the forbidden books.

They were buried alive in the capitol.

Science needs the light of free expression to flourish.

It depends on the fearless questioning of authority, the open exchange of ideas. (End quote)

On the other hand in other episodes he took off the hat of a true scientists and resorted to dogma and distortion.

Concerning Newton, he said,

When Isaac Newton was born in this house in 1642, the world was very different.

Everyone looked at the perfection of the clockwork motions of the planets in the sky and could only understand it as the work of a master clock maker.

How else to explain it? There was only one way such a thing could come about in their imagination; only one answer for them– God.

For reasons beyond our understanding, God just created the solar system that way.

But this explanation is the closing of a door.

It doesn’t lead to other questions.

Along came Newton, a God-loving man who’s also a genius.

He could write the laws of nature in perfect mathematical sentences– formulas that applied universally to apples, moons, planets and so much more.

With one foot still in the Middle Ages, Isaac Newton imagined the whole solar system.

Newton’s laws of gravity and motion revealed how the Sun held distant worlds captive.

His laws swept away the need for a master clock maker to explain the precision and beauty of the solar system.

Gravity is the clock maker. (end quote)

This is an absurd conclusion. This is like saying that the hands of my watch move with precision because it has a battery and this means there is no watchmaker. Or for that matter, no one made the battery either. It just exists.

Newton, who is considered the greatest scientist of all time, certainly came to a different conclusion from his work than Tyson did. He was a huge believer in Intelligent Design as well as a seeker of truth from the Bible. He credited many of his discoveries to his reflections on the scriptures and the Great Clockmaker who made the universe. His discovery of the law of gravity strengthened his belief in a Creator. It didn’t cause him to dismiss God in the least as Tyson thinks should happen.

Then in the second episode he projects the idea that because of powerful evidence that evolution exists that the idea of Intelligent Design is negated. This is nonsense as many supporters of the concept of Intelligent design believe in evolution.

Tyson males a big mistake in his presentation of evolution by telling us that Dogs with the help of man evolved from wolves. Recent research proves pretty conclusively this is not the case. Here is a link to the story.

What evolutionists overlook is that the evidence indicates that it has not been a gradual process, but has occurred in leaps. These giant leaps have occurred after each great extinction. Between extinctions many of the species continue their lives with little or no change for millions of years. Great leaps in creation cannot be explained away by natural selection.

April 12, 2014

Evolutionary Leaps

I just finished reading Robert Felix’s book called Magnetic Reversals for the second time and found it quite interesting. He basically makes the interesting claim that historical evidence suggests that giant atomic explosions were triggered in our atmosphere after magnetic reversals occurred. This has been responsible for various mass extinctions. These explosions, which occurred in our atmosphere, were triggered by tremendous currents of electrical force interacting with elements in the atmosphere which created an atomic reaction, creating destruction and new elements raining down on the earth.

Then, after the partial extinction of life on the planet new species seemed to magically appear. He attributes this to increased mutation from radiation, God, or both. He also says we are overdue for another magnetic reversal.

I found this particularly interesting, but even more so when I reread a profound statement by DK concerning what was behind the evolutionary leap that produced the first self conscious humans. He says:

“At human individualisation in the middle of the third rootrace. This was produced by a vast destruction of the forms we call animal-man. This point has seldom been brought out in teaching. The advent of the Lords of the Flame, the electrical storm which ushered in the period of man, was distinguished by disaster, chaos, and the destruction of many in the third kingdom of nature. The spark of mind was implanted and the strength of its vibration, and the immediate effect of its presence caused the death of the animal form, thus producing the immediate possibility of the newly vitalised causal bodies vibrating to such purpose that new physical vehicles were taken. That was the Will aspect manifesting in the fourth round in connection with the human family.” Treatise on Cosmic Fire, Page 425

Note that, in harmony with Felix, he says that an “electrical storm which ushered in the period of man, was distinguished by disaster, chaos, and the destruction of many in the third kingdom of nature.”

Notice that he says the electrical storm followed by great destruction created the “possibility of the newly vitalized causal bodies vibrating to such purpose that new physical vehicles were taken.”

Where did these new physical bodies come from? According Felix the evidence suggests that they just seem to magically appear. It may well be the perfect storm of creation comes together after such electrical phenomena causes great destruction. These ingredients include:

(1) Powerful electrical forces unleashed.

(2) Increased radioactivity.

(3) Being visited by beings of great intelligence.

These three ingredients seem to work together to create new and better species to replace the old.

For those interested in Felix’s book here is the LINK

LWK (Quoting Peter)

in the which the heavens shall pass away with a great noise, and the elements shall melt with fervent heat, the earth also and the works that are therein shall be burned up.

That is an amazing close to what Felix says happens after a natural nuclear explosion caused by a magnetic reversal causing past extinctions. He thinks the explosion in Siberia in 1909 could have been a foreshadoeing and a natural cause rather than a meteorite.

April 13, 2014

Heavens Melting

Adam:

Are you now endorsing some type of “rapture,”

No, not by any means. There may be some great cataclysms but the earth will not be destroyed in any near future – unless we blow ourselves up. Felix presents evidence that a magnetic reversal could trigger some explosions in the atmosphere similar to what happened in Siberia in 1909.

Here is what DK says:

When man has found out how to contact and utilise positive solar electricity in combination with negative planetary electricity, we shall have a very dangerous condition brought about, and one of the factors which will eventually manifest in the destruction of the fifth root race by fire. At that great cataclysmas the Bible says “the Heavens will melt with fervent heat.” This will be seen in a still greater degree in the next round, and will cause that destruction by fire of the forms of the men who have failed, which will liberate the lives on a stupendous scale, and thus temporarily ‘purify’ the Earth from elements which would tend to hinder the evolutionary process. As the cycles pass away, the balancing of these fiery currents will be gradually brought about, and will result in a planetary condition of harmony, and of esoteric equality, which will provide ideal environment for harmonious man. Treatise on Cosmic Fire, Page 524

He points out in another place that this destruction will take place quite a few years down the road.

April 16, 2014

Darker Picture?

LWK

So my question was to JJ really. Is he seeing a darker picture now?

Not really. I believe as before that there will be some catastrophic events in the next 150-200 years but I do not see an extinction coming for some time to come – that is unless humanity gets out of control and blows itself up. That is, I would guess, a 15% probability.

The probability is much higher that some type of a more limited nuclear or WMD exchange will happen in the near future and will serve as a wakeup call.

April 17, 2014

Nuclear Problem

Marriage Vows

Tom

What about the vow one makes in life………

But I believe marriage can continue after death no matter what. I hope my G-parants are still married where ever they are at?

Any vow that you take here on earth only applies to physical plane life. You are not held to it in the next world. Scientologists who make a billion year commitment to L Ron Hubbard will be relieved to discover this. If your grandparents want to hang out together in the next world there will be nothing stopping them except their own decisions. After death you link up with a lot of old friends and past lovers so you have a whole new prespective on relationships. If you love someone here you will continue to love them after death. Love continues, but earthly vows are temporary. For one thing, we often do not know what we are doing when taking long term vows.

Apr 18, 2014

Re: Being God

I stirred Dan’s curiosity when I talked about the corruption of the Atlanteans in mixing the species.

He says:

I just read some information about how such “chimeric” organisms have been created in the lab and are currently being used for all kinds of things from converting plant sugars into plastics to treating wastewater to create electricity.

The traditional religious “party line” is, essentially, that bio-engineering, genetic manipulation, cloning, gene-splicing and etc is “playing god” and that puny humans should keep their grubby little mitts out of it.

I am not aware of any current attempts to mix animal and human genes but I was wondering, JJ, what your take is on THIS sort of biological experimentation? Specifically the genetic mixing of lower life forms such as bacteria, fungi, etc in order use them as biological machines to churn out products.

Whenever the power of humanity is enhanced the possibility of good is increased, but also the possibility of evil and destruction.

Perhaps the best example of this so far is atomic energy. We have unleashed a power that can either destroy the world or save the world. It all depends on the intentions of those with the power.

If we could derive some benefit through the mixing of the species that would help mankind and bring us greater happiness then that would be well and good. But if we wanted to create hybrids for amusement or to be slaves, or for sexual pleasure at their expense then that would indeed be a corruption. Indeed in ancient times and on some other planets there are corruptions that would boggle the mind.

These type of corruptions would draw down some unfortunate entities with bad karma but they would much prefer paying it off in regular human bodies.

We are entering some dangerous territory when we start mixing the species because sooner or later scientists will forget about doing something that will benefit us and do crazy Stephen King type of experiments just to see what they can do. We could wind up with some real out of control monsters on our hands like in Alien, starring Sigourney Weaver, or maybe a rise of the Planet of the Apes.

The next couple hundred years is going to test our common sense in a number of different ways. Let us hope we can navigate through these times successfully until we mature a bit.

Ruth:

In fact, if Sanat incarnated into animal man or an animal body, then surely he would blow that body to pieces,

If he would have incarnated in his full consciousness and glory then the primitive body could not have handled it, but even us regular folk are not incarnated in our full consciousness and neither was Sanat. He allocated what was necessary to make the incarnation work.

April 20, 2014

Phillip Lindsay

Larry W

What do you think, Keysters, Is Phillip Lindsay worth reading?

I read some of his material and he is pretty well versed on AAB and HBP and does some of his own thinking. He is better than most theosophists and if you read by the light of the soul you can benefit.

He did say one thing that comes to mind that didn’t sound right. He believes the dinosaurs went extinct when the hierarchy came here 23 million years ago which was followed by great destruction. DK says nothing that indicates this is the case and I see no reason to revise the regular timeline of around 65 million years ago for their demise.

April 21, 2014

Transcendence

Since we’ve been talking about evolution and technology it is very timely indeed that my wife and I went to see the new movie, Transcendence, the other day.

We read a review of it in the paper and it rated it quite low and we almost went to something else instead. I’m glad we stayed the course and went for we found it quite enjoyable and couldn’t understand why some critics were so down on the movie. Not only that but the ticket sales were very low as it only grossed about $11 million the first week. Maybe part of the reason is that Johnny Depp is the highest paid actor in the world and when you are at the top there’s a lot of people who want to see you fail. Personally, I like the guy as an actor.

My favorite movie with him in was The Ninth Gate. It wasn’t a big success but was quite interesting to watch.

Anyway back to Transcendence. To save me time typing here is the plot I lifted from what others have said:

Dr Will Caster (Johnny Depp) develops a sentient computer device with unsurpassed processing power. When fatally poisoned by a radical techno-terrorist organization he and his wife (Rebecca Hall) upload his consciousness into his invention to preserve his life, but the now unrestrained supercomputer soon develops a frightening ambition that blurs the line between humanity and technology.

At the heart, it’s a story about a woman, Evelyn, who loves her husband, Will, so much she tries to hold onto him by helping him save his consciousness. She begins to wrestle with whether this being is really Will or is something new. It’s also about evolution and the line between humanity and evolving into something more. This movie might be a turn off for religious people but it does make you think of what humanity could become whether you’re religious or not. (End quote)

One of the criticisms of the movie is that there has already been a lot of them about the dangers of technology run amuck, but this one was different enough that this did not spoil the movie for us. We live in an age where scientists really think they will soon be able to digitize the human brain and all its memories so the question does arise as to whether actual consciousness will be reproduced. And when Depp comes online in a computer system that is the main question his associates want to know. Is this computerized version really him or something else?

They can only take the nuances so far as they have to create a big problem to solve to make the movie interesting and of course Depp enters the internet and seeks to control the world and those who once loved him now must stop him.

Anyway, this is an interesting movie to watch when contemplating the prospect of playing God with technology. I’d rate it three stars out of four.

April 21, 2014

The Etheric Web

Ruth:

Does an atomic bomb have an etheric equivalent or etheric double? If so, does this etheric equivalent equal an atomic explosion in the physical atmosphere? DK said something about the atomic explosions attributing something to the etheric web around Earth.

Everything has an etheric double. As the organism becomes more complex so is the etheric makeup more complex. For instance the etheric composition or a human or animal is much more complex than a rock. On the other hand, the planet itself is a living entity, of which we are all a part, and, as a whole, has a very complex web.

Here is what DK said in connection to the effect of the atomic bomb on it.

“Is the etheric web of the planet sufficiently stable and balanced so that it can adequately respond to the new and potent forces which could and will pour through it into objective expression? I would remind you that the release of atomic energy has had a far more potent effect in the etheric web than in the dense physical vehicle of the planet. Three times the atomic bomb was used, and that fact is itself significant. It was used twice in Japan, thereby disrupting the etheric web in what you erroneously call the Far East; it was used once in what is also universally called the Far West, and each time a great area of disruption was formed which will have future potent, and at present unsuspected, results.”

Discipleship In The New Age – Volume II, Page 61

Most DK students interpret this to mean that these explosions along with all the more powerful ones that followed will create disastrous results.

There are three points to consider.

(1) DK supported the use of the atomic bomb to end the war. He said that the bomb represented an initiation of matter itself.

(2) He did not say the results would be bad or all bad. He said there would be “unsuspected, results.”

(3) It’s been 69 years since the explosions that he mentioned and there have been no disastrous results that can be attributed to etheric disturbance.

So, what have been the unexpected results of the etheric web disturbance? DK gives a hint:

“As each unit of consciousness, through self-induced effort, achieves the goal and crosses the ‘burning-ground,’ a microscopic portion of the etheric web of the planetary etheric body is consumed by fire; this results in a definite gain for that great Entity, the planetary Logos, through the relatively unimportant liberation of the force of one cell in His body.

Treatise on Cosmic Fire, Page 509

So, fire in the etheric web aids in the liberation of the life of the planet. When we look at the human web we learn that dissolving the web is good as long as it is not done too quickly and the consciousness is ready for the results. Even so, it would be with the planet. Some destruction of the web would release spiritual energy and light and that is what has happened since 1945. The intelligent life on the planet has made progress in both spiritual and material science. The trick is to not advance so fast that we destroy ourselves, and that is the negative danger of disturbing the etheric web.

Ruth

Question two: When one passes over and the solar Angel shows one their life lessons on Earth etc, does one then pass over into the astral emotional realm and emotionally try to fix their physical life lessons or mistakes made once one has been shown their progression from their Solar Angel, or does one forget this brief encounter, and passes over into the astral still playing out life emotional experiences etc depending on one’s evolved consciousness and the state of their evolution.

We can’t fix our physical plane mistakes when out of the body. What we can do is learn from them and prepare for the next life where we can fix them, or rise above them.

DK says we take three things with us into the astral from the life review. I personally do not think this applies all the time and, of course, the higher Self, or the soul is aware of all of the life review. It’s rather ignorant reflection often runs quite blindly in the astral between lives.

Johann: The initiation that matter underwent when the atomic bombs were detonated, it does correspond with the third degree initiation for humans right?

Good question. DK merely said the atomic bomb represented an initiation for matter but didn’t give any details. If we consider the development of higher atoms than hydrogen, then molecules and later organic life as initiations then it could be a rather high one. On the other hand, from another angle it could be the first.

The initiating of something that most consider not living is a mysterious subject.

April 27, 2014

More on After Death

Ruth quotes this verse:

“Or ever the silver cord be loosed, or the golden bowl be broken, or the pitcher be broken at the fountain, or the wheel broken at the cistern. Then shall the dust return to the earth as it was: and the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.” Eccl 12:6-7

If the silver cord is the spiritual thread, and the golden bowl is the etheric web, then what is the pitcher being broken at the fountain? And what is the wheel broken at the cistern?

“Fountain” comes from the Hebrew MABBUWA which means “a spring of water” and a cistern is a well. Those two phrases are describing the source of water being dried up. Water here is symbolic of life so he is merely saying that when the silver cord is loosed, the etheric body broken, and the source of physical life is no more that “the spirit shall return unto God who gave it.”

Ruth again:

You say this:

“During this merging they will be aware of several advanced beings guiding the process while they see their life from beginning to end. As it passes like a holographic movie at great speed he will be aware of the effect of every action, thought and word that came from him. If he hurt people, even unknowingly, he will be aware of that. If he helped others or made them happy he will be aware of that. After reviewing his life he will be aware of how successful his life was but most have a lot of disappointments over missed opportunities and harm that was caused.

”

I already have worked out and also understand all the words, actions, thoughts and deeds that hurt other people and also myself, so when I pass over, will I still have to go through that life review again, when I have already done a life review on myself so far in this physical life?

Everyone does a life review and just about all are in store for a lot of surprises, positive and negative. Most of those who think they have it all figured out of how all their thoughts and actions have influenced others and what they should have done differently are fooling themselves.

Us humans often see ourselves doing the best we can and our problems, our pain and our troubles just seem to arrive through no fault of our own. In the life review we will see that we were largely responsible for making our own reality and that there were things we could have done that would have made our lives, and that of others, much easier.

Ruth

Does that mean that I can go straight to my mental body, rather than have more emotional experiences etc in the astral realm?

You will go to a place where there are people with a similar vibration to your own. If you are mentally polarized you would go with that group and if you are astrally polarized, those are the type of people you will be with. So, in a way, we make our own heaven or hell. If one is hard to get along with, and not very loving, he will mix with similar individuals, but if he is loving and friendly he will live with these type of persons. The company he will keep will make for a heaven or hell.

Ruth

I would prefer to pass over and study massive amounts of teachings from DK etc, than play around in the astral realm and hang with people. Although it would be good to catch up with some of my pets who have passed over.

There are plenty of students of all kinds in both the astral and mental realms. A studious person isn’t necessarily mentally polarized and a strong people person isn’t necessarily astral. The main point of differentiation is the process by which decisions are made. Are the person’s decisions based on how he feels or thinks? Which dominates in the decision making process? There are other factors but that is a big part of it.

Ruth:

Your writings have evolved out of The Immortal Series, and have become something more, so I really hope that this book gets circulated out there into humanity’s consciousness, because it is so well worth reading and learning from.

Glad you like the book. Unlike many of my other writings my objective is not to introduce new material but to take the best of my teachings and distill them into a book the average person will enjoy. In the process there may be some good insights even for the old timers here.

I am hoping that this may be the book that catches the public’s attention. If not, I’ll keep on trying as long as I am able. Hopefully, we can get this work off the ground in my lifetime. It would be nice to have the means to effectively prepare for difficult times ahead.

April 29, 2014

Questions

Ruth:

When you say this :”it would be nice to have the means to effectively prepare for difficult times ahead”…..do you mean that you need to stockpile up food and water etc? and is a Great, Great, Great Depression coming, like what was foretold in the White Horse Prophecy?

Stockpiling some things on an individual basis is always a wise thing to do, but that was not what I was talking about. If there is a breakdown of society, much more than that would be needed. It is important that the lights have a place to gather so they will be able to have the extra protection of the group as well as raise food. If there were a breakdown, roaming mobs would be a major concern of which a gathering would provide some protection.

Ruth asked my views concerning euthanasia.

Under normal circumstances taking your own life is a major mistake. Most suicides are prompted by some difficult situation in life, but usually his situation was designed by the soul as a means to inspire growth and evolution for the pilgrim. If he takes his life he will have to come back and face a similar situation all over again, causing him to waste a lifetime of time.

A person who is in a no win situation is another matter. If one has a terminal illness and is suffering major pain with no hope for recovery then there normally wouldn’t be much negative karma. But even here the seeker must check with his soul for facing such a dead end may be something he needs to do to achieve all possible growth for that particular lifetime.

When in doubt, always check with the inner voice for one size never fits all.

Thanks for catching those typos. You got a few that I hadn’t caught yet.

May 1, 2014

Climbing the Mountain

That’s quite the post Larry. Thanks for your effort in writing and sharing.

Your post reminds me that many true seekers desire with earnestness to make the world a better place, move forward the next step in human evolution, secure the safety of the planet for generations to come and much more. Many have tried to initiate something to move us forward and seemed to have been met with a brick wall. I have been trying for many years and the only thing of substance I have accomplished is to get some foundation writings in print that is available for the public.

That said, I thought I would say a few words about the difficulty in initiating any work that moves people ahead spiritually. Allow me to start with this statement.

Advancing the next spiritual step is the most difficult of all things there are to initiate.

Let us look at some initiates who created things that merely made our lives better on the physical plane. There’s Edison and the light bulb, Tesla and the alternating current, Bell and the telephone, Philo Farnsworth and the television, Steve Jobs and the personal computer and many more that could be listed. To initiate their ideas required a lot of thought and effort and such innovators deserve a lot of credit.

They had a great advantage over a spiritual initiator in that when they presented their product to the world people could see with their own eyes that that it could enhance their lives. Sure they all encountered some resistance at first, but once the product was out there it was only a matter of time before it would be embraced.

On the other hand, an idea or concept that moves consciousness forward is another matter. One of the difficulties is that you just can’t show them a physical object and say, “See, this is how this works and it is going to make life a lot better.” I can write a treatise on The Molecular Relationship, for example, but I can’t build a model in my garage and show it to people and demonstrate how it will make life better.

To illustrate how difficult it is to move humanity forward in spiritual evolution let us look at two of the great initiates in our history.

Moses made a super human effort to gather together the best of humanity in his day with the idea that a gathered people being fed with enlightened ideas could become an “ensign to the nations” and could set an example of a quality of life that many would want to emulate.

Fortunately for Moses, he had a lot of help. Great miracles were shown to the people ending with the parting of the Red Sea to make their escape from the Pharaoh. After this the people saw many more miracles. The people even saw the presence of God in a pillar of light and Moses descending from the mountain shining as the sun.

Moses descended with enlightened writings designed to move the people forward in the spiritual evolution, but after all the signs and wonders they witnessed they reverted back to their old ways and worshipped the golden calf.

Moses then destroyed the great revelation and went back up the mountain and returned with tablets of stone and taught them a lesser law. Without the application of the greater revelation Israel did not accomplish their mission. They wandered in the dessert for 40 years. Anyone who had a consciousness deserving of a greater light would live through this time period and enter the promised land. As it turned out there was only one who qualified and that was Joshua , who later was born as Jesus.

Joshua then led the children of the unfaithful (who had all died) in establishing a nation – a nation several steps down from what was hoped to be.

The interesting thing is that great miracles were shown to the people so they could know with a surety that God was with Moses, but still only one of the whole lot saw the vision of what was supposed to be.

Then when the people were given crude laws, rules and regulations to strictly control their lives – this they gladly accepted – while rejecting the greater light that had the potential for such great joy.

Another great initiate was Jesus. Like Moses he showed the people miracles, the like of which they had never seen before. His work was consummated with the greatest miracle of all when he rose from the dead. All this should have convinced the people that he had something special that would take them closer to the spirit, right?

Not quite. After his great life and even after demonstrating the greatest miracle of all time, the resurrection, you would think that believers would have been rushing to join the disciples. Peter and the group gathered together all the believers they could find and guess what the number was?

One hundred and twenty. (Acts 1:15)

Then, after Pentecost, more great miracles were manifest and some were converted but the church struggled along attempting to teach the pure message of Jesus.

Then came a profound turning point through the work of the apostle Paul. Paul was not much for miracles but he did present a twist on the teachings that the people loved. “Believe on Jesus and be saved.”

That sounded a lot better and easier than the more difficult message of Peter and the apostles who were stressing the message from the Master of doing good works and gaining higher knowledge and furthering the creation of human groups who see eye to eye – like the Twelve.

Just believe and be saved was simple and easy to understand and this, not the teachings of Christ, caused the church to grow and prosper.

Paul initiated a great movement, but at the cost of taking the people away from the core teachings of the Christ.

So we have two great examples of the failure of great signs and wonders in producing good results. Moses was only able to leave a legacy of a nation that was just another nation and Jesus was only able to leave behind a church that was just another church, not much more enlightened than the Romans already had.

Is it any wonder then that the Hierarchy is reluctant today to establish another work through the power of signs, wonders and miracles?

What do you think they would rather have to work with: Millions of people mesmerized over an initiate who seems to have the power of God, or a dozen people who can look within, feel the soul and see truth as it really is?

I will tell you that the latter is true at this point. That is not to say that great miracles will not happen again, but the Brotherhood has come to the realization that they are not that useful in moving people ahead spiritually. Putting out the pure teachings and letting them foment in the minds of the seekers may not produce immediate or spectacular effects among the masses, but for those who are ready they will work inner wonders greater than would be produced if an initiate should be raised from the dead.

So, I your teacher move forward, giving out what light I can that will speak to your inner core. A person here and another there feels the power of the principles speaking to their souls. Not much is happening in the outer world, but because a few of us persist and will not cease from our labors, success is only a matter of time.

And this time the success will not be in numbers alone, such as great numbers of people who do not want to climb the mountain, but just want to bask in an outer light. No. This time a people will gather within whom shines an inner light set on fire through inner struggle and motivated by faith in the triumph of all that is good, beautiful and true.

Let not your faith and hope falter my friends. We only fail if we quit the journey. I am moving forward in this life and however many it takes until the goal is achieved. I hope to see you at the journey’s end.

May 3, 2014

What Can I Do?

I regularly get questions of what can be done to get things off the ground. Here I gathered some old and added some new.

As far as practicality goes there is nothing more practical than the understanding of a principle, especially if seen through the light of the soul on an intuitive level. This will often be accompanied by a flash of internal light that multiplies the understanding. Such an instantaneous flash can be worth a year’s worth of study. Actually, it is more valuable than that because the flash will reveal reliable truth whereas a year’s worth of study may fill the mind with many illusions.

Those who do not see or appreciate the principles I teach will be more drawn to information only that gives various step-by-step process to accomplish improvement of some kind. Each person should go where his needs are best met. One size does not fit all.

My teachings then bring additional light on principles from the past and present, and new ones that have never been expanded on.

And for what purpose?

Am I seeking to help you enter the now and stop worrying about the non essentials?

No. That may be a side benefit to some of my teachings, but if the seeker needs help in this area then he should find other help than myself.

Do I just want to get famous, sell a lot of books and then get a large adoring base of fans?

Some think they see a huge ego in me wanting this, but it is not so. If this was all I accomplished I would consider my life a failure.

Do I intend to help students become more successful in life, obtain peace of mind and find meaning for themselves?

No. It’s up to each seeker to take care of these personality needs. This is not my responsibility, but your own.

The only area of self-improvement that I seek to make available is through the stimulation of the intuition through the understanding of true principles. This will also stimulate soul contact.

Any self improvement seekers achieve here is a side benefit. The main purpose here is not to improve various seekers, but to FIND them. I seek to find those who are already sensitive to the whisperings of the soul, and eventually gather them.

I seek to be an element in fulfilling this scripture:

11 “And it shall come to pass in that day, that the Lord shall set his hand again the second time to recover the remnant of his people, which shall be left, from Assyria, and from Egypt, and from Pathros, and from Cush, and from Elam, and from Shinar, and from Hamath, and from the islands of the sea.

12 “And he shall set up an ensign for the nations, and shall assemble the outcasts of Israel, and gather together the dispersed of Judah from the four corners of the earth.”

(Isa 11:11-12)

Look at The Archives [at FreeRead.Com] and the millions of words there that lift the reader into the realm of intuitive principles and you will see a seed that will blossom into the ensign to the nations around which many lights will eventually gather.

It is true that right now we are only reaching a few but the time will come that we will reach the many. When the many are reached then power will be given to gather and build anew cities that set a true ensign for the new age.

The end of my work is to gather and build anew on the physical plane. Even though many inner teachings are presented the end goal lies in this physical reality, not in entering into a void or withdrawing into peaceful meditations.

Each must pick the directions impressed upon him through his soul and I do not fault anyone who is led in a different direction than presented here. Those who are to be on the same path as myself will feel thus truth internally. They will sense the principle and the need for the gathering. They are willing to take as long as it takes to accomplish this even if it requires a series of lives.

So what is a seeker to do who feels in harmony with me? Is there any call for action?

Yes there is and I will repeat the call here. If you believe in the gathering you can assist by forming a study group in your area. There are many seekers in every area of the world who have not been exposed to the Keys or my books. Anyone who wants to help can teach others. This takes effort but it can be done and the reward will be great as well as helpful.

Several have tried this with limited success. All who do this must realize that forming a successful group takes a long sustained effort.

If anyone wants action then create a local group. There is no more powerful action you can take than that.

Here is some advice in that direction:

Start with your friends. Most of us know at least a couple people with a metaphysical bent. Call them and tell them you are going to form a study group and study some new teachings you discovered on the Internet and see if they are interested. If you do not know anyone interested in metaphysics you probably need to get out more, but all is not lost. I am always here to support you with ideas.

First, select a place that will accommodate at least a dozen people. There is nothing wrong with starting with a home or apartment.

If your place is small it is quite possible that one of your first students will have a large comfortable home that they would be happy to share.

There are also some places that may allow you to meet on a free basis. Some libraries have rooms for meetings that are either free or very inexpensive. Also check with your bookstores. Some of them will let you have meetings there in hope of selling your group some books. Many restaurants have meeting rooms they will give groups for free if they buy $50 or more worth of food.

If you have a little money to work with you could find a meeting room connected with a local Motel, YMCA, New Age Center, martial arts club or some other organization and rent it on a weekly basis. If you do this you will need to collect some dues from members so you will not have to bear the whole burden. Once you get ten people or so the expense will not be much of a burden on any one individual.

Once you select a definite meeting place then you must do some promotion.

First let’s cover what you can do for free.

Many newspapers and the local Craig’s List have sections that are totally free where you can announce on a weekly basis details about any weekly meetings your group may have. Call them up and see what they have available. You can also advertise local classes on Cragslist.org.

Local TV and Cable channels also have places for free announcements. Check them out.

Print up flyers (or I’ll print them for you) announcing your project and circulate them in book stores, metaphysical centers, health food stores and so on.

Newspapers love doing features that have something to do with the Internet. Call the features editor and tell him or her that you have been participating with a study group on the Internet and are going to extend it to the local people. Chat a while with this person and he may want to write about you.

Now you have exhausted the free methods you should spend a few dollars in regular advertising. Check around and see if there are any metaphysical or alternative health newsletters in your area and run a small ad there.

If you are bold enough to do public speaking then work one up around the Molecular Relationship, the Gathering of Lights or some other topic that interests you.

You’ll need a name for the physical group. May I suggest “The Synthesis Group.”

To synthesize means to gather together various unrelated parts and to put them together into a working whole which wholeness is greater than the sum of the parts.

For instance our discussion group is a synthesis of some of the best people on the Internet.

When your group gets started and you do your part it will take on a life of its own and grow by word of mouth.

On the internet we are gathered as a group and know a few things the average people do not know, but we have little voice except to preach to the choir of like-minded believers.

The first thing each servant of humanity needs to assess is his own limitations – what he can and cannot do. One of the biggest mistakes made by an individual who sees a little light is to sacrifice career, job and family to start some movement that goes nowhere. Many such individuals are lucky to have three followers.

Others go the other extreme and do nothing. This is even worse because they also learn nothing.

What then should the true seeker do to make a difference?

Jesus gave the example in the parable of building a tower. He said that if a person wants to build a tower he must assess the amount of effort and ingredients it will take to finish the project. If he begins and does not have the power to finish then everyone will laugh at him for being so foolish. The wise builder will assess correctly and will not start the tower until he has the power to finish.

Some have questioned me as to why I am not proceeding with zeal to create Molecules, build cities, reform civilization, etc. Yes, there are towers to build, but until we gain the power to finish what we begin – the time to begin has not yet arrived. If we have not power to finish the tower then the thing to do is to gather the materials and resources to prepare for a beginning so we can have a finish.

Right now I have power to do one thing well and that is to write foundation materials and circulate them to a small group of people. If I should die tomorrow, however, all is not lost for many of the concepts contain eternal words that shall not pass away and would be taken up by others who are in a position to build towers.

My astrological chart tells me that I will be subject to strong discipline from Saturn until I get everything in place for my main work. When everything is in place and my will and abilities are sufficiently fine-tuned then a reservoir of power will be released to allow for a major accomplishment. I believe this time is soon, but cannot predict the exact date.

Here is what must happen to open the door for me to begin work on the tower.

One of my works must permeate public consciousness on a fairly wide scale. This could be one of my present or future books, an idea or me in person when I am free to travel and give seminars.

Sufficient finances to sustain the effort.

That’s well and good one may think, but I’d like to do something more in the present than just sit around and wait for the true beginning of the work.

There is always something more the true initiate can find to do.

Here are a few things:

An idea I do not think I have suggested before, but a very powerful one is to write letters to your local paper. Letters to the editor are often the most popular part of the paper and many thousands read them.

If you write a letter to your local paper and manage to make a reference to freeread.com or themajorityspeaks.com a lot of hits could come from it. I have covered a large variety of subjects at these sites so there is something of interest to almost everyone.

Global warming, nuclear energy, world peace, the economy, religion etc are popular in letters to the editor and writers can reference links to these subjects in my writings. This would certainly press some buttons.

Keep this in mind. A letter to the editor in a major paper that gives our web page is worth 500 dollars or more in advertising.

Many of the group are members of other forums. When appropriate you can post something from the archives there and give the reference with the suggestion to the group that many writings are available.

You can run a classified ad in a local thrifty paper – or free on your local Craig’s List.

The ad could read something like this:

Out Of The Thousands Of Free Books On The Web There Is Not One That Will Hold Your Attention Like This One!

THE IMMORTAL

J. J. Dewey

The Immortal is the story of an average truth seeker who stumbles across a fascinating teacher, only to discover that the man is John the Revelator of Apocalypse fame, who has been wandering the earth incognito for the past 2000 years. John begins the task of teaching his new student the first of the Twelve Keys of Knowledge.

The first question addressed in Book I is WHO OR WHAT AM I? The student gives all the standard answers…and they are all wrong. The lead character then realizes he is under the tutorage of no ordinary teacher and must apply himself in a quest for knowledge.

Top get the first book free go to:

Freeread

There are also thousands of articles at the site available free.

You can get copies of Book One in audio or hard copy and give them away. We will send them to you free of charge.

Members can also buy books and give them away.

Participate in the keys forum. Posting there helps keep me stimulated and helps others.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 5

June 6, 2014December 15, 2022 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 7 of 33 in the series 2014

March 28, 2014

The Keys of Knowledge

Larry W

MY list for Keys of Knowledge revealed so far — did I get this right?

The Keys given out so far are 1. Decision 2. Judgement 3. Right Perception 4. The Book of Revelation is the Key to the path of the disciple as revealed in The Unveiling. 5. Hint is given at the end of Eternal Words and will be revealed at the gathering. #12 is The Word is God. The Molecular Relationship and Gathering of Lights books contain two keys.

March 29, 2014

Cosmos

There is a new show on Fox called Cosmos, A Spacetime Odyssey, hosted by Neil deGrasse Tyson.

So far three shows have been presented. There are some good things included that can enhance the knowledge of the majority. On the other hand, Tyson seems really bent on flatly dismissing the idea of any intelligence being involved in any creation of life. After watching the program I assumed he was an atheist so I checked it out and was somewhat surprised to see that he classifies himself as an agnostic. If he is truly an agnostic then you would think he would at least be open to the possibility that a higher intelligence may have been invoved in the creation of life.

One of the most interesting things presented in the first show was an encapsulation of the story of Giordano Bruno who was a thinker I admired from history.

Here is what Tyson presented.

Imagine a world before telescopes, when the universe was only what you could see with the naked eye.

It was obvious that Earth was motionless, and that everything in the heavens the Sun, the Moon, the stars, the planets revolved around us and then a Polish astronomer and priest named Copernicus made a radical proposal.

The Earth was not the center.

It was just one of the planets, and, like them, it revolved around the Sun.

Many, like the Protestant reformer Martin Luther, took this idea as a scandalous affront to Scripture.

They were horrified.

But for one man, Copernicus didn’t go far enough.

His name was Giordano Bruno, and he was a natural-born rebel.

He longed to bust out of that cramped little universe.

Even as a young Dominican monk in Naples, he was a misfit.

This was a time when there was no freedom of thought in Italy.

But Bruno hungered to know everything about God’s creation.

He dared to read the books banned by the Church, and that was his undoing.

In one of them, an ancient Roman, a man dead for more than 1,500 years whispered to him of a universe far greater, one as boundless as his idea of God.

Lucretius asked the reader to imagine standing at the edge of the universe and shooting an arrow outward.

If the arrow keeps going, then clearly, the universe extends beyond what you thought was the edge.

But if the arrow doesn’t keep going say it hits a wall then that wall must lie beyond what you thought was the edge of the universe.

Now if you stand on that wall and shoot another arrow, there are only the same two possible outcomes it either flies forever out into space, or it hits some boundary where you can stand and shoot yet another arrow.

Either way, the universe is unbounded.

The cosmos must be infinite.

This made perfect sense to Bruno.

The God he worshiped was infinite.

So how, he reasoned, could Creation be anything less? It was the last steady job he ever had.

And then, when he was 30, he had the vision that sealed his fate.

In this dream, he awakened to a world enclosed inside a confining bowl of stars.

This was the cosmos of Bruno’s time.

He experienced a sickening moment of fear, as if the bottom of everything was falling away beneath his feet.

But he summoned up his courage.

I spread confident wings to space and soared toward the infinite, leaving far behind me what others strained to see from a distance.

Here, there was no up, no down, no edge, no center.

I saw that the Sun was just another star, and the stars were other Suns, each escorted by other Earths like our own.

The revelation of this immensity was like falling in love.

Bruno became an evangelist, spreading the gospel of infinity throughout Europe.

He assumed that other lovers of God would naturally embrace this grander and more glorious view of Creation.

What a fool I was.

He was excommunicated by the Roman Catholic Church in his homeland, expelled by the Calvinists in Switzerland, and by the Lutherans in Germany.

Bruno jumped at an invitation to lecture at Oxford, in England.

At last, he thought, a chance to share his vision with an audience of his peers.

I have come to present a new vision of the cosmos.

Copernicus was right to argue that our world is not the center of the universe.

The Earth goes around the Sun.

It’s a planet, just like the others.

But Copernicus was only the dawn.

I bring you the sunrise.

The stars are other fiery suns, made of the same substance as the Earth, and they have their own watery earths, with plants and animals no less noble than our own.

Are you mad or merely ignorant? Everyone knows there is only one world.

What everyone knows is wrong.

Our infinite God has created a boundless universe with an infinite number of worlds.

Do they not read Aristotle where you come from? Or even the Bible? I beg you, reject antiquity, tradition, faith, and authority.

Let us begin anew, by doubting everything we assume – has been proven.

– Heretic! Infidel! Your God is too small.

A wiser man would have learned his lesson.

But Bruno was not such a man.

He couldn’t keep his soaring vision of the cosmos to himself, despite the fact that the penalty for doing so in his world was the most vicious form of cruel and unusual punishment.

Giordano Bruno lived at a time when there was no such thing as the separation of church and state, or the notion that freedom of speech was a sacred right of every individual.

Expressing an idea that didn’t conform to traditional belief could land you in deep trouble.

Recklessly, Bruno returned to Italy.

Maybe he was homesick.

But still, he must have known that his homeland was one of the most dangerous places in Europe he could possibly go.

The Roman Catholic Church maintained a system of courts known as the Inquisition, and its sole purpose was to investigate and torment anyone who dared voice views that differed from theirs.

It wasn’t long before Bruno fell into the clutches of the thought police.

This wanderer, who worshiped an infinite universe, languished in confinement for eight years.

Through relentless interrogations, he stubbornly refused to renounce his views.

Why was the Church willing to go to such lengths to torment Bruno? What were they afraid of? If Bruno was right, then the sacred books and the authority of the Church would be open to question.

Finally, the cardinals of the Inquisition rendered their verdict.

You are found guilty of questioning the Holy Trinity and the divinity of Jesus Christ.

Of believing that God’s wrath is not eternal, that everyone will be saved.

Of asserting the existence of other worlds.

All of the books you have written will be gathered up and burned in St.

Peter’s Square.

Reverend Father, these eight years of confinement have given me much time to reflect.

So you will recant? My love and reverence for the Creator inspires in me the vision of an infinite Creation.

You shall be turned over to the Governor of Rome to administer the appropriate punishment for those who will not repent.

It may be that you are more afraid to deliver this judgment than I am to hear it.

Ten years after Bruno’s martyrdom, Galileo first looked through a telescope, realizing that Bruno had been right all along.

The Milky Way was made of countless stars invisible to the naked eye, and some of those lights in the sky were actually other worlds.

Bruno was no scientist.

His vision of the cosmos was a lucky guess, because he had no evidence to support it.

Like most guesses, it could well have turned out wrong. (End quote)

Tyson gives a good account of Bruno but he dismisses the idea that he did not make a guess but received knowledge from Higher Intelligence.

Newton, the greatest scientist of all time, stated that the complexity of the human eye proved the existence of God. Tyson, however, who has made no discoveries close to Newton, thinks the eyes, the cell, DNA etc evolved with the help of no intelligence. Here was what he said about the eye.

Darwin discovered the actual mechanism of evolution.

The prevailing belief was that the complexity and variety of life must be the work of an intelligent designer, who created each of these millions of different species separately.

Living things are just too intricate, it was said, to be the result of unguided evolution.

Consider the human eye, a masterpiece of complexity.

It requires a cornea, iris, lens, retina, optic nerves, muscles, let alone the brain’s elaborate neural network to interpret images.

It’s more complicated than any device ever crafted by human intelligence.

Therefore, it was argued, the human eye can’t be the result of mindless evolution.

To know if that’s true, we need to travel across time to a world before there were eyes to see.

In the beginning, life was blind.

This is what our world looked like four billion years ago, before there were any eyes to see.

Until a few hundred million years passed, and then, one day, there was a microscopic copying error in the DNA of a bacterium.

This random mutation gave that microbe a protein molecule that absorbed sunlight.

Want to know what the world looked like to a light-sensitive bacterium? Take a look at the right side of the screen.

Mutations continued to occur at random, as they always do in any population of living things.

Another mutation caused a dark bacterium to flee intense light.

What is going on here? Night and day.

Those bacteria that could tell light from dark had a decisive advantage over the ones that couldn’t.

Why? Because the daytime brought harsh, ultraviolet light that damages DNA.

The sensitive bacteria fled the intense light to safely exchange their DNA in the dark.

They survived in greater numbers than the bacteria that stayed at the surface.

Over time, those light-sensitive proteins became concentrated in a pigment spot on the more advanced, one-celled organism.

This made it possible to find the light, an overwhelming advantage for an organism that harvests sunlight to make food.

Here’s a flatworm’s-eye view of the world.

This multi-celled organism evolved a dimple in the pigment spot.

The bowl-shaped depression allowed the animal to distinguish light from shadow to crudely make out objects in its vicinity, including those to eat and those that might eat it a tremendous advantage.

Later, things became a little clearer.

The dimple deepened and evolved into a socket with a small opening.

Over thousands of generations, natural selection was slowly sculpting the eye.

The opening contracted to a pinhole covered by a protective transparent membrane.

Only a little light could enter the tiny hole, but it was enough to paint a dim image on the sensitive inner surface of the eye.

This sharpened the focus.

A larger opening would have let in more light to make a brighter image but one that was out of focus.

This development launched the visual equivalent of an arms race.

The competition needed to keep up to survive.

But then a splendid new feature of the eye evolved, a lens that provided both brightness and sharp focus.

In the eyes of primitive fish, the transparent gel near the pinhole formed into a lens.

At the same time, the pinhole enlarged to let in more and more light.

Fish could now see in high-def, both close up and far away.

And then something terrible happened.

Have you ever noticed that a straw in a glass of water looks bent at the surface of the water? That’s because light bends when it goes from one medium to another, say from water to air.

Our eyes originally evolved to see in water.

The watery fluid in those eyes neatly eliminated the distortion of that bending effect.

But for land animals, the light carries images from dry air into their still-watery eyes.

That bends the light rays, causing all kinds of distortions.

When our amphibious ancestors left the water for the land, their eyes, exquisitely evolved to see in water, were lousy for seeing in the air.

Our vision has never been as good since.

We like to think of our eyes as state-of-the-art, but 375 million years later, we still can’t see things right in front of our noses or discern fine details in near darkness the way fish can.

When we left the water, why didn’t nature just start over again and evolve us a new set of eyes that were optimal for seeing in the air? Nature doesn’t work that way.

Evolution reshapes existing structures over generations, adapting them with small changes.

It can’t just go back to the drawing board and start from scratch.

At every stage of its development, the evolving eye functioned well enough to provide a selective advantage for survival.

And among animals alive today, we find eyes at all these stages of development.

And all of them function.

The complexity of the human eye poses no challenge to evolution by natural selection.

In fact, the eye and all of biology makes no sense without evolution.

Some claim that evolution is just a theory, as if it were merely an opinion.

The theory of evolution, like the theory of gravity, is a scientific fact.

Evolution really happened.

Accepting our kinship with all life on Earth is not only solid science.

In my view, it’s also a soaring spiritual experience. End Quote

I don’t know how you can have a godless spiritual experience.

Question for the group. What is Tyson missing in his explanation of evolution? Where is his error? We are looking for something more than just “God” as the answer here.

March 30, 2014

The Personality

Dan writes;

Does someone that is soul-infused and capable of group unity to the point that they could participate in a molecule, no longer have a personality?

It doesn’t matter how high on the totem pole you get, you still have a personality as long as you are incarnated in a physical body.

The personality consists of three things.

(1) The calculating brain

(2) The feeling nature – the emotions.

(3) The mind and powers of reasoning.

Each of us combines the powers of these three vehicles to create what is called a unique personality.

Now, if Jesus had a personality then it stands to reason that other disciples who are soul infused would still have one.

Did Jesus have and use a calculating brain? Most certainly.

Did Jesus have and show feelings? Indeed. He wept several times and another time became so angry that he chased the moneychangers out of the temple.

Did Jesus use his reasoning powers? He used them regularly in arguments he had with the religious leaders. He also used his creative mental powers to concoct numerous teaching parables that were concise, but very effective.

For most of us the personality slowly falls into place after we are born. It is created as we follow the line of least resistance and we go with the influences of our rays, astrological influences, inherited tendencies and what rubs off on to us from our friends, associates and family.

Because the personality naturally develops in standard humans they have a tendency to identify with it. The average person thinks that he is his personality. It does not occur to him that what he thinks he is, is merely composed of a life essence using three vehicles so he can function on the physical plane.

Now here is an interesting point made by DK. He tells us that after the Fourth Initiation the disciple no longer attaches himself to the personality, but still needs one to function in the world. Therefore, what he does is to consciously create one. In other words, he becomes what he decides to be rather than what is thrust upon him by outward forces and circumstances.

This is a goal that all seekers and disciples would do well to seek. Instead of developing and expressing ourselves through impulses gained by programming and outer forces, seek to be the observer and then decide what type of personality you want to express and be that person.

March 30, 2014

Avoiding Phase Two

One thing this group has in common with other groups, whether they be spiritual or not, is that we are very creative in discovering ways to offend and be offended at each other.

What is overlooked is that there are degrees in which various statements are offensive as a whole. This is often overlooked because a black and white approach is often taken. Either the person is offended or not. For many there are not degrees, or places in between. There is just offense or toleration.

In this group, the offense we want to avoid more than any other are those things that go beyond offending just one person, but irritates the many and leads to a round of arguments, attack and defense that can sometime last weeks and totally distract the group. Such diatribe often causes good people to withdraw and scares new people away.

When this happens no one seems to take responsibility in starting it, instead, always blaming it on the other guy.

Here’s how a lengthy, distracting personality argument often gets started.

Person A disagrees with Person B and describes his thoughts using a politically incorrect word. He may say something like the following:

That’s a crazy idea.

Where have you been living, Fantasyland?

You are not being logical.

You must have gotten that idea from watching Looney Tunes.

We could go on and on listing phrases and words that will offend some people. The problem is that all of us, if we speak or write long enough, will say something that will be considered offensive by someone.

I am as careful with my wording as anyone here, and still manage to do it from time to time.

The key in participating in a harmonious group is to overlook politically or spiritually incorrect speech. This is easy to do if one tries to look at the person’s heart. Often I see a member say something quite stark, but I sense that he is either making an attempt at humor or means it as a good natured jab. In this case it is easy to overlook the black and white wording.

These jabs made with harmless intent are not the cause of group conflict, though they often take the blame. They are not a cause, but an excuse.

The real cause begins when the jab is taken too seriously and the guy then attacks with real intent to demean or humiliate.

If this second step were never taken then an incessant round of conflict would never occur. The person taking this second step bears the brunt of the responsibility.

What the person who feels tempted to take the second step needs to realize is that this first step happens regularly in every group there is and if he or she is going to register offense there then he will wind up doing it everywhere. No matter where you go you will find people making cutting comments.

So if one is not clear about whether or not a comment is merely a part of the fairly harmless Phrase One, how can he tell?

A good sign is to look toward the reaction from the group. If only you, or a small handful are concerned then that is a sign that your concern or offense is misplaced.

If a significant number become involved in dealing with the offense then that is a sign that Phase Two has been entered where an endless round begins.

Allow me to give examples of the Phase One, Phase Two offenses.

Phase One: That’s a crazy idea.

Phase Two: Who you calling crazy?

Phase One: That’s a crazy idea.

Phase Two: So, you think I’m insane? You are the lunatic here.

Notice here that the Phase One guy did not attack the person, but the idea. And notice that the Phase Two person did not respond to the idea being attacked but as if he was personally attacked. Instead of hearing “That’s a crazy idea.” He heard “You re a crazy person.”

Instead of taking it personally and responding with a personal attack he should have merely asked, “What is so crazy about the idea?”

The key that must be absorbed by the Phase Two person is the Third Key of Knowledge, which is “Correct Perception.” If he had used this key he would have not registered the incorrect unspoken meaning, “You are a crazy person.” All sane people say something deemed a little crazy now and then.

Now here is a response that is sure to lead to conflict:

Phase One: That’s a crazy idea.

Phase Two: You need to get some soul contact so you can speak with respect.

This response lays the groundwork for major problems because so much can be perceived between the lines such as:

(1) This person is judging the other has not being in contact with his soul. This is not his to decide. He can think this and keep it to himself, but to blurt it out creates fightn’ words.

(2) This person is inferring that he is in contact with his soul and the other is not. He would have to think this way to make such a judgment.

(3) This individual is attacking the person and not his ideas.

(4) This person is making a negative judgment on the other which never has a good end.

I could go on but I hope this gives the general idea of what causes the personality problems that surface here from time to time.

The main key is to not take personal offense at non personal attacks or non personal biting comments.

March 31, 2014

Referee’s Comments

To insinuate that Dan committed the unforgivable sin against the Holy Ghost is indeed misguided. I have personally received many things through the Spirit and have encountered many people who think that such things I have received are crazy. They think it is even crazier if I tell them that the source is the spirit.

Does that mean they have sinned against the Holy Spirit? No. Of course not. It merely means they disagreed with my words as they understood them.

In order to sin against the Holy Ghost you have to feel Its presence and know that what you are dealing with is a true reality. If the person becomes hardened so he is unwilling to receive anything through the soul then a wall of his own making is created between him and the Spirit .

As it turns out, the Spirit does not leave us but the person leaves the spirit by insulating himself from the Presence. This causes the person in his present personality to be cut off from the spiritual presence. I do not see this problem occurring with any of my friends posting here.

I normally do not comment on causes of conflict but there have been so many accusations going around that perhaps in this case I should say a few extra words. In my opinion there is plenty of blame to go around here. Dan disagreed with how Rick saw himself as being led by the Spirit. Dan tells him, “Your ‘spirit’ sounds like an idiot.” Obviously Dan thinks Rick is led by his feelings and not an infallible Spirit.

There is nothing wrong with Dan disagreeing with Rick or any revelation he has, but his response was pretty stark and would be hurtful to many receiving such language. If I disagreed with Rick and wanted to voice it I would have said something like this:

“I don’t care where you think you received this it doesn’t make sense to me and I disagree because…”

Dan has disagreed with me pretty frankly a number o times with fairly abrupt language, but they have been Phase One disagreements and I generally just let the roughness pass through me and answer as if the wording was spoken with kindness.

Rick also made mistakes in my opinion. He took extra offense because he saw the Spirit as being attacked. Actually Dan could not attack the Spirit unless he really believed the Holy Spirit was at work here. Because Rick saw Dan’s response as extra egregious, instead of just voicing disagreement (which would have been the best course IMO) he punished Dan by unilaterally cutting him off from the group.

This in turn outraged a number of members.

Both men could have handled this differently and avoided the disruption the group suffered. Most of us can see this on hindsight so the best thing to do now is move onward and remember we are in this together as friends and should treat each other accordingly.

Also, it would be helpful to take my post #67310 to heart. Susan called this a classic and I’m glad she saw it that way because I felt led by the “Spirit” to write it. If anyone thinks the ideas sound like they came from an idiot, I’ll take the blame for making it sound that way.

Adam:

The whole notion of being offended by anyone or anything, is totally offensive.

“Blessed is he who is not offended by me.” Jesus

April 1, 2014

Noah, The Movie

Johann:

How was it that the very earth itself was corrupt and “ALL flesh”? These are very strong words as for instance the animals just run on a program designed to work on context and nothing else, not on a creative purpose as we understand it.

Supposing that the story of Noah represents the great floods that destroyed Atlantis the clue to this may be found in legends of that time, left to us in the image of the Sphinx, which still stands in Egypt. The Sphinx is half man and half lion. Some legends tell us that Atlantean scientists experimented with the mixing of the species, mixing animals with humans as well as various animal species and this corrupted much of the life of the planet. Unfortunately scientists are headed in this direction once again. Who knows what kind of creatures will be roaming the earth in a hundred or more years.

April 2, 2014

The Question on Cosmos

What is Tyson missing in his explanation of evolution? Where is his error? We are looking for something more than just “God” as the answer here.

We received some great answers on this. Unfortunately, I do not have time to comment on them and give them justice.

There is one very important point that orthodox evolutionists leave out of their argument, which basically goes like this.

We know that life was created by evolution and not Intelligent Design because of what we have observed. We know the fossil record shows that over eons of time life evolved from a simple state to a more complex one. In addition to this natural evolution, the historical and fossil record shows that humans speeded evolution up. An instance was when he domesticated the wolf and controlled his breeding, which, over time, produced dogs we have today in all their forms.

This approach has a basic error and it is amazing most scientists, which consider themselves way above the masses in intellect, do not understand the error.

The error is this: They witness and tabulate a process of creation and then conclude that they understand all the ingredients and intelligence involved in the creation.

For instance, they tabulate the steps of evolution and think all that was involved was a natural selection process. Case closed.

They tabulate all they know about gravity and when they find the Higgs particle they think they know how gravity was works and was created.

They tabulate all they know about creation and figure the Big Bang (with no intelligence involved) explains it all when they have no idea how the whole universe exploded into being from a tiny point.

Now just imagine how silly this approach is when applied to reality as follows.

Charles loves apple products. He has an Apple computer, an iPhone, an iPod and an iPad. He wonders. How did these fine products come to be?

He investigates and finds out that Apple products were created through an evolutionary process. They started with the Apple I, then came the Apple II. Next was Lisa, then the Mac, followed by the Mac Plus, the Mac SE, the iMac, the G3, the G4, the G5 and now the latest Apple computers and products in all their glory.

After his study Charles comes to a startling conclusion and thinks to himself:

“Obviously Apple products were created through a process of evolution and natural selection. As soon as a new and better product shows up through some type of mutation then from that point on it is naturally selected and the Apple products just become more and more sophisticated without the need of an Intelligent Designer.

If any one of us were to encounter Charles we would think he is pretty stupid, yet scientists make this same error. They observe the history of evolution and see the complex designs, much more complex than any computer, and figure no intelligence was necessary in creation.

When these guys die and go to the other side and discover that great intelligence was involved in all creation they will feel pretty embarrassed as the truth was always there staring them in the face.

April 3, 2014

Study: Vegetarians Less Healthy

http://atlanta.cbslocal.com/2014/04/01/study-vegetarians-less-healthy-lower-quality-of-life-than-meat-eaters/

Violet Writes:

There’s a book called ” Nutrition and Physical Degeneration” that was written by a dentist who traveled the world in search of the healthiest diet. Originally, Dr. Weston Price thought it would be vegan but found the healthiest diets include meat or protein of some kind. in one case, insects were the source of protein. He and his wife did this at a time when some regions were still cut off from Western civilisation and they were able to provide photographs of their findings. Its an interesting read. More on Weston Price can be found on YouTube.

A part of the reason that many vegetarians are not that healthy is they substitute a lot of starchy foods for protein because this tends to fill you up. They also eat a lot of soy products which are not good for you unless fermented as they do in Japan. Tofu is not a health food .

I believe that those who stay away from the dead starches and concentrate on whole live foods come out in pretty good shape on the average. It would be interesting to see the results of a more detailed study.

April 8, 2014

Another Letter on Global Warming

Here’s another letter I wrote to my local paper.

How Global Warming Alarmists Are Like the Religious Leaders in the Days of Galileo.

(1) They claim they are right because of consensus, not proven science.

(2) Just like the medieval scientists refused to look through Galileo’s telescope, today the rigid left does not examine the opposing point of view but only seeks to distort it.

(3) Most of their predictions are incorrect.

(4) Most refuse to debate the actual science.

(5) Instead of debating they try to shut down free speech on the topic. For example, alarmists tried to prevent the Washington Post from publishing Krauthammer’s opinion on the subject and the LA Times refuses to even allow skeptical opinions (like mine) in the letters to the editor. Other papers have threatened to follow their lead. Hopefully the Statesman stays above this dogmatic approach.

(6) Instead of using reasoning, facts and science they attempt to destroy opposition through name-calling. Medieval religious leaders called skeptics, “heretics” and “blasphemers.” Today alarmists call them “deniers,” “traitors” and “flat earthers.”

(7) They both call for punishing dissent. Alarmists are increasingly calling for lawsuits, jail and “Nuremberg-style trials” for climate skeptics.

History indeed repeats itself. Only the names of the intolerant change.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Global Warming

May 15, 2014 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 6 of 33 in the series 2014

– Chapter Seven –

(From the book, Fixing America)

Global Warming

It’s silly, really, to consider that a topic that belongs to science has become a prime source of political division. Could you imagine this happening to other subjects? We could hear dialog like this:

“So, you don’t believe in the sixth quark? You are a quark denier and must be a conservative.”

“So, you believe the moon was once a part of the earth do you? Then you must be liberal.”

Yes, this sounds like a very foolish way to demonize a person by placing him on his opposing political side, but, ironically, this is what is going on with global warming.

If two people look at the facts of global warming and come to different conclusions, this should not mean that one conclusion is conservative and one is liberal.

Yes, it shouldn’t mean this – so why are those on the opposite sides today so politically divided?

The answer is simple. Most people today have not made their decision on global warming because of a study of the science, but because of political indoctrination. This has happened on both sides of the political spectrum, and it greatly obscures the debate.

To make the case, I merely ask: who is the most famous proponent of global warming theory? A famous scientist?

Not hardly. We all know it is that famous politician, Al Gore.

And who are those that most widely accept his theories?

Yes. The same people who accept his politics.

The world would not be so divided on the subject if the greatest proponent was a scientist with no known political connections, and was willing to truthfully present his case and debate it.

The problem with Al Gore is he is willing to present his case to friendly faces, but will not debate or receive and answer questions from skeptics. A real scientist would generally have no problem defending his studies.

Thus, we have the situation that the current global warming debate is more of a political debate than it is scientific. In fact, this is the first time in recent history that the right and wrong of what is considered scientific consensus has been judged politically more than scientifically.

Don’t get me wrong – science alone without politics does have its dogmas and mindsets. For instance, anyone who presents evidence that seems to disprove the Big Bang Theory is somewhat seen as a heretic, and often his thoughts are automatically discounted; but the emotional heat from this is nothing like that produced by the Global Warming Theory.

He who goes against the standard model in global warming can lose his livelihood and even receive death threats. The different problem here is that the majority of heat the skeptic takes comes not from other scientists, but from bureaucrats and knee-jerk political extremists who don’t know the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius.

In this country, we make a big deal over the fact that we have reasonable separation between science and religion. Vastly overlooked is the fact that a merging of science and politics is just as suppressive. True science is not determined by a consensus of political thought with scientific budgets controlled by partisan politics.

The problem with the political approach over the science is that the conclusions are presented as absolutes similar to the days of Galileo. Those presenting one side tell us there is a definite consensus, as if all scientists agree that there is an emergency and something must be done now or the apocalypse is on us.

The other side also has their illusions, some thinking that there is nothing to be concerned about.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in between. On one side we do not need to destroy our economy and way of life to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere; and, on the other, we have to realize we take some risks by altering the content of our atmosphere. We do need an alternative for fossil fuels for a number of reasons.

What is needed in the debate is to stick to science and a critical examination of the track record of the experts to estimate how much they can be trusted in the future; also, good old common sense is a great help.

First, let us examine how the experts performed in predicting weather the recent past.

It wasn’t long after Hurricane Katrina that Al Gore insinuated that it, and all current and future hurricanes, is caused by man-made global warming. After this, the politicians, the media and even many scientists jumped on the bandwagon.1

Time Magazine ran this headline on Aug 29, 2005:

“Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?”

The article reads:

“So is global warming making the problem worse? Superficially, the numbers say yes.”

Politicians called for more restrictions on man-made activities causing CO2 emissions.

Then the scientific experts joined in by making alarming hurricane predictions supporting the idea.

There is a problem for those making predictions, however. When the time period for the prediction is over, we can then evaluate in black and white whether or not it was correct.

For the 2006 hurricane season, experts were predicting more Katrina-like storms, giving the jitters to millions of people across the land and fuel for global warming scare tactics. Experts were predicting up to 17 named storms, but we had nine. They were expecting ten hurricanes and we had half that number – five. 2006 was the calmest hurricane season in a decade and the first time since 1997 that only one storm made its way to the Gulf of Mexico.2

After the 2006 season ended, the experts were a little embarrassed but not discouraged. 2006 was a fluke they said, caused by a growing El Nino. 2007 will see terrible storms, they exclaimed. Again, they predicted Katrina-like storms for 2007, giving lots of fuel to the global warming camp. In fact, the predictions for 2007 were almost a duplication of 2006. The funny part is the results were also a duplication, with one variation – 2007 was even calmer than 2006. It had the least hurricane activity in 30 years.

In 2008 there was some increase of hurricane activity doing damage to Haiti and Cuba, but nothing stronger than a Category 2 reached the continental United States.

2009 was again much below average, similar to 2006, with no storm of hurricane force reaching the United States.3

The record shows a trend toward fewer hurricanes rather than an increase.

After listening to all the hype that didn’t materialize, my question is this. Were the experts’ predictions based on pure science, or were their predictions influenced by the doomsday expectations of the global warming crowd with their “consensus” of scientists?

If predictions of doom by scientific consensus were dismally off for the United States four years in a row, then why should we have faith in their climate predictions 100 years in the future?

If climate is not predictable within the space of a year, then why do these experts expect a linear progression of change for the next century and beyond?

In a somewhat ironic note, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. -not an expert, but definitely a spokesman – said in 2008, through the LA Times, that the lack of snow in the Washington DC area was caused by global warming. Then, after record-breaking snowstorms hit the area in 2010, his voice was nowhere to be found.

Now let us look at another area of prediction of a hot political topic by using scientific consensus.

In the Washington Post, Nov 19, 2007 we read:

The United Nations’ top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement. . .

The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year’s estimate, documents show.

This is interesting. A consensus of the best scientists the U.N. can produce were off by a whopping 40% in predicting the HIV infections only one year in the future. If a consensus of scientists are so far off in using fairly easy-to-handle data as an increase in a disease one year in the future, then why on God’s green earth should we trust U.N. scientists who are predicting results of weather 100 years in the future?

Yes, that’s right. We are assured that current weather patterns caused by CO2 emissions will heat up the earth to unbearable proportions in a hundred years or less. In fact, the predictions get more alarming every day.

Here are a few headlines from the Drudge Report just within a period of a few days in 2007.

WARMING WARNING OF ‘UNRECOGNIZABLE’ EARTH

November 17, 2007

GLOBAL WARMING WARNING: EXTINCTION FOR THIRD OF ALL PLANT, ANIMAL SPECIES…

November 17, 2007

UN OFFICIAL WARNS IGNORING WARMING WOULD BE CRIMINALLY IRRESPONSIBLE

November 12, 2007

For years now, it seems that the news media gives us some alarmist warning almost daily about the dangers of global warming. Along with these warnings are statements such as:

“The debate is over…”

“All respectable scientists agree…”

“There is a scientific consensus…”

“Those who question are global warming deniers.”

Just as global warming is a charged issue, so is AIDS. Before the U.N. admitted its incompetence, anyone who dared suggest that AIDS was not spreading the way the scientific consensus said was targeted as a cold-hearted bigot. Only now, when the cat is out of the bag, can a skeptic speak openly about it, and then only with the highest of sensitivity.

The question that needs to be examined is this: how could respected U.N. scientists be off by 40% in their predictions of AIDS when they had all the tools at their disposal to make a fairly accurate prediction?

This same Washington Post article gives the answer:

Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.

Perhaps a number of years from now, when it is undeniable that U.N. scientists were wrong about many of their predictions concerning global warming, we may read a similar statement as to why warming damage was so overestimated. It could read something like:

Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the effect of CO2 to help gather political and financial support for combating global warming and instituting cap and trade policies.

Indeed, global warming funding is big business. In 2009, the Obama administration raised Bush’s already high amount of $7.37 billion to $10.6 billion for climate-related programs, with a bonus amount of $68 billion from the stimulus passed in Feb 2009.4 If we include other nations in the U.N., there will be over $100 billion available to fight climate change. 5

If you don’t believe these respected scientists aren’t willing to stretch the decimal point a little to get some of these billions by sounding alarms, then I’ve got some acreage on Pluto I will be happy to sell you.

Just try to find a skeptic who is not mimicking the party line, yet is receiving any of these billions. You can’t do it.

The Climategate controversy created by insider leaked emails confirmed some of the worst accusations of the skeptics.

It was discovered that the U.N. scientists were sabotaging skeptical scientists’ research by either ignoring or denying Freedom of Information requests. The UK Guardian reported that of 105 requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Phil Jones headed up to the end of December 2009, only 10 had been released in full.6

It has long been suspected by skeptics that the peer review process was stacked against anyone not agreeing with the standard, but, after Climategate, there is hard evidence. Let us look at one example.

Siberia is supposed to be the landmass with the most warming during the 20th century, so any evidence to the contrary would threaten orthodox conclusions. Many skeptics have been suspicious of conclusions drawn there.

Lars Kamel, a Swedish astrophysicist, was a skeptic who submitted a paper to be reviewed. Kamel analyzed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than the orthodox conclusions, despite analyzing much the same data.

Kamel told the UK Guardian: “Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century.” The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.7

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summed up the orthodox view toward skeptics:

I don’t want to get down to a personal level, but all you need to do is look at their backgrounds. They are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – I hope that they apply it to their faces every day – and people who say that the only way to deal with HIV/AIDS is to screen the population on a regular basis and isolate those who are infected.8

With a bias like this, is there any surprise that skeptics have difficulty getting peer reviewed?

Here is an anonymous quote from a scientist commenting online that sums up the thinking of many skeptics:

When I publish in my field I have to release my data and let people challenge it. Why have the raw data (not the processed data) claiming climate AGW not been released? Why has the statistical methodology used in the analysis not been made available? Why isn’t the raw data published online for independent analysis? Why were the Siberian tree ring data so selective? Finally, can I say that if you try publishing a viewpoint radically against the accepted truth in a scientific field you are in big trouble!

After the damaging emails weakened the orthodox global warming argument, it seems that scientists began taking a more jaundiced look at the 2007 IPCC report. Several disturbing revelations surfaced.

First, it was discovered that the prediction that the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035 was off by centuries. How could such a miscalculation be included in a report that is touted as being created by thousands of the best scientists on earth and screened by the best of minds?

It turns out that the Himalayan prediction came not from any of their supposed pool of climate scientists, but a magazine article in which nothing was peer reviewed. This magazine article was quoted by a zealous environmental group in their World Wildlife Fund publication, and apparently made it from there to the prestigious IPCC report.9

The UK Telegraph, Feb 27, 2010, succinctly sums up quite a number of other errors discovered:

…that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rain forest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other “extreme weather events” were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report.10

After all the billions spent in support of global warning research, we deserve better than this.

On the other hand, how much is spent looking the other direction? Where do skeptics get their funding? Do they get their share of the public funds? Hardly. The fact is that many of them get no funding, but work with their own time and money. A few have gotten some funds from oil companies and other corporations. Orthodox global warming believers attack them as if they are the ones receiving the majority of the funds, but are they receiving billions to prove their point of view, as are the warmers? The largest funding that can be attributed to the global warming skeptics is $19 million given by ExxonMobil over a period of years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who have come up with non-conformists data.11 Because of pressure from environmentalists, they have backed off the funding. Now, keep in mind that we’re talking about millions here, not billions, as in orthodox research. A billion is a thousand million. That’s over 5000 times the entire funding by ExxonMobil. Big difference.

Harris Rosen, Central Florida’s most famous hotel owner, has lashed out at false global warming-related predictions. He believes that because hurricane experts like William Gray have been making alarmist and false predictions over the past couple years, Florida’s businesses have lost billions of dollars of tourist revenue. He said that surveys show that 70% of the guests who do not return stay away because of the false and alarmist predictions.

Rosen is threatening a lawsuit so maybe an “I’m sorry” may not be enough this time.12

False hurricane predictions using global warming data are destructive, but nothing compared to false long-range predictions demanding long-range drastic solutions.

The hurricane predictions have the advantage of being proven right or wrong within a year, and now, after several years of drastic incompetence, they begin to lose their power to scare the daylights out of the people.

But, with global warming, the predictions focus on the end of the century, many decades away. There is no chance to prove whether the predictions are right or wrong before trillions of dollars are wasted, and civilization itself drained of its life-giving energy.

Let us briefly examine orthodox global warming points with detachment and see how it conforms to reason.

1. Authorities stress over and over that anyone who disagrees with them is a “climate change denier.”

If I have ever seen a piece of propaganda, it is the use of this phrase. If Hitler or Goebbels were alive today, they couldn’t have produced any greater piece of emotional diatribe to promote their cause.

For one thing I do not think such an animal as a “climate change denier” exists. Everyone left and right agree that the climate changes with time so this should be a non-issue.

To associate those who question orthodoxy with the neo-Nazis today who deny the holocaust is completely outrageous, and as low of an emotional approach as one can achieve. I’ve not seen anyone using this statement that is able to put together a logical sentence about global warming.

2. “The authorities agree.” Instead of explaining why they are correct, they merely try to make us think that all scientists agree with them; therefore, we must also agree.

Let me give several pieces of information that destroys this attack on people such as myself, and makes their arguments inconsequential:

(a) Skeptics are neither global warming nor climate change deniers. When the data verifies that it is getting warmer, we assume it is getting warmer; and when they indicate it is getting cooler, we assume it is getting cooler. To categorize those who disagree as not accepting that it has warmed some in the last century is extremely deceptive and disingenuous. This argument could be turned around and the skeptics could accuse many of being global cooling deniers since it has not warmed since 1998 (as of 2010 data). The disagreement is not over whether there is overall warming in the last century, but the cause.

Most skeptics believe CO2 does have an effect on warming, contrary to what they are accused of thinking. They just believe that it may not be the major factor as believed by bureaucrats.

The bureaucrats (and some scientists), on the other hand, consistently state that man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming. This position disagrees with their own scientists they quote. The IPCC report of 2007 gives the belief that around 50% of global warming is caused by man-made emissions. Bureaucrats generally speak as if it is 100%. This is very deceptive language, even based on their own data.

The 50% figure is very inflated and fanciful, according to many climate scientists. Models are not capable of proving the exact figure, but the data I have studied indicates it is very minimal.

New analysis of NASA satellite data may force a revision of the warming effect of CO2. They show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than IPCC computer models have predicted.12A

Computer models can only be as accurate as their input data, and IPCC models have been feeding the computers a huge error in the amount of heat released into space. When (and if) this error is corrected, projected warming will be substantially less.

The question then is – are researchers honest enough to make the correction when funding may be at stake?

(b) Financing research. Data presented from the skeptics is often dismissed merely because of the accusation that anyone who disagrees is a lackey of the oil companies. True, oil companies have financed a small amount of research, but this is distorted beyond all reality, to the point of projecting that the poor little U.N. scientists are fighting a monster of overwhelming proportions to present the truth.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States government alone (as previously noted) spends $4 billion per year on climate change research. This accounts for about 99.5% of such money spent in this country on global warming research, and anyone who voices skepticism in any degree rarely gets any of this money.

(c) Projections by orthodoxy are inconsistent and change from year to year, decade to decade in unbelievable proportions, even to reversing conclusions.

During the last century, consensus has shifted at least four times between predicting global cooling and global warming. Global warming was often presented with the idea that an apocalyptic situation is near. Over a hundred years ago, it was predicted that Canada would be wiped out and billions would die in an impending ice age.13

In 1971, NASA’s James Hansen’s research was used to predict an ice age. On July 9, 1971, the Washington Post stated that the temperature was expected to decrease 6 degrees over the next 50 years due to automobile emissions, and the next 5-10 years could trigger an ice age.

The prediction was wrong in both cases. The temperature went up over the next decade, the fifty-year predicted period is almost up, and the temperature is higher still.

Presently, interpretation is totally reversed. James Hansen is now the poster boy for the orthodox man-made global warming theory. Hansen’s calculations are currently used to predict global warming instead of cooling.

Hansen does not have much of a track record for making predictions. In 1988, he told the U.S. Congress that temperature would rise 0.3°C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1°C), and that sea level would rise several feet. It never even rose an inch.

In 2001, the third IPCC report of the U.N. predicted a sea level rise of somewhere between 4 and 35.4 inches by the end of the century. Then, in 2007, the fourth report predicted 7 to 23 inches. Then, to top it off, the non-scientist Al Gore predicted up to 20 feet!

Does this sound like guesswork or what? The 2001 prediction of a sea level rise between 4 and 35.4 inches is a variance of almost a thousand percent!

That would be like me saying, “The wind speed tomorrow will be between 5 and 50 miles per hour.” If I predicted such a thing, a person of common sense would look at me cross-eyed, and figure I didn’t have a clue as to what the wind speed would be tomorrow.

The 2001 IPCC Report also predicted a steady rise in temperatures from the turn of the century to the year 2100, but temperatures have held steady or decreased in the last decade.

Now, look at the change of the minimum and maximums between 2001 and 2007:

Minimum: Sea level rise was increased from 4 inches to 7 inches, an increase of 175 percent.

Maximum: The maximum was reduced from 35.4 inches to 23 inches. That is a reduction of 35 percent.

If this wavering and inconsistency sounds like science to you, then I have some new ocean front property I’ll sell you in Idaho.

(d) Actual history does not agree with present CO2 global warming theory.

Between 1850 and 1940, the earth experienced a global warming trend. During this period, the release of human-caused CO2 was insignificant.

Between 1940 and 1976, we had global cooling and many scientists were predicting an ice age. The fact that the earth cooled when we had our first major surge of human-caused CO2 gives powerful evidence that the current alarmist trend is just that — an alarmist trend.

(e) As there is an increase in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is a decrease in its greenhouse effect. This fact is often overlooked in computer models.14

The truth is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does produce an effect, but it is much smaller than projected by alarmists. You would think that CO2 is the main cause of the greenhouse effect, but it is only estimated to cause between 4.2% and 8.4% of it.15 That variance in estimate of about 100% just shows how difficult it is to pin down the exact effect of the gas.

In addition to this, an alarm is raised by the IPCC telling us that CO2 will remain in the atmosphere 50-200 years. This contrasts with geologists who say the time is more like five to ten years.16 Big difference. After reading about the deception in the IPCC from the leaked e-mails, I tend to go with the geologists.

Sometimes I think the alarmists do not believe their own doctrine, for most of them fight tooth and nail against the best two current solutions available, which are hydropower and nuclear energy. Instead, they offer us wind and solar power, which are unlikely to ever create a dent in CO2 emissions within the near future.

Not All Agree

Researchers Fred Singer & Dennis T. Avery tell us:

A survey of more than four hundred German, American, and Canadian climate researchers was reported in the UN Climate Change Bulletin in 1996. Only 10 percent of the researchers surveyed said they ‘strongly agree’ with the statement ‘We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway.’ Close to half of the researchers surveyed-48 percent—said they didn’t have faith in the forecasts of the global climate models, the only strong argument in favor of quick, decisive international action to counter a dangerous global warming.

A 1997 survey of U.S. State Climatologists (the official climate monitors in each of the fifty states) found 90 percent agreeing that ‘scientific evidence indicates variations in global temperature are likely to be naturally occurring and cyclical over very long periods of time.’

In 1998, more than 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition, expressing doubt about man-made global warming and opposing the Kyoto Protocol. More than 2,600 of the signers of this anti-Kyoto petition have climate science credentials. The petition was hosted by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine.17

Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT has written about ‘An Inconvenient Truth’:

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.18

Here are a few of Al Gore’s inaccuracies as stated by Senator James Inhofe:

• He promoted the now debunked ‘hockey stick’ temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate.

• He attempted to minimize the significance of the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age.

• He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.

• He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930s were as warm or warmer.

• He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice. He left out that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

• He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing.

• He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices.

• He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way outside of any supposed scientific ‘consensus’ and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

• He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier’s retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing.

• He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa’s Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits.

• He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving.

Al Gore completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004.19

A high court judge in England seemed to agree with Senator Inhofe and ruled that “An Inconvenient Truth” made nine claims that were not scientifically founded.20

There are many more arguments that can be made to show that the debate is not over on the truth of man-caused global warming. I just want to make enough points to instill doubt in the mind of the reader that what orthodoxy tells us may not be fully true. There are numerous good books by skeptics. One of the best I have found so far is “Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years” By S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.

“So, you doubt the scientific consensus,” says the conformist. “What do you suggest we do then, drive gas guzzling SUVs and Hummers? Should we keep building coal-fired plants and drill for oil until the last drop is gone? Surely you must accept that CO2 has some effect. Should we do nothing?”

The Answer

Global warming alarmists have an unrealistic view of global warming skeptics. Among popular untrue assumptions are:

False assumption one: Skeptics do not believe the earth is warming.

The truth: The vast majority of the skeptics do believe the earth is warming and accept the scientific data until proven otherwise. There is a variance between satellite measurements and earth-based measurements. The satellite measurements, which are thought to be more accurate, show a lesser warming than the earth-based measurements, but alarmists ignore this fact.

False assumption two: Skeptics believe that humans are not a factor in global warming.

The truth: Again, the vast majority of skeptics believe that man-made emissions are a factor, but a small factor or, at worst, an unknown factor; and not the magnitude of alarm believers proclaim. It’s a little like accepting the scientific probability that a comet will hit us sometime in the far future. It could happen, but the probability is not high enough to lose sleep over. The earth could continue to warm for some time, but skeptics believe in the probability that a natural cooling cycle will kick in sooner or later and offset this.

False assumption three: Skeptics are like the flat-earth people of the past and reject science.

The truth: From my experience and study, the skeptics are much more scientific in their thinking and reality based than are the alarmists. Many of the alarmists pick and choose pieces of data that seem to fit their mindset, whereas the skeptics are more likely to look at the whole picture. For instance, most alarmists ignore the fact that from 1940-1978 the world had a cooling trend, even though we were experiencing the first major surge of CO2 emissions.

False assumption four: Skeptics do not care about the earth or the environment.

The truth: This is an attempt to demonize opposition to their consensus thinking. Skeptics are just as concerned (as a whole) as are the alarmists about Mother Earth. The difference is that alarmists want to press forward with drastic changes that often make little sense or will have little effect. Skeptics want to make changes that will have a measurable positive effect and help mankind, as well as the environment.

False assumption five: Skeptics do not want to do anything. At least the believers want to do something.

The truth: Even though skeptics are not worked into a frenzied state of alarm, many are happy to work toward common sense solutions to reducing man-made emissions. After all, they do have some effect and the safe path is to eventually reduce emissions.

This brings us to what should be some points of consensus regarding this problem. Here are items on which both believers and skeptics can agree:

(1) The earth is limited in oil resources. Sooner or later, we will have to switch to other energy sources. We might as well start now working in this direction.

(2) Limited oil resources could lead to many future wars and conflicts, which could be avoided by developing alternatives.

(3) We import close to 70% of our oil from foreign sources, many of them openly hostile to us and with the ability to hold us hostage. Anyone with a common sense on either side would agree that reducing these imports is desirable.

(4) Burning oil produces greenhouses gases, and both sides agree it would be safer to reduce them rather than to increase. Even many skeptics are concerned, just not alarmed to apocalyptic proportions. It would thus be desirable environmentally, from both sides, to reduce dependence on oil.

(5) Both sides generally feel it is desirable to reduce our dependence of coal-fired plants. These not only release CO2, but other contaminants such as mercury and more radioactive elements than a nuclear plant.

The truly big issue concerning global warming is how to reduce manmade greenhouse gas emissions? Unfortunately, there are two huge divisions, which are:

Division One: The alarmists want to reduce greenhouses gases in ways that will limit or remove certain freedoms. For instance, most support greenhouse gas decrees and laws plus taxes and fines, not only nationally, but also through the United Nations. Many consider the Cap and Trade legislation in the United States as a necessary but drastic solution. They believe this risk to our freedom is necessary because of the alarmist situation.

The skeptics only want to use law where absolutely necessary, giving no extra power to the U.N. and working with the free market as much as possible.

Division Two: The alarmists generally lean toward socialism and are anti-capitalists. They generally favor solutions that promote their social agenda and big government. There are exceptions, of course.

One of the worries of the skeptics is that the global warming movement has attracted the support of many ex-communists, socialists and enemies of the United States. These skeptics have grave concerns that the global warming movement could be a Trojan Horse to destroy our economy and freedom, and yet produce little effect on reducing greenhouse gases. They see the alarmist cries as a ploy to further their agenda more than true concern over rising sea levels.

It’s too bad this last division exists, because it has little to do with global warming itself. Instead, the division is over the true motivations of the movers and shakers behind the movement.

In seeking a synthesis that can unite, we must take the two above differences into consideration, and create goals that both sides can accept. Here are a few:

(1) Promote hybrid technology.

The best selling hybrid car, which is the Honda Prius, gets around 50 miles per gallon, yet is still a comfortable car for general use. Others are coming forward with more fuel-efficient hybrids all the time, and plug-in cars are being introduced.

The plug-in Prius is expected to average at least 112 MPG. Part of the reason is a lighter, more efficient lithium-ion battery. This new generation of batteries will not only make hybrids more efficient, but will pave the way for the first truly practical all-electric vehicles.

Both sides of the equation stand in the way of maximizing this solution.

The believers will mouth support of the hybrids, yet are slow to actually buy and use the most fuel-efficient cars. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen a global warming believer asked what kind of car he drives and it turns out to be a standard fuel-guzzling SUV; asked why, believers like Robert Kennedy Jr. have a ready answer such as, “I have a big family and need one.”

Congressman John Kerry had a more creative answer. He merely said, “This is my wife’s SUV.”

Many wealthy alarmists, such as Al Gore, offset any savings on the road when they take private jets, where one trip can burn many times the amount an SUV does in a year. Barbara Streisand has SUVs, but usually ops to drive a motor home to work. The carbon footprint of her mansion has to be enormous.

In 2009, hybrids accounted for less than 3% of cars sold in the U.S., and even less in 2010. This seems hypocritical when over 50% of the voters elect lawmakers who want to use drastic measures to reduce our carbon footprint.21 Something doesn’t add up here. If we were in a state of emergency, then it would seem that the least a global warming supporter could do is buy a hybrid. This would have a much bigger impact than switching to fluorescent bulbs.

Another interesting fact about hybrids is that their sales spike whenever there is an increase in the price of gas. This indicates that people switch to them, not to save the planet, but to save a buck. There’s no way of knowing how many skeptics buy hybrids, but I would guess there are quite a few. I plan on buying one for my next car, and I am a skeptic.

We have a problem with hypocrisy of the alarmists, but there is also a problem with the skeptics. Some of them are very negative toward hybrid technology for no good reason, and make fun of people who drive them. Hybrids make good ecological sense, are economical to drive, reduce the need for foreign oil, and are comfortable to drive – some even say fun. The only downside is they cost a little more, but that will be offset as more are sold.

Hybrid vehicle technology makes a lot of sense, especially when over 100 mpg is reached. Resistance is futile. It’s only a matter of time before the majority supports it.

(2) Solar Power

Both sides support the use of solar power, but view it from different perspectives. The alarmists seem to believe that it can be a major factor in energy independence. The skeptics seem to be more practical and see it as helpful, but hardly making a dent in our energy needs in the near future.

In 2009, according to the Energy Information Administration, solar energy only accounted for a mere three tenths of one percent of the nation’s energy needs. This means there was only enough solar energy sold to supply one person in 333 with this alternative source.22

Again, there is something strange going on here. Over half the people demand solar as a solution to global warming, but they will not buy it themselves. Since this seems to be their number one choice, you’d think well-to-do alarmists would install solar panels, but few do. Even wealthy Al Gore was criticized for having no solar panels; shortly after his film “An Inconvenient Truth” he acquiesced and stated he intended to install them. The last I heard, he finally put in a few.

My question to alarmists is this: if you really see impending doom through global warming, and solar energy as the best solution, then why will you not install solar panels yourselves, especially in the states with government incentives?

The answer must be the same as to why they do not buy hybrid vehicles.

As far as being a clean renewable energy source, solar power is a definite improvement over fossil fuels. Some see it as free energy and completely pollution free, but this is not quite so.

Producing the materials (vast quantities of steel, glass, and concrete) for deployment of a solar hardware requires about 3% as much coal burning as producing the same amount of electricity by direct coal burning.23

In addition to this, solar panels often use cadmium compounds, which are very poisonous and must be replaced and properly disposed of periodically.

The greatest pollution problem is space, and this item alone could prevent standard solar energy from supplying more than a couple percent of our energy needs – unless a breakthrough is made.

The authors of the popular book “Superfreakonomics,” after consulting experts, make this observation:

Although a widespread conversion to solar power might seem appealing, the reality is tricky. The energy consumed by building the thousands of new solar plants necessary to replace coal-burning and other power plants would create a huge long-term warming debt… Eventually, we’d have a great carbon-free energy infrastructure but only after making emissions and global warming worse every year until we’re done building out the solar plants, which could take thirty to fifty years.24

Consider this: If we could convert 100% of the sun’s energy into electricity, a square foot of land at the equator would supply enough energy to light a 125 watt light bulb. But then if we take the nighttime or the variable weather into consideration, we would only have enough for a 22-watt bulb. The big problem is that we only convert about 14% of this into energy, so this reduces the power to 3.1 watts. Finally, if we move our solar collector to a more probable location in the United States – where most of us live – the power is reduced to around a single watt.

To build a solar energy plant equal to the power of a typical coal burning one of a billion watt capacity would occupy a space of 40 square miles.

To even come close to supplying our energy needs, we would need about 400 plants, which would require (figuring maintenance roads and access) 24,000 square miles of ground, which is almost equal to the surface area of Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New Jersey combined.

On this ground, there could be no farming, no fishing, no hunting, no camping etc., and would be a great eyesore on the environment.

It is true we may have a breakthrough in energy conversion, but even if efficiency went from 14% to 20%, it would remain impractical as a large-scale energy source.

Another problem is that in large population centers (New York, Boston, and Chicago) where the greatest amount of energy is needed, the amount of sun available is much less, and transporting electricity from solar power over long distances is impractical and involves large energy loss.

And Great Britain and other northern nations are out of the question. It would take about half of the surface area of that country to supply power through solar means. If you ever lived there, you would understand.

The main reason there is not greater proliferation of solar power is the cost. Each watt created by solar power just costs more than those produced by coal, oil, nuclear or natural gas.

(3) Geothermal

Again, both sides support geothermal energy, but the supply is very limited.

This has some potential here in the United States, but until greater technology is developed to retrieve it from deep within the earth, this will only supply a small amount of our needs. We currently receive about a third of one percent of our electrical power from geothermal,25 and the maximum projected would be 4.6%.

(4) Bio-Fuels

The most discussed bio-fuel is ethanol. Many from both sides of the environmental spectrum support this alternative.

The advantages of ethanol are that it burns cleaner than regular gas and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Some claim that it reduces pollutants and carbon within the engine, extending its life. There seems to be no disadvantage.

But…

I talked to a mechanic a while back who told me what he thought was a major problem of which most is not aware. He said that because ethanol burns hotter than regular gasoline, it causes the O-rings to harden, causing engine problems. He told me that if I wanted to get maximum mileage out of my engine to not use it often. He said using it one tank out of ten might be useful to keep your engine clean, but not to use it regularly.

Another major drawback is that it requires a tremendous amount of energy to create this energy source. The main source for ethanol in the United States is corn, and when the energy to run the farm equipment, create fertilizer and run the refineries to create the ethanol is considered, the net energy savings becomes negligible. Some contend that it takes more energy to create ethanol than it releases, and others a little less, but all have to concede it is like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. We borrow energy to create energy.

Another strike against bio-fuels is they are made from grain, which causes the cost of such products to rise dramatically. This not only creates hardship for people in the United States – where corn, milk and beef are more costly because feed prices have risen – but this also means that food exports to Third World countries will decrease and prices will rise. Corn prices in Mexico have gone through the roof thanks to ethanol production consuming so much of it. Unfortunately, things will only get worse because do-gooders in Congress are mandating increased ethanol production.

The elephant in the room that tells us that ethanol from corn will not be a big part of any long-term energy solution is this: if we converted all the corn produced in the United States to ethanol, leaving none for animals or humans to consume, this would only give us enough fuel to replace 12% of our gasoline.26

Truly, any mandate that forces us to convert a higher percentage of our land to corn or corn-to-ethanol production is not in our best interests.

Yet another major drawback is that more ethanol production requires more land, and the land would be in continuous use. This country, and the world, has a limited amount of farm ground available. We will be lucky to have enough food to feed the world, let alone have excess to convert into fuel.

In 2011, ethanol production provides about enough energy to power the United States for one day. We are paying a high price for such a small benefit.

Some are under the illusion that the energy value of one gallon of ethanol is equivalent to one gallon of gasoline. The truth is that it takes 1.53 gallons of ethanol to equal the energy in one gallon of gasoline.27

If we already do not have enough to be concerned with, a news story tells us that a big problem is being created by nitrogen fertilizer run-offs in the Corn Belt states. This waste is making its way to the Mississippi River and then to the Gulf of Mexico, where it contributes to a growing 7,900 square mile dead zone with such oxygen depletion that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.28

When all things are taken into consideration, it seems to make much more ecological sense to drill for oil in ANWR in Alaska, (or anywhere for that matter) where only a couple square miles will be affected.

What effect do bio-fuels have as far as releasing greenhouse gases? Advocates say none, and here is their logic: bio-fuel only releases the CO2 from the plant that was taken in from the atmosphere. Corn takes in CO2 from the atmosphere, and burning it puts it back in making for a zero sum gain. Therefore, there are zero overall increases produced in CO2.

But, not so fast… A lot of energy is needed to grow the crops, and this includes gasoline, oil, coal, natural gas and other energy sources. Even if clean-burning natural gas is used, this means that more coal has to be burned somewhere else. Because it takes as much or more energy to create bio-fuels as they save, there is not much net reduction in greenhouse gases.

(5) Conservation

Both sides support energy conservation, but, again, each has a different approach. The alarmists want mandates with the force of law behind them, and the skeptics want to work with free will and work with incentives.

In U.S. households, simple heating and cooling accounts for about 90% of domestic energy used. Therefore, anything we can do within reason to make homes more energy efficient is helpful. Innovations are being made all the time and are being accepted and incorporated.

The second major goal of energy conservation is our vehicles of transportation. Again, the alarmists want mandates enforced by law and the skeptics, as a whole, prefer incentives.

Right now, hybrid technology offers the best solution, as mentioned earlier, but small economical gas-powered vehicles and all- electric vehicles are becoming available.

Unfortunately, the above five solutions are about the only ones widely supported by global warming alarmists.

“But,” says one, “they support wind power, don’t they?”

Don’t be so sure.

A few years ago, almost all environmentalists, global warming alarmists and the political Left endorsed wind power as the panacea for all our energy problems. It didn’t take long, though, before a crack in this united support began to occur.

The first problem began to surface when environmentalists became aware that birds, sometimes even endangered ones, were being killed by flying into the great revolving blades of the windmills. Suddenly, the question emerged: was this green energy worth the sacrifice of a few birds? Some thought yes and some no. Thus, the division began and is increasing. Then, a coalition of environmental groups sued the Texas Land Commissioner to delay or completely halt the construction of a giant wind farm of 60,000 acres south of Corpus Christi. The suit alleges that the windmills “could kill untold numbers of migratory birds and damage the bay.”

(American Statesman, Dec 5, 2007)

Soon other problems surfaced – pollution problems. No, it wasn’t greenhouse gas pollution, but other types.

First, noise pollution. Those who lived near a wind farm discovered these machines do not operate in silence, but give off an annoying hum. Some wind farms have been threatened with lawsuits for disturbing the peace.

Second, visual pollution. When the first wind turbines came out, most people thought they looked cool, but as they proliferated, the visual novelty subsided. Now, even strong environmentalists are fed up with the visual pollution. Even such global warming alarmists as the late Ted Kennedy and Robert F Kennedy, Jr. condemned windmills if built in their own back yards.

And that is just what has happened. For almost a decade the Kennedys opposed the construction of a wind farm near Cape Cod.28 What kind of message does this send to other wind energy investors? Perhaps to stay away from a project that may not get approval, even after ten years.

Actually, the proposed wind farm is about six miles out at sea and, from the Kennedy home, they are barely visible even on a clear sunny day. Still, this is seen as an invasion to the Kennedy pristine view. Ted Kennedy gave his reason for opposing the green energy:

“But don’t you realize — that’s where I sail!”29

In the beginning, Robert Kennedy Jr. didn’t seem to have much of a reason to oppose the wind farm (outside of wanting a pristine view) but, after he came under fire from fellow environmentalists, he came up with some additional reasons. He added that the wind farm could hurt the fishing industry and destroy tourism.

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound filed a lawsuit in June 2010, claiming the federal approvals violated the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and National Environmental Policy Act.

If the $2.5 billion project is ever completed the electricity from it is expected to cost double that of other current sources so making a profit may be a problem.

On the other hand, proponents believe it will increase tourism and add more jobs than it will cost. A wind farm at sea can be a great tourist draw, especially to environmental types.30

The third problem with wind energy is with weather pollution. Research is just beginning on how a high density of wind turbines may affect the weather.

Charles Meneveau, a turbulence expert at Johns Hopkins’ Whiting School of Engineering said that “dense clusters of wind turbines also could affect nearby temperatures and humidity levels, and cumulatively, perhaps, alter local weather conditions.”31

Believe me, as soon as environmentalists realize that wind turbines could alter weather, many more will turn against them.

Wind has other drawbacks. One of them is very similar to solar in the fact that the materials for construction also require considerable outlay of energy (probably from coal) to produce.

There are also a limited number of geographical areas where there is sufficient wind to make wind farms economically feasible. We would be limited in how much we could use this source, even if we decided to move ahead full speed with it.

Many think that when wind farm construction is completed, the power plant is home free expense-wise. This is not the case, as maintenance and repairs have been higher than projected. One will often see non-working wind turbines because of some operating problem waiting for repairs.

A final problem is their unreliability. Wind does not blow consistently 24 hours a day, and since electricity from wind power cannot be stored, there will be gaps where power generated at one time may be only half as much as the day before. A community that uses wind power must have a backup source of power for windless days.

Some fairly large companies who have invested in wind power have later abandoned the projects because of financial loss. But, there are other, mostly smaller, companies that persist in perfecting this source in the hope of a better, cleaner world.

Other Alternatives

There are a number of potential green technologies that alarmists encourage and act like they would support if developed, but would they?

They claim to encourage ocean wave technology, but what if new methods of energy production turn out to kill a few fish, like the windmills kill a few birds? Suppose one of the Kennedys finds a wave turbine in the way of his yacht – what then?

Global warming alarmists claim to support putting solar reflectors on the moon and microwaving the energy back, but what if there is an increase of cancer from the microwaves – or even the rumor of such? All of a sudden, the alarmists would seek to sabotage the many billions spent on the project.

Others support going to the moon and mining for Helium 3, which is believed to be a source of clean nuclear energy. But will someone find some danger in the nuclear processes that will be developed for converting it to energy? You can bet on it.

Still others want hydrogen power, but when alarmists realize that it presently takes the burning of more coal to create hydrogen then the power released, the enthusiasm will change to protest.

Then, we have the granddaddy hope of them all – hydrogen fusion. The technology to produce energy using this method has not arrived yet, and it will most probably cost many billions of dollars to perfect. Today, many alarmists support research on nuclear fusion, but some are just spooked by anything with the word “nuclear” in it.

It would be a shame to spend a trillion or so developing nuclear fusion plants, only to be met with screaming protesters wanting them shut down because of some miniscule danger that might develop.

The problem with working with the alarmists boils down to this: there are only three partial solutions that they presently accept. (I say “presently” because they may even turn on these).

These three are solar, geothermal and conservation. Solar and geothermal combined supply less than 1% of our energy needs, so no solution is in sight from these sources.

When this is pointed out, they always turn to the importance of conservation. But the stark truth is this: conservation is not a solution. It has never in our history resulted in a permanent reduction of energy consumption. Even with the most supportive president and Congress, the best conservation has done is make growth a little slower than it would have otherwise been.

But hope springs eternal. With no evidence whatsoever, alarmists keep telling us that conservation can be a major factor in solving our energy problems and CO2 emissions.

This is just plain false. Conservation can slow energy growth and that is all. There is no evidence it can do more than this.

Now, here is what is scary about the plan put forth by the alarmists. They want to mandate by law a great reduction in any energy source that releases CO2, but have no plan to replace the energy that will be eliminated. If Al Gore has his way, and we reduce energy consumption that produces CO2 by 90 percent by 2050 with no way to replace that energy, what will happen? Using conservation only, we would have a depression that would make the Great Depression seem like the good old days.32

Alarmists seem to think that if they pass a law saying we have to reduce CO2-related energy use by 90%, such energy will somehow be magically replaced, as if by osmosis of some kind.

It would be nice if such blind faith worked, but that’s exactly what it is – blind faith.

Cap and Trade legislation is the first step in this direction. Some critics call it “tax and trade” because the additional cost that will be placed on consumers will have the same effect as a tax increase on all citizens, rich and poor.

After the stock market crash in 1929, Herbert Hoover had blind faith that reducing the money supply would somehow help the money supply, but, of course, it made the depression much worse.

Even so, reducing energy does not create more energy. To increase energy, as the world desperately needs, there is only one simple solution: more energy must be developed and produced.

There is one form of energy which should appeal to both alarmists and skeptics. This energy has virtually zero CO2 emissions and has a safety record in the Western hemisphere higher than any other source and doesn’t even harm birds, bugs or animals. It has the potential to provide us with all our energy needs for a thousand years and more. The good part is the technology is already here.33

This sounds great as a source of energy, but, even though alarmists feel we are in an apocalyptic time that needs drastic measures, they fight this solution tooth and nail.

What is this safe and abundant energy source?

Think nuclear.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 4

May 2, 2014 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 5 of 33 in the series 2014

March 11, 2014
The Seven Initiations Continued
Larry W
Truly inspiring info. From your recent Initiate characteristics posts and also from this audio series I see the path more clearly. You said baptism symbolizes the second Initiation, rising out from the WATER -interesting. Did you also say the Baptism of Fire is part of the second Initiation? Or does Baptism of Fire pertain to third Initiation?

JJ
Various degrees of the baptism of fire can be had by all initiates and even those approaching initiation. All of us are capable of receiving some fire from the Spirit and it will be sent to us when we are open and are in the right time and place. What sets the higher initiates apart is they follow the higher guidance to wherever it leads.

Tom:
Tom to JJ….do all baptism have to be merging in water and coming out because my Methodist Minister just spanked water on my head and my brother also was sprinkled with water on his head when he joined the Mormons…….are we saved or not?

JJ
Ruth was correct in that baptism is symbolic. It symbolizes you coming out of emotional control (water) and into control of the mind (air). Control by the mind takes you out of error and thus saves you from sin (error).

Sprinkling doesn’t represent this symbolism accurately so baptism should be by immersion.

Baptism
To Tom:
Whether you are baptized correctly would be the least of my worries. If you find someone who is willing to baptize you by immersion, fine and if not fine as long as you follow the highest you know.

According to Mormon scriptures Adam didn’t have anyone to baptize him and was led by he Spirit in to the water to be immersed and that seemed to do the trick. You could do the same in a swimming pool or any body of water.

Here’s another scripture for you:
D&C 22:2 Wherefore, although a man should be baptized an hundred times it availeth him nothing, for you cannot enter in at the strait gate by the law of Moses, neither by your dead works.
D&C 22:3 For it is because of your dead works that I have caused this last covenant and this church to be built up unto me, even as in the days of old.

March 16, 2014
Devachain
Tom
Did you talk about the deva state or sleep state in the article. I am unable to find it…maybe included it in the book if you want.

JJ
The astral world where the people are living out their ideal life corresponds to the devachain. It is kind of like sleep in that they do not have a full consciousness of their relation to physical reality but in other ways their consciousness has a greater sensitivity.

March 17, 2014
The Key to Truth
Stephen,
Great description of what happens after the body dies JJ, many thanks. Can I just ask, how much of what you have described do you ‘know’ to be true? I use the word ‘know’ carefully, as representing direct ‘knowledge through experience’ rather than a piecing together of the puzzle so to speak.

The Internet is full of such teachings, some of which contradict each other, so if you were to suddenly say “Well young padewans, let me tell you a little story about a fine man who lives in Boise,” then I’m sure I wouldn’t be the only one here who would sit up and listen 🙂

JJ
If you are seeking the truth you are asking the wrong question in the wrong direction.

If I were to tabulate direct experience that seems to verify various teachings I give out what does that accomplish? It merely puts me in oppositions to dozens of others who claim direct experience that seems to prove my direct experience is either a lie or illusion.

Many there are who claim direct experience who are either…

(1) Outright lying.
(2) Sincere but caught in an illusion of some kind.

If someone claims direct experience of a non physical reality the highest you know using physical brain logic is that he had some experience that affected him. You would have no idea if the experience reflected reality as it actually is.

You’ll note that the greatest teachers do not use authority of experience to convince anyone. Where in the Bible does Jesus say – “Now this teaching is true because I have experience that verifies it.”

Where does DK say such a thing? Instead he says:

“The books that I have written are sent out with no claim for their acceptance. They may, or may not, be correct, true and useful. It is for you to ascertain their truth by right practice and by the exercise of the intuition. Neither I nor A.A.B. is the least interested in having them acclaimed as inspired writings, or in having anyone speak of them (with bated breath) as being the work of one of the Masters. If they present truth in such a way that it follows sequentially upon that already offered in the world teachings, if the information given raises the aspiration and the will-to-serve from the plane of the emotions to that of the mind (the plane whereon the Masters can be found) then they will have served their purpose. If the teaching conveyed calls forth a response from the illumined mind of the worker in the world, and brings a flashing forth of his intuition, then let that teaching be accepted. But not otherwise. If the statements meet with eventual corroboration, or are deemed true under the test of the Law of Correspondences, then that is well and good. But should this not be so, let not the student accept what is said.”

To attempt to get people to believe you by saying something like, “You must now believe my teachings because of experience, God, an angel or Thor working with me means that my words are to be accepted….” this is an attempt to place the mark of the beast on students.

This is something I am careful not to do.

It is the reason I have said that a person with soul contact can find more truth in the National Enquirer than one without can find in the Bible.

In the end the source of the words are not important. What is important is the words that one runs by the soul.

There is nothing in the Alice A. Bailey books that that indicate that I should accept anything because of any experience rendered. When I found my first book of hers and read a couple paragraphs I knew I had encountered a teacher of substance just because of the words reflecting on my soul and nothing else.

It is a human inclination to want to find some human source who tells him, “Hey, I have had an experience with God or the unseen and that means you can now trust everything I say.” Many ache to hear this so they can relax and just trust this outer source from then on.

On this earth journey there is no such final source outside of the source within – the soul. And you never know what your soul will verify to you.

It may tell you that some guru that all your friends think is infallible is full of illusion. On the other hand, it may verify something a serial killer says as something that is true. He who follows the soul within will not discount any source as false no matter how outrageous and will not automatically accept others no matter how close to God they seem.

March 18, 2014
Missing Plane Mystery

An educated guess by me on the missing plane is that it was pilot suicide. The pilot’s wife left him the day before the incident and he was probably quote distraught. Often suicidal angry people want to take other people out with them. We may never know what happened.

Here is a psychic’s comments:

“I do believe that the plane was hijacked by several onboard (more than three, along with one master mind who was not on board),” she told CBS Detroit in an email Tuesday.

Robinett cushioned the information by saying “nothing is absolute. Not all psychics or mediums have the same “strength” to their abilities. Thus one may “see” something others may miss. And then there is the impressions we receive that must then be interpreted by the said seer.”

She added with this case, “all I have is the visions that I have received with no specific coordinates.”

But with those “flashes,” this is what she believes:

It was planned for over a year.
I wasn’t a suicide mission.
I believe they had a location set up to land.
There was communication on the ground with a team/fleet of people.
I have felt the location having a mountain region, along with a jungle feeling and may be near a small Island by Madagascar.
There are hidden *underground* areas.
I saw tables with smartphones/cell phones, open wallets, passports.
It was hot and humid and there is crystal clear water/ocean nearby.
I do believe that the government knows more than what we are being told. This could be a good thing, however.
I also believe that several governments have a good idea where this plane is and are keeping the public busy with speculations as they take care of deeper issues connected with this.

March 22, 2014
Question
Tom asks for an example of our thoughts creating a hell for us.

Let us suppose you are a Catholic and believe you have to have the last rites of a Priest or you will go to hell. Then you die without receiving these rites. It is likely that your thoughts and fears will take you to such a place for a while, which place is created by the collective thoughts of Catholics in illusion.

March 23, 2014
Tom wants to know more about what can cause us to go to one of the hells in the astral world. Here are a few points to consider.

(1) Are you in hell now because of the way you live your life? If so then you need to change it so the quality of life will improve. We make our own reality here and the next world. Here our reality materializes slowly, but in the next world it manifests quickly.

(2) Would you be happy being around people who are similar to yourself? In the next world like gathers to like and if you are a difficult person to live with then you will gravitate to difficult people in the astral. On the other hand, if you are loving you will attract loving people.

(3) Does your conscience bother you? If so then resolve this by letting go the hold of the beast which causes guilt.

(4) Have you caused others needless pain and suffering that has not been resolved? If so, tuning into these people will throw that pain back at you very powerfully in the next world.

If you are following the highest you know and show goodwill to all you should have nothing to worry about.

March 23, 2014
Torture
Jody, you seem to blame the group here for your recent troubles since they started when you came across us. Let me assure you of this. There are no black magicians here and no one has any desire to do you any harm. The fact that your troubles started when you came across us could be felated to two different things.

(1) Pure coincidence.
(2) Some dark entity or force does not want you to advance in the light and is determined to stop you by making you think we are the bad guys.

Whenever a person takes a step that will have a positive effect a negative force arises to pull him backwards.

Here are some comments I have previously made on this principle:
For example, when I received the revelation that I was supposed to marry Artie it was amazing the army that gathered around her to try to talk her out of marrying me. Her daughter thought that I was like Jim Jones. She called everybody she knew. She called her dad, which is Artie’s past husband, and convinced him that I was some weirdo with one hand with quirks like Igor; that I was just really weird. She painted the strangest picture. She called her grandma and her grandma flew up here. She immediately got on a plane to save her daughter from this terrible person. Her daughter conjured up this image of me out of the blue and communicated it to everyone we knew. Within days Artie had an army around her to try to talk her out of what she received within herself for we had both received confirmation that we were supposed to be together.

Then one day we were talking on the phone after her mom was coming up and her ex-husband was afraid for her life and her soul and was afraid for her daughter’s safety because she was around a mad man. The image built up was amazing. We’re talking on the phone and she said, “Maybe we should just lie low for awhile until things calm down then we can continue the relationship.” I knew at that point that if I let the point of tension go I would lose her and I knew I had to do something. She didn’t think I would lose her but something within me told me that I would. There was this army gathering around to pull her away from what she had received within herself.

As we were talking on the phone she said, “It’s just too much to handle. I think I’ll lay low.” There was a moment of silence where I felt the spirit and I knew she was feeling it during the time of silence. I said, “What do you feel right this instant?” She said, “I feel peaceful. I feel good.” I asked, “Do you want to pursue this feeling or do you want to pursue the opposite of this feeling?” She said, “I want this feeling.” I said, “So, what are we going to do? Are we going to pursue this feeling or are we going to quit?” She said she wanted to pursue this feeling so I told her then we’re not going to give up. We’re going to continue this relationship no matter what happens, no matter what your mom thinks, no matter what your daughter thinks, no matter what your ex-husband thinks, no matter who comes pounding on your door demanding that you not see me. We will continue this relationship and this feeling will continue. I asked, “Is this a deal?” She said it was.

To her credit, she didn’t go back on her commitment. Most people would. I’ve seen this happen time and time again. People get close to the presence then an army of negativity comes to take them away from that next step and they yield to that negativity. I’ve seen it happen time and time again. The negativity is so powerful. Then when you yield to it you have a false sense of peace because you don’t have the bedlam around you anymore. You seem to have a peace but it’s not the real peace. It’s not the peace that Artie felt when I asked her what she was feeling. She decided that she wanted to pursue the real peace. To her credit she withstood all the assailments she got from her mother, her daughter and everybody who came out of the woodwork. It was beyond the imagination. She withstood them all and she stood her ground and we continued the relationship and are still together.

I’m very thankful that she stood her ground that way. Not many people do because when you make a step forward, even with something simple, like say you want to quit smoking. Are there any smokers in the group? Rick is. Rick is good at quitting smoking. He’s done it about a hundred times. But when you try to quit smoking doesn’t it seem like everyone who smokes comes out of the woodwork offering you cigarettes? It seems like an army comes to you to get you to try to start up again. In any step of progression that you make you will have an army of negativity to try to pull you back to not only where you were before but lower than you were before. It’s like the scripture that reads, “When a man casts out one devil, the devil goes forth and finds seven more, more evil than himself. And they come back and they possess the man. And the last state of the man is worse than the first state.”

This is what happens. It’s dangerous to move ahead. It’s actually dangerous; dangerous to be a disciple of Christ. It’s dangerous to move ahead. It’s dangerous to progress. It’s not easy because when you do, an army will surface and this army, coming out of the woodwork, will have the faces of your friends, the faces of your family, your religious leaders, your political leaders, your neighbors, and they will all try to pull you back so your final state will be worse than it was when you tried to make the step forward.

The only way through this is to take the step forward and stand on that step forward no matter what happens. When you take that stand you’ll find out that all the winds and the storms that are surrounding you are illusion. They don’t really exist. You just thought they were real. You give them power but they have no power. They have no power to pull you back. You just thought they had power. When you really take a stand and make a firm decision, you can stand. There is nothing that can pull you back. There is nothing that can stop you from your onward movement once you attain that faith in yourself and in your relationship to the spirit you can move ahead. Remember you can always move ahead. There is always a way. When you begin to make a step, the more important step it is, the more difficult it will be and the greater will be the illusion that you must take a step backward.
https://freeread.com/archives/1717.html

March 26, 2014
Attrition
Jody:
And as for your post about black magicians, I am still waiting for an answer to that post of yours I responded to, JJ.

JJ
I looked over your posts and I assume you are referring to this question”
“And what are the ‚Äòabilities’ of a white magician? If what happened to me was from a “black” magician, then I would infer that “white” magician would be able to battle, fight, retaliate, hold there own against a “black” magician and therefore be able to locate and identify such a magician using your terminology of course.”

First of all it is highly unlikely that either a black or white magician is paying any attention to you. There are seven billion people on this planet and only a handful of real magicians on either side. You’d have to be a person who is likely to make a big impact on the planet to draw attention from either side. I am currently posting an audio on White Magic where I deal with white and black magic. The basic difference between the two is white magic deals with the soul and spirit and black magic deals with matter and materialism. Jesus was a white magician and Hitler was an agent of black magicians.

Your problem is more than likely caused by impish entities from the lower astral world. They are not magicians but some of them like to cause trouble on the physical plane or may be directed by magicians. It is also possible that your problems are created by thoughtforms created by yourself which have followed you from past lives. A third possibility is a combination of the two.

Whatever the case, the problem exists because a door of some kind has been opened and you need to close it.

Here is an account of dealing with such a problem from my book – The Lost Key of the Buddha. I have been attacked by dark forces a number of times and this gives some keys to overcoming them.

“Since the attack I have been racking my brain thinking of the principle that could overcome this force. I tried all the obvious ones: prayer, positive thinking, affirmations and even the Song, but nothing produced any significant change. It wasn’t until I just attempted to ignore the distress and worked on the highest I knew – which at this time is the book, taking care of life’s needs, and attempting to say the Song with intense meaning – that I noticed a real improvement. As I experienced some improvement I kept asking what the principle behind the progress was. A number of things helped, but not one of them seemed to be the total answer. Finally, after a period of deep reflection a word came to my mind that unfolded the principle.”

“And what was that word?” asked John, who I felt did not need to ask this question.

“Yes,” said Elizabeth. “What is the word? You’ve got me curious.”

“The word is attrition,” I said.

“Attrition!” said Elizabeth. “What kind of key word is that?”

“Do you know what the word means?” said John.

“Well, it seems like it is a gradual wearing away of something,” she said.

“And how would you explain it?” John said looking at me.

I replied, “Elizabeth hit on the standard definition which is basically the wearing away of a thing through friction. But the word can also imply disintegration through lack of attention. I remembered that we sometimes used the word in real estate in relation to neglected property. Property can fall apart through lack of attention or attrition. In hard times the real estate industry complained that we lost sales agents through attrition. When salespeople did not have enough business to keep their attention, they fell away and went to greener pastures.”

“So, in other words, all you have to do is ignore the problem and it will go away,” said Elizabeth.

“It’s not quite that simple,” smiled John. “Isn’t that right, Joseph?”

“It is,” I said nodding. “Right after the attack the agony was absolutely impossible to simply ignore. The intelligence behind the attack was vying for my attention and received one hundred percent of it. There was no ignoring possible. I was continually forced to acknowledge the presence.”

“So how are you applying the principle of attrition without ignoring the force?” asked Elizabeth.

“Here’s what I discovered,” I said, leaning toward her. “I had no power over whether or not the presence was bringing pain, and there was no way I could pretend that it was not there. So I looked for the areas where I did have power. When I started working on the book again it took all my strength to take my attention away from the force and place it on the writing, but even though it was difficult, I did manage to do so. When, after a time, I realized that this seemed to lessen the hold of the force, I began analyzing what I was doing. The answer wasn’t so much that I ignored the pain and the force, because I was very much aware of it. Instead, I found that, even though it was difficult, I did have power over where I placed my conscious attention. I then found that when I sustained my attention away from the negative to the normal duties I had before me, the power of the force began to diminish. This diminishing of it’s power through the denial of attention is attrition. When this word came to me this evening I realized that attrition of the enemy’s power through the diversion of attention was the key to its defeat.”

“So you’re not ignoring it, but just not giving it your attention? Tell me again what the difference is?” asked Elizabeth, looking flummoxed.

“Generally, when you ignore something, you pretend that it does not exist and give it no attention at all. With this force there was no pretending, and because it was painful I was forced to give it some attention; but I found I could divert attention and thus take away some of its power. Somehow it seems to feed off my attention.”

“Well spoken,” said John. “You have no doubt heard the maxim, energy follows thought. How do you think this principle applies?”

“Great point,” I said, as if a light bulb had turned on in my head. “If the negative force is able to be the focus of my thought, then it’s energy can follow that thought and sustain its power. By diverting my attention or thought away from the negative, and forcefully placing it upon the positive, energy will follow, for only good energy will follow good thought.”

“Well said, again,” said John smiling. “But you already knew the basic principle of energy following thought along with the benefits of positive thinking. How does the principle you saw go beyond the clich√©s accepted by the masses?”

“The general idea of positive thinking did nothing,” I said. “It was only when I roused all my will and made a decision to force the direction of my attention away from the force, bringing the principle of attrition into play that things got better.”

“Along this line you might find something the Master said of interest,” said John. “Grab the Bible again and turn to Matthew chapter eleven, verses twelve and thirteen.”

I opened the Bible and read: “And from the days of John the Baptist until now the kingdom of heaven suffereth violence, and the violent take it by force. For all the prophets and the law prophesied until John.”

“Do you have any idea what this means?” he asked.

“I remember reading this scripture before,” I said. “I couldn’t make a lot of sense of it. It seems to say that those pursuing the kingdom of heaven suffer violence, and violent people somehow take it away from the just.”

“But what period of time is mentioned by Jesus?”

“It looks like it was from the time of John the Baptist to the time that Jesus spoke those words–probably about the middle of his ministry.”

“And was there a lot of violence during this period?”

“Well, John the Baptist was put to death, but it seems that Jesus and his followers were able to go about in peace.”

“So this did not seem to be a time when there was violent persecution does it?”

“I guess not.”

“And have you read anything in the scriptures about violent people taking the kingdom by force during the first couple of years of the Master’s ministry?”

“I don’t even know if the kingdom can be taken by force,” I said.

“If you want to check with your Concordance you will see that force and violence are not the only options for translation here. I can see why translators rendered the verse the way they did, but they were not looking at the context of the meaning. For instance suffereth violence is more correctly rendered enthusiastically pressing forward, and the phrase by force was used by Jesus as society currently uses the phrase, Carpe Diem, or seize the day.”

“So how would you translate it in words we can understand?” asked Elizabeth.

“I’ll do better than that. I’ll just tell you what the Master said from memory with my own translation into English. You have to realize that he spoke this verse and others many times with different wordings to different groups. He said this thought dozens of times during his ministry. To get a true impression of the meaning you have to reverse the order of the verses.”

John paused a moment and related the words from his own recollection.

“All the prophets and wise men before John dreamed, prophesied, and taught of the kingdom of God. Many had enticing visions, and wished with all their heart that they could reach out and take the kingdom, but they could not grasp it, enjoy it themselves or present it to their people in its fullness.

“But from the days of John the Baptist until now things are different, for the Spirit of the Lord has descended, and the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand. Many sense the opportunity and are pressing forward with forceful enthusiasm. Those who successfully press forward are those who aggressively seize the opportunity – or Carpe Diem, as we say today.”

“Carpe Diem,” mused Elizabeth. “Now that’s a translation I can understand, especially since seeing the movie Dead Poet’s Society.”

“So Jesus was basically saying that when the opportunity for the Kingdom presents itself, we must seize the day?” I asked.

“Basically,” said John.

“What does this have to do with aiding me in mastering this evil force?”

“Let me expand on this Carpe Diem idea as presented by Jesus,” he said. “His point was that to obtain the Kingdom, or higher consciousness, we must forcefully seize the opportunity when it presents itself. Taking the kingdom by force, as the Bible says, is not a bad way to word it.

“Many in the New Age movement are making a great mistake in teaching that we must go with the flow. The trouble is that there are two major flows of energy to go with. The first is the spiritual flow and only a few are attuned to that. The second is the flow of force toward matter, or materialism. As far as the vast majority is concerned this second flow is the problem because it is by far the most powerful. Therefore, if the average seeker goes with the flow, he will flow the wrong direction, away from the Spirit.

“The seeker must resist the negative flow and tune into the spiritual. He can only do this with the exercise of tremendous force of will. When he first seeks the flow of Spirit, the registration will be weak, and to hold on to it to increase its strength, he must Carpe Diem or seize hold of the new energy with great force of decision and will. When he does, the more prominent flow of matter will pull hard on him, tempting him to let go of the budding new energy. Going with the dominant flow at this point leads to disaster, but going with the still small voice of the Spirit leads to salvation.”

He paused and looked us over as if to make sure we were registering what he was saying, and added, “But if the seeker holds on to the new energy and by force of will makes it his dominant energy, then going with the flow becomes a positive thing.”

“Interesting,” I said. “I have heard that true spiritual teachers walk you all around a subject before they hone into the major point. Is this what you are doing?”

“You speak of a true principle,” he said. “The reason for this is that a teacher of light always desires a full comprehension from the student, and if he just answers a question in a word the student will fall short in his understanding.”

He paused again, and said, “I can see you are anxious to see how this fits with your problem, so let me continue.

“To move along the ladder of spiritual progression we must set ourselves on our next step, and then, by a tremendous force of will, fix our attention and focus on the objective.

“This is the principle you must apply in overcoming this attack you are suffering. Now tell me, what are the positive items of focus you have come up with?”

“I think he’s talking about the list we made,” said Elizabeth, looking toward the desk.

I went to my desk and retrieved my notes. “Here are four things we came up with.”

“Tell them to me,” said John.

I read, “Focused attention (meaning focusing intently on the light), service, love, and courage.”

John looked thoughtful for a moment and added, “Courage is more of an attitude acquired through experience, but the first three are very applicable to developing the Carpe Diem principle. By causing you great distress the negative force lives off of all this attention it has diverted. The trick is to destroy it through attrition of its energy, forcing your attention through strength of will toward the light of the soul, to service to humankind, and to the love of all. As you have found, your consciousness has been seriously diverted away from these noble pursuits because of your great distress. This causes a vicious circle which continues to feed the negative.”

“You’re right,” I said. “Before this attack I naturally thought of positive things, but afterwards it has been extremely difficult.

“Difficult, but not impossible,” said John, looking at me intently. “By seizing the kingdom with violent force of will you can force yourself to focus on those noble pursuits and starve the dark forces, causing them to go elsewhere for nourishment. This is why sleep is such a powerful healer. During sleep your attention is taken away from the many forces tearing your body down. A good long rest can weaken these destructive forces through attrition, so when you arise, the positive energies of the body have power over the negative ones.”

“Yes, of course, you are correct here,” I said. “That is the idea I saw when I received the key word. I realized that I could starve the darkness with attrition. I just needed to use the power of focused will and move my attention. It’s kind of like you were saying, John, I can cause my attention to sleep as far as the negative is concerned.”

“So now that you see the principle, what will you do differently than before you saw it?” said John.

“Before I saw the principle I tried to dwell on the positive, but I let the pain and distress consume my attention. Now that I see the principle, I may still feel pain, yet will force myself to not put attention on it. I will force my attention away from it until the negative force is starved to death through attrition.”

“You’ve got it,” he said. “This is one of those subtle, but important truths. There is a huge difference between putting all your attention on the positive during the good times, and keeping it there during times of great distress. “Joseph, I want you to teach this in a future book. It will help a lot of people if they can be helped to understand. This is one of those principles that enabled Jesus to maintain his poise, control, and faith even while on the cross.”

“But not many people have an overwhelming spiritual problem to deal with,” said Elizabeth. “How would this apply to them?”

“Most people have all the problems and distress they can handle,” said John. “Just as it can help Joseph, it can help them.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2014, Part 3

April 22, 2014 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 4 of 33 in the series 2014

Feb 9, 2014
Avatars
Ruth asks: When DK says this:

“Such a man was Abraham Lincoln, coming forth from the very soul of a people, ”

What exactly does this mean?

Actually, DK wasn’t the first to say something like this. Many who have written about Lincoln have commented that the man seemed to come from the soul of America, or to represent the essence of the American spirit or the ideal.

Now this does not mean that the actual entity who was Lincoln was created by the soul of the people. What it does mean is that the soul of the people called an entity like this to come forth.

The entity who was Lincoln took on the rays and essential energies necessary to fulfill his mission as a racial avatar.

A thing that is not understood by many is how we as individual entities can take on different personalities as we move from life to life. This does not mean we become different people but we come under different influences.

Think of how different you act when you are in a state of joy compared to pain, in a good relationship vs a bad one, under a lot of pressure compared to having the wind at your back. Even so, in different lifetimes we are under different ray influences, different circumstances and different types of associates.

Lincoln is this referred to as coming from the soul of the people because this entity was sensitive to the group soul of the people, responded to it and subjected himself to the influences necessary to carry out a mission to benefit the group soul.

Feb 11, 2014
Giants in America
Here’s an interesting video on Giants in Ancient America.

Feb 16, 2014
Plural Marriage
Larry woods writes:
1) If John Taylor, Joseph Smith, and Jesus support polygamy, does it still serve a legitimate purpose today?

2) If Lorin’s record about this is wrong, then does this also invalidate the included prophecy about the one mighty and strong?

JJ
I wouldn’t guarantee that Jesus would support polygamy though I don’t see any big sin in it as long as it is done through no violation of free will. I think that a polygamous marriage would be much more difficult to bring balance than a one to one relationship.

Unfortunately, most polygamous marriages materialize because those involved think that this is what God wants them to do rather than considering what they need to do for their own happiness.

Lorin and others had a strong motive to create a version of the vision that agreed with their mindset so they could head up the kingdom. John Taylor may or may not of said the words attributed to him and if he did they may or may not have been correct. This is why it is so important to rely upon your own soul and not to do anything that will affect your life without inner confirmation.

Feb 20, 2014
Karma
Joan asks:
Every soul must incur many lifetimes in order to “perfect” himself (is what I am gathering from your posts and books). But does that mean we have to go through more suffering and repentance due to these sins in our collective history, in order for the waking up (and/or healing) process to manifest TODAY? or can we find ourselves in an instant ‘state of bliss’ by right thinking and manifest all that is good, due to not “identifying” with the past, and the suffering and darkness back then or even in our lives today?

JJ
All negative karma must be paid off, but there are two ways to do it. The first is through suffering. This requires a long period of time and it is not a fun thing to do.

The second is through service and this can be quite joyful.

No matter how much karma a person has he can through free will take a step toward the light and feel the joy of higher contact and of moving forward. It is not always immediate but it will come.

By the way, your website and artwork look great. Thanks for sharing.

You can read more about karma HERE

Feb 23, 2014
Can Karma Be Neutralized?
LWK writes:
I also wonder if the idea of exact repayment is somewhat off the mark too.

Something about forgiveness of sins, and by that I mean explicitly the possibility of the effects of sin being taken away, seems to be a part of the message of Jesus. Now I agree with you that the modern, most likely distorted message, of the church today is probably not exactly what was meant.

You mention in the quote above the Lords of Karma. Is it not possible that part of their job is not to just make sure that every cause is neutralized by an opposite and equal cause, but perhaps the very real possibility of neutralizing the effects when the effects have served their purpose, regardless of a mathematical accounting of cause and effect?

I don’t claim to know the answer, but it seems like an interesting idea that Jesus was indeed teaching the possibility, under some circumstances, of sins truly being forgiven in the sense of not always having to pay off the “last farthing.”

JJ
Good comments. Let us explore this a bit. First of all when the scriptures speak of forgiveness of sin what do they really mean?

Forgiveness in the Bible is translated from the Greek APHIEMI. The trouble is that this word does not mean forgiveness as we understand the word today, even though it seems to, when it is used in connection with the forgiveness of sins. But unknown to most the real meaning of the word is difficult to decipher and is translated a number of different ways. Here are some verses where the word APHIEMI is used

Mark 7:7 Howbeit in vain do they worship me, teaching for doctrines the commandments of men.

Mark 7:8 For LAYING ASIDE (APHIEMI) the commandment of God, ye hold the tradition of men, as the washing of pots and cups: and many other such like things ye do.

Matt 19:27 Then answered Peter and said unto him, Behold, we have FORSAKEN (APHIEMI) all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?

Matt 19:29 And every one that hath FORSAKEN (APHIEMI) houses, or brethren, or sisters, or father, or mother, or wife, or children, or lands, for my name’s sake, shall receive an hundredfold, and shall inherit everlasting life.

John 14:18 I will not LEAVE (APHIEMI) you comfortless: I will come to you.

John 14:27 Peace I LEAVE (APHIEMI) with you, my peace I give unto you: not as the world giveth, give I unto you. Let not your heart be troubled, neither let it be afraid.

John 16:28 I came forth from the Father, and am come into the world: again, I LEAVE (APHIEMI) the world, and go to the Father.

Matt 27:50 Jesus, when he had cried again with a loud voice, YIELDED UP (APHIEMI) the ghost.

Now if you substitute the modern word forgiveness in each of the above cases you will see that it just does not make consistent sense. For instance, in Mark 7:8 do we forgive the commandment of God? Or in Matt 27:50 did Jesus forgive the ghost when he seemed to die?

If you go through the New Testament and examine all the places where APHIEMI is used you will see that the most consistent meaning of the word is “to give up, let go, yield or release.”

Now in this light let us retranslate the Biblical term “forgiveness of sins.” A much more accurate translation would be “the letting go or giving up of error.”

The error that Jesus released the people from was guilt. When the scripture speaks of sin as if it was he cause of disease, what was really connected with it was guilt. When forgiveness of sin seemed to be the healing factor what happened was that the person affected saw God as working in Jesus so he saw his words as coming from God. This gave Jesus power to release various people from guilt.

On the other hand, forgiveness by any definition does not release one from effects. The law of cause and effect is binding upon all, even God.

The Aquarian Gospel presents the disciples as wondering about cause and effect as have you.

Chapter 138
THE Lord with Peter, James and John were in Jerusalem; it was the Sabbath day.
2 And as they walked along the way they saw a man who could not see; he had been blind from birth.
3 And Peter said, Lord, if disease and imperfections all are caused by sin, who was the sinner in this case? the parents or the man himself?
4 And Jesus said, Afflictions all are partial payments on a debt, or debts, that have been made.
5 There is a law of recompense that never fails, and it is summarised in that true rule of life:
6 Whatsoever man shall do to any other man some other man will do to him.
7 In this we find the meaning of the Jewish law, expressed concisely in the words, Tooth for a tooth; life for a life.
8 He who shall injure any one in thought, or word, or deed, is judged a debtor to the law, and some one else shall, likewise, injure him in thought, or word or deed.
9 And he who shed the blood of any man will come upon the time when his blood shall be shed by man.
10 Affliction is a prison cell in which a man must stay until he pays his debts unless a master sets him free that he may have a better chance to pay his debts.
11 Affliction is a certain sign that one has debts to pay.
12 Behold this man! Once in another life he was a cruel man, and in a cruel way destroyed the eyes of one, a fellow man.
13 The parents of this man once turned their faces on a blind and helpless man, and drove him from their door.
14 Then Peter asked, Do we pay off the debts of other men when by the Word we heal them, drive the unclean spirits out, or rescue them from any form of sore distress?
15 And Jesus said, We cannot pay the debts of any man, but by the Word we may release a man from his afflictions and distress,
16 And make him free, that he may pay the debts he owes, by giving up his life in willing sacrifice for men, or other living things.
17 Behold, we may make free this man that he may better serve the race and pay his debts.
18 Then Jesus called the man and said, Would you be free? would you receive your sight?
19 The man replied, All that I have would I most freely give if I could see.
20 And Jesus took saliva and a bit of clay and make a salve, and put it on the blind man’s eyes.
21 He spoke the Word and then he said, Go to Siloam and wash, and as you wash say, Jahhevahe. This do for seven times and you shall see.
22 The man was led unto Siloam; he washed his eyes and spoke the word, and instantly his eyes were opened and he saw.

Here we see that the man was healed but still had a debt, but it wasn’t to be paid in kind: “Behold, we may make free this man that he may better serve the race and pay his debts.”

But what happens if we just decide to forgive a debt? Is all neutralized? Take a look at this parable:

Matt 18:23″The Kingdom of Heaven can be compared to a king who decided to bring his accounts up to date. 24In the process, one of his debtors was brought in who owed him $10 million! 25He couldn’t pay, so the king ordered him sold for the debt, also his wife and children and everything he had.
26″But the man fell down before the king, his face in the dust, and said, ‘Oh, sir, be patient with me and I will pay it all.’
27″Then the king was filled with pity for him and released him and forgave his debt.
28″But when the man left the king, he went to a man who owed him $2,000 and grabbed him by the throat and demanded instant payment.
29″The man fell down before him and begged him to give him a little time. ‘Be patient and I will pay it,’ he pled.
30″But his creditor wouldn’t wait. He had the man arrested and jailed until the debt would be paid in full.
31″Then the man’s friends went to the king and told him what had happened. 32And the king called before him the man he had forgiven and said, ‘You evil-hearted wretch! Here I forgave you all that tremendous debt, just because you asked me to 33 shouldn’t you have mercy on others, just as I had mercy on you?’
34″Then the angry king sent the man to the torture chamber until he had paid every last penny due. 35So shall my heavenly Father do to you if you refuse to truly forgive your brothers.” (From the Living Bible)

Notice that after the man had his debt forgiven that he had an opportunity to pay off part of his karma by doing the same thing. But because he refused to cooperate with taking the easy way out he was forced to pay his debt the hard way.

Let us say that a man steals $100 from you and you discover it and confront him. He admits to the crime but says he doesn’t have the money to repay you. You decide to forgive him if he promises to not do it again.

Is the effect of the crime neutralized?

First of all you are still out $100. Your forgiveness did nothing to change that. Secondly, just like the man in the parable, the thief will be given opportunities to forgive others who have wronged him. If he cooperates the debt will be paid the easy way. If he acts contrary to the cause you passed to him with your forgiveness then he will have to pay the hard way. The punishment may not come from your hand but it will come from someone who will carry it out.

Learning our lessons diminishes the effect of karma and allows us to pay it off through serving and helping others rather than undergoing lots of personal pain.

Feb 24, 2014
Questions
Joan asks:
Should we not attempt to understand it (irritation)? Should we not “feel the feelings” and examine what is at the root cause of the irritation– so we don’t repress it and end up producing an even bigger shadow?…Will this help to pay off the “karma of irritation” or am I wasting time? Should I throw away the guilt and try to just “shift my attention”?

JJ
Negative feelings should never be suppressed or denied but must be understood, dealt with and sent to their right place. Denial and suppression gives the negative feelings power to diminish your physical and spiritual energy and can lead to disease.

If someone irritates you then you must learn how to neutralize this negative emotion without injuring yourself.

What I do is to use the Lion Principle. If you get in a cage with a lion he will most likely do you a lot of damage and this could be very irritating. When looking at the caged lion you know he can kill you but you do not get irritated at his behavior. Why.

Because he’s a lion and that is his nature and there is nothing you can do about it. If you do not accept the lion for what he is you could be irritated all the time.

Even so, irritating people are what they are whether they are in our lives or not. If we let them get to us then that is like entering the cage with the lion. Keep your emotional distance and realize that they just are what they are and there is generally nothing you can do to change them.

If I find another person irritating or obnoxious I take the vantage point of the observer so they rarely affect my emotional body no matter what they do. Then I make no effort to include them in my life.

Irritation and guilt are two different things. You can suffer some irritation without having any guilt associated with it. Guilt is cause by the illusion that an outside voice represents God and you are making God unhappy with you.

Ruth:
I am amazed and impressed that JJ types so well, considering he only has one working hand with all the fingers attached.

Or does Artie do the typing?

JJ
If I had to depend on Artie to type for me you wouldn’t be hearing much from me.

I do all my own typing using my one good hand. The biggest disadvantage is I have to look at the keyboard and do not catch mistakes on the screen as I type. My first draft always has a lot of typos.

I’ve tried dictation software in the past but it wasn’t any faster than my typing after I made the adjustments. I haven’t tried the latest version and realize they are improving so maybe the next time I try it my typing speed will increase.

Ruth wants to know if we have to take emotional abuse from our kids or just let them go and find their own way.

When kids become adults the good and bad they get from parents is pretty much ingrained and creating change is difficult at that point. You need to let them go as much as possible. On the other hand, if they need help and you see that you can offer help then as a parent you feel an obligation to do what you can. There is no easy solution to assisting a difficult child.

An interesting point is this. Our children often come as packages to teach us lessons and one of the main things they reflect back to us are things inside ourselves that we suppress or deny.

Let us say, for instance, that you do not stand up for yourself. You may wind up with a child who stands up for herself so much that you find her difficult to manage and dealing with her takes a lot of your attention.

Let us say you are very judgmental toward gays. You may wind up with a kid who is gay etc.

Ruth asks if we have to take emotional abuse from our kids?

Answer: Anyone can dish out emotional abuse and each of us needs to neutralize it whatever the source may be. Family members take the most wisdom here because you just can’t always snap your fingers and get them out of your lives. If you have to deal with negativity the Lion Principle is one good ingredient to use.

If you find that certain people are in your life and causing you grief over a period of time then there is probably a past life connection and a lesson involved where you need to learn to either deal with the situation or master it.

Ruth:
I seem to be going through a really unstable time at the moment, so I try to view this hard time as a karmic lesson for me because of mistakes I made in the past.

JJ
You can’t do anything about the past, but you can make a difference in the present. Seek to know what you can do to improve your situation right now. It would be helpful to visit a counselor or third party with your girls and after both of you give your side to the story see what advice an impartial observer would have.

Feb 26, 2014
Origin of the Book of Mormon

Jason sent me an interesting link on a new study concerning the origin of the Book of Mormon. You can check it out HERE.

The video is over an hour so if you want to read a blog on it go HERE

The guy repeats a lot of what critics in the past have said but then adds a new item of research. Since the Book of Mormon was published in 1830 he decided to run all the published works available before that time (over 130,000) through a computer program and compare it to the book of Mormon and check for similarity of writing mode.

I watched the video and read several articles on this and found several points where he presents reasonable evidence such as anachronisms, like steel, wheels, European animals etc. This point is a good one and has been made many times before.

I don’t see the fact that some phraseology, names etc are similar to other books as giving much weight to the argument against the book. If he were translating a book written in symbolic language then he would have to make the translation using words and phrases that he is familiar with. Since we know he read the Bible then naturally we would expect some similarities there as well as other books he may have read. One can also expect to see some similarities with books that he has not read – just because of natural coincidence.

I can’t find any direct evidence of plagiarism. Real plagiarism involves line by line copying or at least copying close enough that it would be obvious even to believers. Natural similarities occur with all books. You would be surprised at how many people have written me thinking I got my ideas from books that I have never heard of – or that my writing style is similar etc. Then when I check them out I just don’t see what they are talking about.

As far as the Book of Mormon copying mistakes in the Bible goes I will say this, many of the supposed errors are not agreed upon by scholars.

Secondly, the copying of the Bible was not a translation but merely a copying of the Bible because it was close enough. For instance, the scholar Dan Vogle gives evidence that Joseph Smith was out of town when Isaiah was written for the Book of Mormon. He thinks that Oliver just copied it from the Bible and when Joseph returned he merely checked it over.

I have no problem with that. I may have done the same thing if I were translating an actual record with Isaiah in it.

As for New Testament phrases – I have no problem with them. If the phrase fit the thought then why not use it? If I were to translate Plato I would use lots of modern phases that Plato did not have available.

Now it looks like Joseph Smith did lie about polygamy. The evidence is pretty overwhelming. If he deceived about one thing ten the probability of finding deception in another is high.

If the Book of Mormon is a fabrication of a mortal man then it would have had to have been Joseph who authored it. No one else he associated with was capable of it.

If it is a total fabrication written by him then I would consider this to be a greater miracle than the actual story presented. All that he pulled off would be very difficult to do, such as writing a book that fooled millions of people, predicting witnesses to the plates and then manifesting them, and convincing a number of scribes that he was translating from the plates live.

His mother said that he didn’t read as much as the rest of the family, that about all he read was the Bible, yet if the critics are right he must have been extremely well read at the age of 23.

Other books of supernatural origin had a much simpler origin. Books such as the Koran, A Course in Miracles, Urantia and Oaspe were merely channeled from the unseen world. All the author had to do was write the message down and present it to the world as inspired.

The Book of Mormon origin is much more complex and if one of its ingredients is definitely proven false the whole thing falls apart. Here are some.

(1) An angel gives Joseph the golden plates.
(2) 11 witnesses claim to have seen the plates and three of them claim to have been presented the plates by an angel.
(3) Joseph translates or produces the record by looking at a seer stone in a hat and not writing it down himself but dictating it to at least three different scribes. This would be very difficult to do if he were just making it up as he went. Much more difficult than say taking time to write A Course in Miracles.

There are numerous accounts of the witnesses to the plates that are difficult to dismiss. Here are a couple:

I was plowing in the field one morning, and Joseph [Smith] and Oliver [Cowdery] came along with a revelation stating that I was to be one of the witnesses to the Book of Mormon. I got over the fence and we went out into the woods, near by, and sat down on a log and talked awhile … when all at once a light came down from above us and encircled us for quite a little distance around; and the angel stood before us … dressed in white … A table was set before us and on it the records … from which the Book of Mormon was translated … While we were viewing them the voice of God spoke out of heaven saying that the Book was true and the translation correct. ‚ÄîDavid Whitmer, interview, Saints’ Herald, 1882.

In 1847, Hiram Page said: To say my mind was so treacherous that I have forgotten what I saw, to say that a man of Joseph’s ability, who at that time did not know how to pronounce the word Nephi, could write a book of six hundred pages, as correct as the book of Mormon without supernatural power . . . it would be treating the God of heaven with contempt, to deny these testimonies.
Joseph Smith the First Mormon Page 92

Here’s my best guess so far.

Joseph did have some spiritual experiences along with past life memories of life in Ancient America. He translated book through a channeling process connecting with his higher self as well as other entities that may have been assisting him. It is possible that Joseph thought the book was 100% true even though some of it was derived from illusionary thoughtforms and human error. On the other hand, some of the stories are based on actual events gathered from spiritual discernment and past life memories.

Were there really actual ancient gold plates involved or were there plates that existed on etheric levels? That is the big question. He definitely had something physical that were represented to be golden plates. Critics think he manufactured something of his own out of tin.

Hopefully, we can one day learn the outer truth. Whatever the case there are many teachings and examples of right action in the book that speak to the soul and that is why the book is accepted by millions.

More on the Origin of the Book of Mormon
Here is an except from Wikipedia of the pros and cons of the various things in the Book of Mormon that critics deem as out of place.

Old World species
Horses
A tapir – Some Mormon apologists believe that the word “horse” in the Book of Mormon refers to a tapir in order to explain the anachronism.

Horses are mentioned eleven times in the Book of Mormon in the context of its New World setting.[32] There is no evidence that horses existed on the American continent during the 2500-3000 year history of the Book of Mormon (2500 BC – 400 AD) The only evidence of horses on the American continent dates to pre-historic times,[33] (between 12,500 and 10,000 BC.[34]). It is widely accepted that horses were extinct in the Western Hemisphere over 10,000 years ago and did not reappear there until the Spaniards brought them from Europe.[35] Horses were re-introduced to the Americas (Caribbean) by Christopher Columbus in 1493[36] and to the American continent by Cort√©s in 1519.[37][38]
See also: Quaternary extinction event

Mormon apologists argue the following to deal with this supposed anachronism:

Mormon apologist John L. Sorenson at FARMS claims that there is fossil evidence that some New World horses may have survived the Pleistocene‚ÄìHolocene transition,[39] though these findings are disputed by mainstream archaeologists.[40]
Mormon apologist Robert R. Bennett suggests that the word “horse” in the Book of Mormon may have referred to a different animal, such as a tapir.[41]

Elephants
Mastodons existed in the Americas, but are known to have gone extinct by 10,000 B.C.

Elephants are mentioned twice in a single verse in the earliest Book of Mormon record, the Book of Ether.[42] Mastodons and mammoths lived long ago in the New World; however, as with the prehistoric horse, the archaeological record indicates that they became extinct along with most of the megafauna in the New World around 10,000 BC. The source of this extinction is speculated to be the result of human predation, a significant climate change, or a combination of both factors.[43][44] A very small population of mammoths survived on St. Paul Island, Alaska, up until 3700 BC,[45] but is still several thousand years before the time period where “elephants” are mentioned in the Book of Mormon.
See also: Quaternary extinction event

Apologists deal with the “elephant” in much the same way as they treat the “horse” anachronism; countering with the following arguments:

Various amateur archaeologists and LDS authors have cited controversial evidence that North American mound builder cultures were familiar with the elephant.[46] This evidence has long been a topic of debate with most archaeologists concluding that the elephantine remains were improperly dated, misidentified, or openly fraudulent.[47]

Cattle and cows
Llamas are the only large mammal known to have been domesticated in the Americas.

There are six references to cattle made in the Book of Mormon, including verbiage suggesting they were domesticated.[48] While the Book of Mormon may follow the common Biblical precedent of referring to all domesticated animals as cattle,[49] there is no evidence that Old World cattle (members of the genus Bos) inhabited the New World prior to European contact in the 16th century AD. Further, there is currently no archeological evidence of American bison having been domesticated.[50] It is widely accepted that the only large mammal to be domesticated in the Americas was the llama and that no species of goats, deer, or sheep were domesticated before the arrival of the Europeans to the continent.