Keys Writings 2013, Part 10

This entry is part 10 of 25 in the series 2013

April 2, 2013

Octaves

Thanks for your comments Larry. You’ve included a lot of food for thought. I’ll just make a few comments on octaves.

Most are familiar with an octave in music. There are seven notes in the scale and when one repeats on the higher or lower frequency then it is said to be a higher or lower octave. The higher octave is generally twice the frequency of the lower. This similar vibration, which is doubled, causes a similar resonance.

The symbol of the octave can be used correctly in many circumstances where the Law of Correspondences is at play. It is most appropriately used where the Law of Cycles is being examined. The cycles of history are a good example. For instance, in the past cycles slavery of other humans was the norm rather than the exception. The first known example of major emancipation was the Israelites under Moses who escaped from Egypt. But even after this event slavery was still very prevalent. The Israelites were mainly concerned that they be free and were not concerned about other nations.

The next cycle was initiated by Jesus who taught the freedom of the human spirit, even if it was threatened by imprisonment and death. Next came the great American Civil war led by Abraham Lincoln. This not only led to freedom of the slaves in the United States but emancipation of other enslaved peoples throughout the world. One of the greatest benefits was the increased sensitivity of the entire human race on this issue. Each new cycle illustrates the Law of Correspondences manifesting on what could be called a higher octave of slavery consciousness.

What’s next?

People are slaves today and do not realize it. We are slaves to big government, high taxes and lots of beastly authorities barking orders to us. In this next cycle or octave the enlightened will free themselves from such things. How this will manifest will be interesting.

The octave is thus fitting to use in connection with the Law of Cycles. On the other hand, it doesn’t fit so well where an entirely new creation is manifest. For instance, someday a universe of eight will manifest and it will be so different that looking at it as a higher octave would not shed any light. There are repetitions of creations in this universe though where it could apply. For instance, this earth is a higher octave or note of a previous one that existed billions of years ago as you are a higher octave or note of one of your past lives. On the other hand, the kingdoms are so different that the octave concept does not apply well. Is a dog a higher octave of a cactus? They are two separate creations composed of very different chords, notes and rays.

However, there is much light to be gained from studying the octave principle along with sympathetic resonance and vibration as a whole.

 

April 3, 2013

Housing Bubble            

The Left keeps saying that they had nothing to do with the housing bubble by pushing bad loans that caused the crash in 2008. Now they are pushing bad loans again and if another crash occurs I am sure they will deny responsibility again. Check this out.

Obama administration pushes banks to make home loans to people with weaker credit. Link

 

 

April 5, 2013

Re: Housing Bubble

Nathan writes: I see that, but how you and JJ go from there to it all being the fault of the left still makes no sense to me.

JJ There is not getting around the fact that it was the Left who pushed unqualified loans to the poor and minorities. Bush also went further than he should have encouraging low qualified loans but even he thought it was going too far and tried to put the breaks on, but was overridden by the Democrats. After the bankers were forced into accumulating a lot of questionable paper they decided to get rid of it by bundling it and selling them to investors. These shenanigans led to the housing collapse which led to the economic collapse.

Now it looks like the Democrats have not learned their lesson for Obama is pushing for these bad loans to be made all over again. I don’t see any Republicans, conservatives or libertarians supporting such nonsense.

I merely put the blame where the blame deserves to be.

 

April 5, 2013

Re: Housing Bubble            

Good comments Larry. What many do not take into consideration is that every entity whether it be a human or business will work in the direction of self interest. Whenever there is a financial problem many point to businesses and accuse them of being greedy as if they used to be good guys but they recently turned into monsters. This, of course, is silly. They always work in the direction of self interest.

When there is a problem we should not look at the greed, because there is always greed which is consistent. Instead, we need to look at what has changed that could have created the problem. What changed to create the financial meltdown was the easy credit forced by the government which created bad loans that were passed on to trusting investors.

Greed and self interest does not change. Government policies do and they are usually the source of our problems – and once in a blue moon our solutions.

Some think the real estate agents are partially to blame for setting high prices but I was in real estate and the agent usually winds up being the one fighting for the lower price so he can make a sale. The scenario often goes something like this.

Owner: I see the neighbor has his home for sale for $300,000. If his is worth that much then mine is worth $400,000

Agent: But you’ll notice that the neighbors house has been on the market for a couple months and has not sold. The reason is that it is overpriced. Here is a price comparison I have done for you giving you three nearby homes that have actually sold. Based on this research a good selling price for you would be $280,000.

Owner: But I need more than that. I think it’s worth a least $320,000

Agent: What you need doesn’t sell the house. What sells it is a competitive price.

Owner: I’m going to check out another agent.

Agent: Fine, but if he lists it for $320,000 the chances of a sale are low. Can you afford to have it on the market for three months for $320,000 and then still wind up selling it for $280,000?

Owner: That would be tough. Okay, if you are sure then we’ll list with you for $280,000.

You say: If you give this degree of power to government then people in government will find ways to abuse that power, no matter how carefully you try to watch them.

This reminds me of a scripture: D&C 121:39 We have learned by sad experience that it is the nature and disposition of almost all men, as soon as they get a little authority, as they suppose, they will immediately begin to exercise unrighteous dominion. D&C 121:40 Hence many are called, but few are chosen.

(Comment on a post) Being a former real estate agent if I had realized during the first part of the bubble how easy the financing had become I would have jumped in and taken advantage of the madness myself and would be a lot better off financially than I an now – that’s for sure. The agents certainly had an easy life for a while and if you think any of them refused the easy financing on some strange moral ground – think again.

 

April 6, 2013

A question of Jesus predictions?            

Tom writes: JJ, once said that some of Jesus predictions of the future were wrong like other masters the future is depended on free will. Can you point to the past archives about this so that I may read them.

Here is one reference: Let me tell you a prophecy that Jesus made that did not come true. Do you remember that Jesus was talking about the temple and He said that there would not be one stone left upon another in the temple. Did that come true? Have you ever heard of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem? That is a piece of the temple where there is still one stone upon another. There are seven layers above ground and 17 below ground that been intact since the days of Jesus. So even that prophecy spoken by the Master Himself did not come 100% true. Interesting, is it not?

So this is the secret about prophecy that there is no person on the earth and not even God, no life form anywhere can predict everything that is going to happen. Now all the believers will say that is wrong, If I snap my fingers then they are saying that God knew a million years ago that I was going to do this at this time. Well the big question I have is why in the world would God even want to know that? Why would He want fill His universal mind with such clutter and trivial detail? Who would want to fill their mind with such clutter? https://freeread.com/archives/3637

Here was the prophecy made by Jesus: “And Jesus went out, and departed from the temple: and his disciples came to him for to shew him the buildings of the temple. And Jesus said unto them, See ye not all these things? verily I say unto you, There shall not be left here one stone upon another, that shall not be thrown down.” Matt 24:1-2

Note that the prediction refers to the “buildings of the temple.” There are a number of these buildings that still have one stone upon another.

My point was that no one, not even God can predict every detail that will happen in the future. The temple was destroyed in 70AD and Jesus’ prediction of the destruction of the temple did come true, just not 100% literally.

Here’s another one: “And this gospel of the kingdom shall be preached in all the world for a witness unto all nations; and then shall the end come.” Matt 24:14

Christianity has been preached in all the nations of the earth and the end still hasn’t come.

The account of Jesus was written after the fact and if Jesus did give any obviously questionable predictions the faithful followers probably wouldn’t have included them.

The point is that no human being in the flesh is infallible especially in the prediction department. This is why I give predictions very sparingly. Most psychics are only 10% accurate and the best of the prophets are lucky to be at 50%. Even DK was about 50% accurate.

Seeing some fallibility in the great teachers should in no way diminish their value. Only a representative of the beast will demand 100% belief that they are without error.

Here’s some information on the Wailing Wall:

Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives The view of old Jerusalem from the Mount of Olives where Jesus would give his teaching in Matthew 24 was beautiful. There is no other place in Jerusalem to view the city like this. The Mount of Olives is to the East of the present Golden Gates. In the days of Jesus and the Apostles a person would look West to view the beloved city. There could be seen the rectangular walls made of large stones perfectly laid one upon another. The walls of the city enclose the Temple, several buildings, many homes, and the tower of Antonia. Around the Temple there are other walls known today as the Haram esh-Sharif (the Noble Enclosure). The stones of the lower courses in those walls are “STILL” in their exact positions as they were in the days of Jesus. They are STILL one on top of the other and do not appear to have been moved from their original alignments. These lower stones are clearly from the era of Herod’s temple, and in some places on the eastern side the large stones were laid by someone before Herod’s remodel job, perhaps by Nehemiah. It is now known from excavations and archaeological digs that there are more hundreds of these stones still in the SAME place as they were in the time of Herod and Jesus. Did the prophecy of Jesus fail? What then is the interpretation of this?

While the Jewish Department of Antiquity has allowed archaeological research in this area they have not made public the number of these stones still one on top of the other. Part of the problem is that prior to Jerusalem being destroyed, the Romans build dirt ramparts along the side of the walls in an effort to bring their battering rams closer to beat against them. These mounds of dirt covered up a number of courses of the stones that were visible when Jesus made his prophecy. On the inside of the walls, debris from the burned out structures and dirt also piled up and many of the lower concourses escaped being thrown down at that time. With extensive excavations this dirt and debris has been removed and now for the first time in nearly 2000 years most of these stones are now exposed and visible ready for judgment. At the site of the Western Wall (called the “Wailing Wall”) there are seven ancient courses that can be seen. There are about 450 original Herodian stones still there one on top of the other. In addition to this, there are eight more courses of these original stones underneath the ground. The bottom of these reach down to the actual ground level in the time of Jesus. While we cannot count the next stones in the prophecy of Jesus, there are yet nine more courses of foundation stones beneath these. If just one part of the “Wailing Wall” could be laid bare, we would be able to count nearly 1,250 stones still right on top of each other right where they were in the days of Jesus (Meir Ben-Dov, Mordechai Naor, Zeev Aner, “The Western Wall,” pp.61, 215). http://www.jesus-messiah.com/prophecy/not-one-stone.html

Then there was the question that the word should be translated building singular rather than “buildings.”

In the context in which the word was used it has been pretty much unanimously agreed that the translation is “buildings.’ Even the Concordant translation renders it buildings, plural. Here are numerous other translations:

 

JJ

 

April 7, 2013

Fair Warning

The “will” is accurate unless some major change occurs.

Without a major change, and if we are lucky, we could survive economically longer than the critics estimate. We could go until 2025.

However more stupid policies, such as more easy mortgage credit promoted by Obama, or more stimulus could bring the date much closer. A more likely thing to cause us problems is some perfect financial storm or an international crises. For instance, some are predicting that North Korea will strike on Wednesday. This alone could cause some type of meltdown.

There are so many variables that I do not think the Masters can predict the details but the casual observer knows that at least a partial meltdown most likely is on the horizon.

 

April 8, 2013

Re: JJ, a question of Jesus predictions?            

The writer Earnest Martin that you referenced makes an interesting case for the Wailing Wall not being the location of the temple but instead the temple was built around Gihon Spring some distance away on the southeast ridge of Jerusalem.

It would be interesting if this were true for, if accepted by the Jews, it would open the door to them building the third temple on real estate that is presently accessible to them without disturbing the sacred Muslim shrine – The Dome of the Rock.

It would also give more credibility to the prediction of Jesus that not one stone would be left upon another for the temple buildings.

On the other hand, Martin is far from putting the controversy to rest.

Here are a couple articles countering Martin:

Link 1

Link 2

Part of Martin’s argument for the Gihon Spring location is that it was the only source of water for the temple but new archeological evidence proves otherwise. Here is the headline:

Cistern dated to First Temple period found in Jerusalem “Discovery of large man-made reservoir next to the Temple Mount shows city did not solely rely on the Gihon Spring for its water 2,500 years ago. Link

Archaelogist, Leen Ritmeyer believes he made a positive identification of the original wall footings, carved in the bedrock of Es Sakhra (“the Rock” in Arabic). He shows that these cleared areas correspond to the precise dimensions of the walls enclosing the Holy of Holies. Then, in the exact center of this supposed enclosure,

Precisely in the center of the Holy of Holies as laid out by Ritmeyer, is a rectangular cutout in the bedrock measuring 4 ft 4 in x 2 ft 7 in. Based on his measurement of the Biblical “cubit,” Ritmeyer suggests the Ark was exactly this size. Thus, according to Ritmeyer, the Ark once sat at the exact center of the Holy of Holies in this very indentation on es-Sakhra beneath the Dome of the Rock!

Here is his book on Amazon:

Now back to my original point.

Our faith should not rely on the infallibility of any person of flesh and blood, even Jesus. If it becomes necessary for our teachers to become infallible then we will either be disappointed or go into denial and throw up a wall between ourselves and the truth.

If Jesus was literally correct about the prediction about the temple fine and if not that is fine too. The principles he taught speak to the soul and that is the important thing.

 

April 13, 2013

Black Holes            

This is a great video about discoveries of the black hole at the center of our galaxy.

 

Apr 15, 2013

Peace and Freedom

(Response to a reader who thinks we start ward for the sake of peace) Peace and freedom are not the same thing. You can have quite a bit of freedom in the midst of turbulence and no freedom where there is peace as in North Korea. The people are not allowed to not be at peace with everything imposed upon them.

If you think you are right then give me a quote from someone who started a war to obtain peace, What’s that I hear?

Silence.

You must not have studied history. Many wars were started merely to obtain greater power. Hitler’s peace was not threatened by the Jews, England or anyone else. Saddam invaded Kuwait when they were no threat to his peace and Argentina invaded the Falklands merely for the sake of power. They in no way threatened him. I have never heard of anyone starting a war to obtain peace and neither have you except in your fertile imagination.

 

April 16, 2013

The Goal of Peace            

Dean: Very unlikely I would be silent about something I know is true.

JJ Then why were you completely silent on supplying a quote that I requested?

You seem to have forgotten what the argument is. I said that people do not start wars for the sake of peace because wars take away peace. But when a war is started then people seek peace.

You disagree with this obvious truth for some strange reason and you have not been able to give any evidence that I am not correct – yet you continue.

Keeping this in mind let us look at your quotes:

(1) “The ultimate goal of a just war is to re-establish peace. More specifically, the peace established after the war must be preferable to the peace that would have prevailed if the war had not been fought. ” that quote in particular comes from a document at Mount Holyoke College. http://wr.victas.uca.org.au/

JJ Did someone at Holyoke start a war???? I don’t think so. Why did you give me this?

By the way I can’t even find this quote on the site you referenced.

Actually the quote is correct. As I said as part of my argument the goal of a war in progress is to have a peaceful end, but that is not the argument. I said that a war is not started for to obtain peace because a war takes away peace, duh.

Dean I’ll give you a quote from one of the dumbest leaders on the planet. So you definitely know that anyone could say it……

JJ And if Bush is smarter than you, what does that say about you? At least he has a degrees from Yale and Harvard.

Dean: Lets look at what George W Bush has said.

“I just want you to know that, when we talk about war, we’re really talking about peace”- George W. Bush

JJ He was making my point not yours. When you’re in a war, as he was involved in the War with Afghanistan when he made the statement June of 2002 then the goal is peace. But you don’t go to war for peace. The war was started by Osama Ben Laden and he didn’t start it for the sake of peace. He wanted to take away peace.

Dean: For starters I don’t agree that north Korea is in peace. They are threatening other countries like the US with nuclear war.

JJ I thought it was extremely obvious I was talking about peace IN North Korea, and not their relations with other nations. The strong authority creates peace – not a good peace but a people who do not cause any problem or disturb the peace within the country. The same goes for Cuba. The people are very tranquil. True, it’s not a desirable situation and not the peace of the soul but tranquil and peaceful nevertheless.

Dean Secondly, Peace is generally based on well being and happiness.

JJ You’re thinking of inner peace. Many people who commit suicide live in situations where there is outer peace and that is the subject at hand. Can you please argue with what I say and not what I neither say, believe or think?

 

April 16, 2013

Women and Mind

Nathan: Okay, so this whole time you’ve been demeaning women saying that they operate emotionally and that men operate mentally, yet here you cite an article that claims the complete opposite–that women are basically outshining men mentally. Which is it Larry?

JJ Why is it demeaning to say that women are polarized in the emotional nature? Are emotions a bad thing in your mind? I certainly am glad to have them. Using your logic it would also be a bad thing to say men are polarized in he mental.

Women doing better in school school has nothing to do with mental or emotional polarization. Many very emotional people are very good students because they study rather than daydream all the time among other reasons.

An emotionally polarized person uses his brain just as much as the mental, but using your computer brain does not a metal polarization make. It is determined by how decisions are actually made rather than test scores.

 

Copyright by J J Dewey 2013

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

Keys Writings 2013, Part 9

This entry is part 9 of 25 in the series 2013

The Thinker Examines Sin and Salvation

Thinker: So, what is your thinking on the atonement of Christ?

True Believer: I believe he died for my sins and through the shedding of his blood I am saved.

 

Thinker: And what have you done to be saved?

True Believer: I believe on Him and accept the gift he has given me.

 

Thinker: And what are you saved from?

True Believer: My sins.

 

Thinker: All your sins or part of them?

True Believer: All of them, of course.

 

Thinker: Are you saved now?

True Believer: Yes, I’m saved through the blood of Jesus.

 

Thinker: Does this mean that your past sins will be as if they never happened?

True Believer: Yes.

 

Thinker: Theft is a sin, is it not?

True Believer: Yes. The scripture says, “Thou shalt not steal.”

 

Thinker: Let us suppose that before you were saved you robbed a guy on the street of his money that was going to pay for an operation to save his daughter’s life. Without the money the kid dies but shortly thereafter you find Jesus and get saved. Is the kid still dead?

True Believer: Of course.

 

Thinker: So, even though you are now saved, your sin still has a terrible effect and the father hates your guts. Sounds like your sin still has an effect even though you accept Jesus.

True Believer: Well, I suppose our sins have a residual effect in this world, but when we accept the atonement we have a clean slate in God’s eyes for the next world.

 

Thinker: So, even though you are saved your sins have an effect in this world but none in the next.

True Believer: Yes.

 

Thinker: Let us suppose that the sick girl was not saved when she died but was on the verge of it and would have found Jesus if she had lived. Because of your sin then she goes to hell instead of heaven. Does that sound like your sin will have no effect in the next world?

True Believer: There’s no way to tell if she would have been saved.

 

Thinker: We do know that a lot of kids do eventually accept Christ.  That is a fact and in our example we are talking about one of these. Now, let us place ourselves in the kid’s position after death. There she is suffering in hell with the realization that she was going to turn her life around if she had lived, but this didn’t happen because of you. She curses your name even as you are enjoying bliss with Jesus. Does that sound like your sin has no effect in the next world?

True Believer: God will take away the memory of my sins so I will not be affected by anyone in hell.

 

Thinker: Where does it say that in the Bible?

True Believer: I’m not sure.  It’s in there somewhere.

 

Thinker: Wrong.  It’s not in there. And even if this strange idea were true it would be pretty cold hearted to ignore the eternal suffering of a child, by blotting out the memory, when that suffering was your fault. Don’t you agree?

True Believer: God’s ways are not man’s ways.  If we could understand God then it would all make sense.  We can’t use the reasoning of this world.

 

Thinker: But it sounds like you are using the reasoning from your mind in this world to make sense of the atonement.  What makes you think that reasoning from your thinking in this world is correct?

True Believer: That’s what faith is all about.

 

Thinker: So your faith is based on the reasoning of this world?

True Believer: You’re twisting things. My faith is based on the Bible, the Word of God.

 

Thinker: And what makes you think you understand it since you have to use your worldly mind to read it?

True Believer: The Bible is clear.  I just accept what it says.

 

Thinker: Let’s see if you accept this:

Gal 6:4 But let every man prove his own work, and then shall he have rejoicing in himself alone, and not in another.

Gal 6:5 For every man shall bear his own burden.

Gal 6:6 Let him that is taught in the word communicate unto him that teacheth in all good things.

Gal 6:7 Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.

 

Would you read verse five for me?

 

True Believer: “For every man shall bear his own burden.”

 

Thinker: Does that sound like Jesus is going to negate the effects of our mistakes or sins?

True Believer: You’re taking things out of context.

 

Thinker: But the context continues in verse seven. Read that.

True Believer: “Be not deceived; God is not mocked: for whatsoever a man soweth, that shall he also reap.”

 

Thinker: So, even though you have found Jesus this does not negate the fact that you robbed a guy and caused his daughter to die and go to hell. What do you suppose this will cause you to reap?

True Believer: I will reap heaven because I am saved.

 

Thinker: Not so fast.  Read Revelations 14:13

True Believer: “And I heard a voice from heaven saying unto me, Write, Blessed are the dead which die in the Lord from henceforth: Yea, saith the Spirit, that they may rest from their labours; and their works do follow them.”

 

 

Thinker: So, even though you now accept Jesus and are righteous what happens to your works?

True Believer: (He doesn’t want to answer.)

 

Thinker: Since you won’t say it, I will.  It says “their works do follow them.” It is clear here that it is speaking of our works following us into the next world. Concerning our debts, Jesus said something interesting. He stated that those who are cast into prison “shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.” Matt 5:26

 

So let us sum these scriptures up.  They tell us that we will bear our own burdens, that we reap what we have sown, that our works follow us to the next world, and finally we have to pay our debts to the “uttermost farthing.” That doesn’t sound like a simple belief in Jesus is going to instantly undue all the damage created by the robber who cost the girl her life, does it?

True Believer: But the scriptures clearly say we are saved by the blood of Jesus. How do you explain that?

 

Thinker: One of the problems with the scriptures is that those who prize them greatly often misinterpret them the most. A prime example, from the Christian viewpoint, is the ancient Jews belief in the Messiah. From diligently reading the scriptures they thought he was going to come as a conquering hero, destroy the wicked and restore the kingdom to Israel. Did that happen?

True Believer: No.

 

Thinker: Correct. They missed reality by miles. He had no army, he said to love our enemies and his kingdom was not of this world. Yet you can’t blame them because when you read the Old Testament it does sound like they could have been right. Have you ever considered that you may also have wrong interpretations of the scriptures?

True Believer: No, because I interpret them just the way they are written.

 

Thinker: And so did the Jews who were looking for a conquering Messiah – and so do the hundreds of religions who disagree with you. They all think they are interpreting the scriptures just the way they read, but obviously they are not all correct. Would you agree?

True Believer: Some people just read things into them that are not there.

 

Thinker: Well, let us see what is there. Since you give much eight to the scriptures that tell us that we are saved from sin through the sacrifice of Christ let us examine those words. The word “sin” in the New Testament comes from the Greek word HAMARTANO which means “to miss the mark.” In other words, when the Greeks, 2000 years ago, shot at a target with an arrow and missed they “sinned” (HAMARTANO) or missed the target. Another way to phrase this would be to say that to sin is to make an error in their aim or judgment. Would you agree?

True Believer: I suppose.

 

Thinker: The word “saved” comes from SOZO which is “to save or deliver.” The similar word “salvation” comes from SOTERIA which is more correctly rendered “deliverance” or “rescue.” Therefore, when the prophets wrote of being saved from sin they were literally saying they were delivered from error. So what did Jesus do to save the people from error?

 

True Believer: I’m not sure what you are getting at,

 

Thinker: Let us look at the actual words of Jesus.  He said to his disciples, “Now ye are clean through the word which I have spoken unto you.” John 15:3

 

Notice that this was spoken before his sacrifice of the cross.  He didn’t speak of blood saving them from sin but something else.  What was it?

True Believer: His word.

 

Thinker: Good. In other words, that which delivered the people from error was the words of Jesus.  He also said, “It is the spirit that quickeneth; the flesh profiteth nothing: the words that I speak unto you, they are spirit, and they are life.” John 6:63

So what did he say his words were?

True Believer: Spirit and life.

 

Thinker: Here’s another powerful scripture giving light on the words of Jesus: “Verily, verily, I say unto you, He that heareth my word, and believeth on him that sent me, hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation; but is passed from death unto life.” John 5:24

So, his word can lead to what?

 

True Believer: Everlasting life.

 

Thinker: Notice that he taught this salvation before he shed any blood. Now let us read the advice of James.  He advised us to “receive with meekness the engrafted word, which is able to save your souls. But be ye doers of the word, and not hearers only, deceiving your own selves.” James 1:21-22

So, what is it that can save our souls?

True Believer: The word.

 

Thinker: Yes, Jesus’ words were so powerful he was referred to as the “Word of God.” Now we see that when he saves us from sin he really delivers us from error.  How did he deliver people from error when he was alive?

True Believer: I see what you are getting at.  You want me to say his word.

 

Thinker: That’s what the Bible you believe in says and it is quite a simple principle. When we error we can be corrected through words that set us on the right course.  For instance, the people sinned or erred in thinking that they should hate their enemies but the words of Jesus corrected or saved them.  He told them to love their enemies and do good to those who despise them.

 

What error did the sacrifice on the cross correct?

True Believer: I’m not sure.

 

Thinker: Again, the answer is quite simple. People had very limited ideas of how far we should go in showing love and forgiveness. Jesus not only forgave those who crucified him but volunteering for the great sacrifice was an unheard of act of love that saved or delivered the people from their wrong thinking. One could say that the shedding of his blood saved many from their errors. Because of him many take the principle of love to a much higher level than before.

True Believer: Wow, you are really twisting the scriptures.

 

Thinker: No, I’m following in the footsteps of Jesus and attempting to save you from your sins by the power of the word. In other words these teachings have power to deliver you from your errors of judgment and wrong interpretation.

 

“Sanctify them through thy truth: thy word is truth.” John 17:17

Copyright by J J Dewey 2013

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2013, Part 8

This entry is part 8 of 25 in the series 2013

March 20, 2013

Aquaponics 

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

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

Benefits of aquaponics?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Here is a site that sells various systems.

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

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

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

 

March 22, 2013

More Threats to Freedom Part 2 

This continues my treatise.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Read the story here and watch the video.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

March 22, 2013

Re: The freedom of belief 

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

There are two things at play that you are overlooking.

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

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

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

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

 

March 23, 2013

Intelligent Design Questions 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

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

 

March 23, 2013

Re: The Freedom of Belief

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

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

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

What is the difference?

Nothing.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

March 24, 2013

Thinking Makes It So

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

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

Guildenstern: Prison, my lord?

Hamlet: Denmark’s a prison.

Rosencrantz: Then is the world one.

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

Rosencrantz: We think not so, my lord.

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

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

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

 

March 25, 2013

Was Jesus Wrong?

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

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

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

Your post quoted from Mark as follows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

March 26, 2013

Re: Thinking Makes It So 

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

March 26, 2013

Good Grief 

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

 

March 29, 2013

Re: Pregnancy (or not) & Intention 

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

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

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

There are two problems with this.

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

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

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

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

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

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

Good luck.

 

March 30, 2013

Interesting Articles 

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

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

Twenty-year hiatus in rising temperatures has climate scientists puzzled

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

Keys Writings 2013, Part 7

This entry is part 7 of 25 in the series 2013

March 9, 2013

Root of Fear

Tom asks: A lot of born again and regular Christians believe that through God they will never have fear again hardly….or rarely. JJ, have you ever been scared before since becoming an initiate at the current level you are at?

Can high disciples still get scared and why?

JJ All lives will have fear at one time or another, even God. After all, we are in the image of God as well as one with God. Therefore our fears are a part of the life of God.

DK wrote that “Fear has its roots in the warp and woof of matter itself.” Since the matter of the universe is the physical body of God this means that God Itself has fear woven in the fabric of his body.

Joseph Smith made this interesting statement; “What did Jesus do? Why I do the things I saw my Father do when worlds came rolling into existence. My Father worked out his kingdom with fear and trembling, and I must do the same; and when I get my kingdom, I shall present it to my Father, so that he may obtain kingdom upon kingdom, and it will exalt him in glory. He will then take a HIGHER EXALTATION, and I will take his place, and thereby become exalted myself.” TEACHINGS OF THE PROPHET JOSEPH SMITH; Pages 347-8

The apostle Paul said: Wherefore, my beloved, as ye have always obeyed, not as in my presence only, but now much more in my absence, work out your own salvation with fear and trembling. Phil 2:12

The main thing that causes fear is an approach to the unknown with the possibility of loss. If you are in a battle for your life there is a possibility of loss and the outcome is unknown.

When God created he universe he did not know of all the problems he would encounter and this fear became embedded in the fabric of the universe.

Here’s an article I wrote on the subject that should give some additional light.

Reader: “Fear is fear because it is related to illusionary beliefs.

JJ: Where do you get the idea that fear is based on illusionary beliefs? Are we to accept this just because you or someone else says so?

Saul: “If it were not based on illusionary beliefs what would it be based on? Truth, true belief or true knowledge?”

JJ: I may be the first to tell you this but yes, fear is based on truth. How one reacts to truth perceived determines the fear.

Let me give an example. Let us suppose that you are living a very positive life and the thought of any type of fear is the farthest thing from your mind as you are enjoying a ride in the country with your wife and kids. As you descend down a mountainous range, you feel quite secure for you have traveled it many times; but this time is different. This time your brakes go out. You press the pedal several times and nothing happens as you speed around corners barely managing to evade running off the edge, which would surely end the lives of you and your family. Because you have traveled this road many times, you know things will only get worse because the incline just increases. You make a calculation that tells you that the chances are very great that you and your family are going to be greatly injured or die.

This “truth” brings numerous fears to your mind.

As we said previously, fear always involves a loss of some type and the possible loss here is very real. The fears in this situation revolve around the following losses:

(1) Loss of your own life (2) Loss of your family’s lives. (3) Loss of opportunity for your kids to grow up and face the challenges of life. (4) Loss of an earthly relationship with your family.

Numerous other losses could be cited here but the point is that all theses fears, revolving around loss, are based on a very probable truth.

Now even if a miracle happens, and you regain control, this does not mean your fear was based on illusion. At the time that you were descending without brakes, it was indeed true that you had a high probability of disaster. The only thing that averted it was the fact that your fear did not let you accept such a fate and you did all in your power to change the future.

Even a fear within a dream is based on truth. I used to dream on a regular basis of this grotesque monster in various forms that chased me. It often pursued me for some time and often caught me at some dead end and, as it approached me, I experienced great fear and usually woke up about that point.

Now one may object here and say “That was just a dream and not reality so your fear there was based on illusion.”

Not so my friend for it is indeed true that I was having a dream and that within the dream I was perceiving a monster and there was a real possibility of loss.

What were the possible losses involved?

(1) I was enjoying most of the dream and the monster threatened the loss of an enjoyable dream experience that I wanted to savor.

(2) Loss of sleep. I didn’t want to wake up and have to struggle getting back to sleep.

Then one night when I was having the dream something different happened. The monster had me cornered and there was no place to run. I was to either die within the dream, never a pleasant experience, or figure a way out. I looked up at the monster and he was ferocious indeed. He was about twenty feet tall and mean as hell and appeared ready to devour me in about three seconds.

As I contemplated, the thought of fighting back occurred to me for the first time. But I had difficulty in accepting it, for the monster looked a hundred times stronger than me. When I realized that I was faced with the choice of fighting or doing nothing, I decided to go out fighting and I attacked the monster. To my surprise I saw fear in the monsters eyes when I attacked. This gave me courage and I continued and when I pressed forward I discovered to my joy that I was much stronger than the monster. I then proceeded to give him a good beating and finally picked him up with super human strength and threw him off into oblivion.

Just as the monster caused a fear in the dream state, just as real as a fear in the awake state, even so did I feel a joy at overcoming the monster that was just as real as anything while awake. In fact I felt great for about three days after the dream.

The reason I talk here about truth within dreams, is that I’m sure you are going to tell us that life in these dualities is not real, therefore, all fear is based on perception within the dualities which are not real.

Whereas the real truth is that whether we be in the illusion of physical duality, or a dream state, it is indeed true that our consciousness is there and the perceptions we have there create a real experience. Even though the monster did not exist in this higher reality, the experience of the monster was real and this made the fear real.

If you lose your brakes going down a steep incline, it does little good to tell yourself, “this is not the true reality.” It is a true reality that you are in the experience and if you do not make the best of it you will suffer loss.

Listen to what a Master of Wisdom has to say about fear: “You ask: What are the basic causes of fear? To that question, if carried far enough back into the esoteric history of the solar system, there is no intelligible answer to be given. Only the advanced initiate can comprehend. Fear has its roots in the warp and woof of matter itself, and is par excellence, a formulation or effect of the mind principle, and a result of mental activity. The fact that birds and animals know fear puts the whole subject upon a wider footing than if it were simply a human failing and the result of the activity of the functioning of the human mind. It is not incident upon a man’s possessing a reasoning mind; if he used his reason in the correct way, he could eliminate fear. It lies in what is called “cosmic Evil”, a high sounding phrase conveying little. It is inherent in the fact of matter itself and in the play of the pairs of opposites-soul and matter.” Djwahl Khul

In harmony with this Joseph Smith made the interesting statement that “God created the worlds with fear and trembling.” This would explain why “fear has its roots in the warp and woof of matter itself.”

Now some have said that all fear is caused by a lack of love, but such is not the case. In the example of the fear generated by the failing brakes, the intensity of it was increased because of love for wife and children.

Fear is overcome through using the mind to calculate the best possible moves to eliminate the perceived future loss. For instance, in my dream I mentally calculated that the only possible way out was to fight and this eliminated the fear. I did not overcome the fear of the monster by loving it, but by defeating it.

It is true that many have fears that are not justified because of wrong perception. For instance, one may fear that his spouse is cheating on him because of misperception or a wild imagination, but when he has attained correct use of the mind, then his perception will be accurate. When perception and calculation are accurate then fear will be based on the real as in the example of the loss of the brakes.

This portrayal of fear by many teachers of the day, as a thing held only by the deluded, the unloving, the unevolved or the ignorant, has led many into great illusion. Because many seekers have swallowed this pleasant sounding doctrine without processing it through the mind they enter into a world of deception and denial.

When a fear surfaces, instead of facing and defeating it, they generate a “fear of fear” and they will think something like this:

“This fear is not real so I can not be experiencing it. Only the lesser evolved and the unloving have fear and since I am evolved and loving I cannot be experiencing it. Therefore, I deny this fear.”

Thus the seeker deceives himself rather than facing the fear and transcending it. That fear which is denied or suppressed does not go away. Instead it foments and grows and when it resurfaces it will loom greater than it was at the moment of burial.

The Now is the time to face and overcome and join in the company of the Great Ones.

Copyright 2000 by J.J. Dewey, All Rights Reserved https://freeread.com/archives/987.html

 

March 12, 2013

DK on The Avatar of Synthesis   Link

 

 

March 12, 2013

The Great Unifier

I’ve been contemplating the principle “like attracts like” and have arrived at some additional insights. The interesting aspect of this principle is that no two people are alike. Since this is true then the question to ask when we see two people or groups attracted to each other is this. What is that which is similar which forms the basis of attraction and what is the primary ingredient that causes attraction?

With two individuals who fall in love we might say the ingredient is love. It is difficult to not be attracted to a person who truly loves and admires you. On the other hand, when the freshness of the falling in love is replaced by the difficulties of living life together then something else must come into play if the attraction is to remain. It helps if the couple has similar interests and desires, but what is the core principle of a lasting relationship.

How about friends? They do not fall in love, but fall in like. What makes a friendship last a lifetime?

How about nations and national leaders? What causes one nation to be drawn to and support another?

To understand it helps to look at the friends and enemies of Hugo Chaves who recently passed.

Who did he hate the most? In particular he hated the United States. Who did he like? He liked Cuba and Iran along with their leaders Castro and Ahmadinejad. What did they have in common? Was it religion?

Not really. Ahmadinejad sees Christians as infidels that must be subjugated and Chavez is a Roman Catholic who often spoke of Christ as his savior. Then Castro is a non believer who rules with a secular/atheistic form of communism. Religion has been very restricted and controlled during most of his rule.

If religion is the grand unifier then you would think that Chavez would be pals with the United States since all presidents have been Christian, like himself, as well as most of the population.

Maybe it was liberal causes like gay rights and gay marriage that attracts them. Not really. Chavez was tolerant of gays and didn’t support persecuting them whereas Castro and Ahmadinejad have viciously persecuted gays in their country.

Could it be their governments? It is true they all incorporate aspects of socialism but Castro rules with hard core communism and Venezuela and Iran allow some free enterprise and land ownership. Also Iran is a theocracy something contrary to Cuba’s communism as well as Chavez’s government.

What then do these three states that are so attracted to each other have in common? Where is the like being attracted to like?

I’ll leave this for the group to discuss and give my answer shortly.

 

March 13, 2013

Re: The Great Unifier

We received some good answers on this question. Keith correctly thinks that the various tyrannies are united in hate toward the West because we frustrate their agenda. Steve rightly talks about the desire for control and to be controlled.

Alex says they have a common interest of hating American imperialism.

I believe LWK pointed out the core unifier most clearly. He said:

They all hate individual freedom. Isn’t there an old saying, “The enemy of my enemy is my friend,” or something like that? The U.S. to a lot of the people of the world still represents the abstract concept of individual freedom, no matter how much the reality now differs from that vision. That is a concept all of these countries hate.

Kelly and Johann’s answers were along these lines but with a different slant.

The big division in the world is between those who respect the principle of freedom and those who do not. Those who do not respect the principle will be attracted to each other as well as those who do like the principle.

Larry correctly pointed out that we have fallen short of the ideal but, even so, there is enough freedom in the world to cause a union of hatred that attempts to diminish it.

The quest for freedom is the quest to be free from the mark of the Beast for the Beast takes the place of the God within and becomes a God without that must be followed above and beyond anyone’s inclination to follow the inner direction. Under the Beast you are only allowed to follow your inner direction if it is in harmony with his direction.

Because individual freedom is always a threat to the Beast then wherever it shows itself will be a center where the wrath, cunning and distortion from the Beast will be unleashed.

Just take a look at some of the freedoms we have here and the attacks against them, sometimes subtly and other times very openly.

(1) Free speech This has been under attack from the beginning of this country and the avenues of attack are increasing.

Question before continuing: In what ways is free speech under attack?

 

March 13, 2013

Big Secret

We have a new pope. What the world doesn’t know is this. Dan has more light and truth in his little finger than the Pope in his whole body.

Tom: So what is wrong with our new pope FRANCES THE 1ST. He A CONSERVITIVE. What the matter with him?

JJ Nothing’s the matter with the pope if you’re looking for a good Sunday School teacher.

John C Now, THIS is a quote for the archives. Something to be remembered 100 years from now.

JJ Thanks for the appreciation John. Maybe I’ll use your name next time. For some reason, Dan’s name often comes to mind when I think of the struggling disciple seeking to scale the mountaintop, but of course many here are seeking the same thing.

 

March 14, 2013

Re: The Great Unifier

Alex: I was talking about the vision of a differently arranged states during the “millennium”. But what you are talking about is a different thing.

JJ It’s not different. The principle is the same whether it is related now, during the millennium or a thousand years ago.

If a people live in a desirable land with peace and plenty, those living in an undesirable land will want to take as much advantage of it as they can get away with. Period. This has always happened, does now happen and will happen. Making a “suggestion” that the unwanted ones just leave is laughable and has never worked and will never work.

Undesirables are only kept out by force, not suggestions.

 

March 15, 2013

Free Speech

Question: In what ways is free speech under attack?

We are fortunate indeed that the Founders had the foresight to make free speech the First Amendment. This has given us a lot of protection to say what we want. But has the Beast acknowledged this and rolled over and played dead as far as speech is concerned? Not hardly?

The Constitution was the weapon hat inflicted the deadly wound on the Beast but the scripture predicted this deadly wound would be healed making the Beast alive and well. Alive and well he indeed is and attacks free speech at every opportunity.

“How is he attacking free speech?” asks one. “Can I not go on a street corner and proclaim my disagreement with the President or any other leader?”

Yes, you can legally disagree with authorities but that is where it ends. There are quite a number of ways free speech is curtailed.

First, there legitimate limitation. This is speech that can cause real damage such as the famous example of yelling fire in a crowded theater. If one slanders another person he can be sued in a court of law. If a government employee gives out top secret information he may be prosecuted and lying in a court of law is illegal.

Unfortunately these legitimate limitations give those who wish to control others an excuse to work toward expanding on them. Those working for the Beast are doing everything in their power to make what they consider hate speech illegal.

In most cases hate speech is merely speech that pawns of the Beast hate and despise. They hate much of what is said on talk radio so they seek to pass laws regulating or limiting it. They hate common sense ideas that will bring greater freedom and wealth to individuals so they condemn them through the media. They hate the free market so they blame it for all our woes.

They hate the mention of God and spiritual principles so they seek to silence all such talk on property controlled by the Beast.

To suppress the masses the unjust authorities seek to tell is which words we can say and which ones we cannot. This is called politically correct speech. When these words were first demonized many laughed and thought these ideas would come to naught, but they underestimated the power of the Beast in the land of the free.

Those who saw nothing wrong with using the words handicapped, midget, crazy, bum and many others may not be arrested for saying them but could lose their job or be attacked and humiliated by offended associates

Speech criticizing President Obama has been curtailed in many cases by accusing the critics of racism even when nothing in the speech referred to race. It has been said that one is racist if he uses words such as lazy, fried chicken, ghetto, Chicago, apartments, welfare, illegal aliens, and other words when speaking of minorities.

Many of our professional workers have their speech curtailed. If a doctor advises alternative medicine then he could loose his license. We had a family doctor who was barred from the local hospital because he disagreed with another doctor’s diagnosis.

Attorneys have to be very careful with their speech as well as any paid member of the clergy for fear of losing their job. Church members are often forced to speak only positive things about their leaders or suffer excommunication or rejection.

A book could be written on examples but the point is that the war against free speech is alive and well and it takes a strong individual to stand up to the forces arrayed against free expression.

 

March 16, 2013

Re: Power of Prayer

Keith said he received a negative attack after a prayer. He said, “The prayer was a petition – a pleading for a higher life to initiate a gathering somewhere on earth to get this ball going.”

JJ Well, Keith, if there is anything the dark fores do not want is a gathering of lights. On the other hand, it is the desire of the forces of light and love so in the end more forces will be with you than against you. Continue on your course of prayer and the darkness will lift if you keep your focus and pure intent.

 

March 16, 2013

Re: Free Speech

Concerning the principle of free speech it is interesting that there is confusion over what it is. The general idea in most minds is that we are free to vocalize any opinions that we desire so long as we do not endanger lives, slander or cause financial loss.

In other words, I am supposed to be able to say or write whatever I want, even if it is offensive or hurts some feelings. No men in black will come to my door and take me away.

This seems pretty simple but there are many interpret this in a distorted light.

One example was Bill Maher on his show, which was called “Politically Incorrect.” After the terrorist attack of 2001 he stated that the hijackers were men or courage. This offended many people and in particular it offended some of his advertisers who withdrew from his program. This loss of revenue was a partial cause of his show being cancelled.

After the advertisers withdrew Maher complained many times that his free speech rights were violated, but were they?

Was he accused of breaking any law? No.

Was there anything in place to prevent him from telling anyone he came into contact with that the hijackers were courageous? No. Even though this opinion was offensive to many he could voice it all he wanted.

The only way to keep the advertisers on the program when they did not want to be there would be to force them to stay. And if they were forced to pay Bill Maher to speak then who’s freedom is really taken away?

Right. Not Maher’s freedom, but the advertisers.

Free speech does not mean that you can force others to pay for you to broadcast or print your words. You have to get that done though your own efforts for the guarantee of free speech does not guarantee anyone’s success.

A similar situation happened in 2003 when the Dixie Chicks said they were ashamed that President Bush was from their home state of Texas. Many fans were offended and stopped buying their records and some offended DJs stopped playing their tunes. Again, they complained about a violation of their free speech.

These people need to read the First Amendment which says, “Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech”

Did Congress pass a law that abridged the right of the Dixie Chicks to criticize President Bush or to prevent Bill Maher from praising the terrorists?

No, of course not. In both cases it was ordinary people, not Congress that were offended by their speech and refused to financially support it. Any individual can refuse to support any speech he deems undesirable.

In fact, political groups as well as business interests do this all the time. Many groups on the Left strongly disagree with Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh and have organized protests in attempts to get their advertisers to drop their support. This turned out to be fairly successful against Beck and he was dropped from his place on the Fox News channel. They were not as successful against Rush and other conservatives.

Now some consider this an unethical and unfair approach in dealing with political enemies but there is nothing in the First Amendment that prohibits even disgusting attempts to influence the media.

The key to understanding true free speech is the phrase, “Congress shall make no law” restricting it.

True free speech is threatened by law and powerful authorities, not opinions of the rank and file public.

 

March 17, 2013

Annihilating Time

Keith made an interesting find which is worthy of comment. He writes:

I came upon the following from D.K. (White Magic: Rule 10 Group of World Servers) and was blown away by the following phrase, …”humanity…will eventually annihilate time…”

Below I have taken the page and paraphrased the intent. A mind blower. ‘ANNIHILATE TIME’ ‘OMNIPRESENT’ ‘OMNISCIENCE’ This is the future of humanity according to D.K. I have read White Magic before and somehow missed this.

“About the year 1400, the Hierarchy of Masters was faced with a difficult situation…After noting and watching this trend of affairs for another one hundred years, the Elder Brothers of the race called a conclave of all departments about the year 1500 A.D. …At this conclave…They had, in connection with these aspirants, two problems:

They had to deal with the failure on the part of even the most advanced disciples to preserve continuity of consciousness, a failure even now manifested by even initiates.

The Masters found the minds and brains of chelas curiously insensitive to the higher contacts, and this again is a condition which still prevails.

The plan as at present sensed, and for which the Masters are steadily working, might be defined as follows: – It is the production of a subjective synthesis in humanity and of a telepathic interplay which will eventually annihilate time.

It will make available to every man all past achievements and knowledges, it will reveal to man the true significance of his mind and brain and make him the master of that equipment and will make him therefore omnipresent and eventually open the door to omniscience

all can therefore strive towards achieving continuity of consciousness and at awakening that inner light which, when seen and intelligently used, will serve to reveal other aspects of the Plan

To bring this about has been the objective of all training given during the past 400 years”

“Just amazing,” Keith says.

JJ Great find for contemplation Keith. When I read your post I did not recall reading that myself so I checked my White Magic book that I had read several times and was surprised I did not have it highlighted. Then I checked my notes I saved on my computer and sure enough it was there with “annihilate time” highlighted in bold. It looks like I eventually did catch it but due to an imperfect memory I didn’t recall the phrase in the present.

Yes, it is an interesting phrase, but in interpreting DK or any inspired writer one may be mislead if he interprets literally. The whole picture of the presentation must be considered. Here is my take.

By annihilating time he doesn’t mean that time will no longer exist. For instance, the spheres of existence after death are often referred to as places where time no longer exists but this is not literally true. In truth we are not concerned about the passing of time there and because minutes and hours are not counted as they are here. It is as if time does not exist but time still does exist for us here and continues to pass.

The time barrier DK is talking about is that which exists between lives. Within one lifetime it is fairly easy to annihilate time. Any time a seeker attempts to focus he can withdraw into his consciousness and regress himself to any point in his life that lies within his memory. He can then relive those past moments as if they are happening now, thus annihilating time.

He points out that a problem that most disciples have is they cannot annihilate time between lives. It would be desirable if they could obtain “continuity of consciousness” so time could be removed as a barrier and then they could retrieve knowledge and intelligence from past lives.

When he says that this will make us “omnipresent and eventually open the door to omniscience” he is hinting at the powers available when the Oneness Principle is mastered. To tune into this one must enter the Eternal Now in his consciousness and in a sense this annihilates time.

Very few remember details of their past lives without the assistance of regression techniques. There are a number of degrees available to the disciple as far as continuity of consciousness is concerned. The most important achievement is for the disciple to retrieve his past wisdom and knowledge of principles and understanding. He must obtain the confidence that this understanding should bring. He will then intuitively comprehend all that was available to him in the past though he may not have all the details available. The historical details of the past must be discovered through various techniques, but often such retrieval is not necessary.

 

March 17, 2013

Google Glass

Back in 2001 I posted this:

“For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed; neither hid, that shall not be known. Therefore whatsoever ye have spoken in darkness shall be heard in the light; and that which ye have spoken in the ear in closets shall be proclaimed upon the housetops. Luke 12:2-3

“Like it or not we are entering an era, irrespective of how much freedom we have, where it is difficult to keep secrets for as soon as a message goes out from your computer through your

housetop’ into the internet it is pretty much open to the eyes of the world.”

Amazingly this prophecy is now about to reach a level of fulfillment that few imagined. Google has invented a device you wear that cannot only connect you to the internet and GPS but allow you to videotape everything you see. When the time comes hat 10% or more of the people wear this device then just about every human movement will be captured on video by someone.

You can read about Google Glass here: Link

 

March 18, 2013

A Question or Two for JJ on the Bible.

Tom: I know that the Bible has been translated some of it’s original meaning lost. What % is the Bible accurate like is it 98% accurate including stories like Samson (the strong man), King David killing a giant and ect. … And what about the Book of Mormon…how accurate is it?

JJ Concerning the Bible the problem is not so much with translation (though that is a problem) as with not having the original text. In Bible times if you wanted a copy of some scripture you had to either get it from a scribe or copy it yourself. Now copying texts in ancient times is a little like the game of Chinese Whispers, as mentioned in Eternal Words. After a few copies are made changes occur. For example, imagine a scribe making a copy of one of the gospels and comes across a scripture that does not sound right to him. He is likely to change the wording to make it read better or to add a notation giving it a clearer meaning in his opinion. Then the next guy makes a copy from his copy. The changes in wording are then passed on and notations are sometimes included as if it were original text.

It is estimated that the earliest full copies we have of the gospels are around the twelfth copy. Common sense tells you that the twelfth copy would deviate substantially from the original.

The message of my book Eternal Words is that certain phrases and teachings that embody principles are so clear that they will survive future distortions. For instance, “the truth will set you free” is so profound that the basic meaning will survive the copying process.

The teachings that a book contains are much more important than whether or not all the details of the stories are true. One can look at it this way. Throughout the universe every story one can imagine has happened somewhere. Therefore, most any story you read is true somewhere.

Teachings, on the other hand, are a different matter. Where stories of people are different everywhere, principles are not. If a principle is true here it will also be true in all parts of the earth, the solar system and the galaxy.

Therefore, when I read a book of teachings of questionable origin I look not for the black and white historical data but I look at the lessons taught and the knowledge and principles conveyed.

I do not believe that either the Bible or Book of Mormon are 100% correct historically, but all the stories have seeds of truth and represent real events and people. Both books have a lot of good teachings but even the best of books must be read through the eyes of the soul. If this is done then the seeker will savor that which is good and discard that which does not register.

 

March 19, 2013

More Threats to Freedom

This continues my article on threats to freedom.

(2) The right (freedom) to bear arms. The second freedom at threat is the freedom to bear arms. I’ve already written about this so I’ll make this short.

One of the greatest threats to the beast of unjust authority is a populace that is armed. One of the first steps that enemies of freedom take when they ascend to power is to disarm the public to make them much easier to intimidate and control.

What is disturbing is the number of people who see no need for the Second Amendment as insurance against a possible dictator. They seem to think a loss of freedom or the rise of a Hitler or Stalin could never happen to us. Wrong. It could happen to any nation and could even happen to the world as a whole – a scary thought indeed.

We have already given up too many of our freedoms. We have reached a point where freedom-loving individuals must take a stand and say, “no more!”

(3) Freedom over the fruits of our labors. Most people are happy to pay a reasonable amount to contribute to or common security and welfare, but when taxes get too high the laborers begin to feel that their freedom to enjoy their hard earned gains are threatened. If we add up all the taxes we pay, including the subtle ones, the average person pays well over 50% of his income. It is interesting that it was common for slaves in the Roman Empire to be required to pay a third of their earnings to their master. We pay more to our master (government0 than the ancient slaves who ran a business for the slaveholder.

Now we are at a point where taxes are not only increasing but we are asked to pay more. We are asked to pay our “fair share.”

I’d say that paying more tribute than a Roman slave is more than a fair share and a threat to individual freedom.

(4) Freedom from excessive laws and regulations.

Like taxes the average person does not feel his freedom is threatened by reasonable laws but it seems our legislators have too much time on their hands and want to control our lives with increasing detail.

A symbol of this overreach is New York Mayor Bloomberg’s law that attempted to prohibit the sale of large drinks at fast food restaurants. It is true that sodas are not very healthy, but it is up to individuals to decide what is good for their health, not the state. The state regulates where people can smoke and drink to excess. They tell us what drugs we can and cannot buy and incessantly preach to us about things we should be doing for our own good.

The trouble with giving the state too much regulatory power is that in attempting to protect us from ourselves they often wind up denying access to products that individuals feel would improve their lives. There are many, but here is a handful. • Medical Marijuana • Raw milk. Many feel this is healthier than pasteurized milk but it is illegal to sell it in many areas of the country. • Natural and often harmless alternative medicines. For instance, Laetrile a cancer medicine derived from apricot pits, is banned by the FDA. • Legislators are always seeking to ban natural cures and even vitamins. They have even proposed to make the sale of all but a few supplements and vitamins illegal and subject to a doctors prescription.

Perhaps the greatest example of overregulation in modern times is Obamacare. Many were alarmed when Nancy Pelosi championed the 2800 page document telling us that they had to pass the bill so we could discover what was in it.

Well, the bill was passed and we are still discovering the content and intent. So far this discovery has led to 20,000 pages of material explaining the regulations that will control our lives. I don’t know about you but I’d say that out of 20,000 pages there is bound to be a couple pages of regulations that will make me feel like screaming.

a

 

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2013, Part 6

This entry is part 6 of 25 in the series 2013

Feb 25, 2013

The Speed of Gravity

Alex asked a couple more questions. First he wants to know the speed of gravity in relation to the speed of light.

There are a number of theories on this. Some believe the speed of gravity is instantaneous across the universe but recent experiments indicate that Einstein was correct in that it is approximately he same speed as light.

The Chinese recently applied some tests that indicated the speed of gravity was “between 0.93 to 1.05 times the speed of light with a relative error of about 5 percent, providing the first set of strong evidence showing that gravity travels at the speed of light.”  LINK

This has not convinced some that see the effects of gravity not matching up with the speed of light.

Here is an interesting article that speculates the speed of gravity is much faster than light, perhaps instantaneous.  It is interesting that the argument boils down to a disagreement between the two greatest scientific minds of all time, Einstein and Newton. Newton thought that gravity traveled instantaneously and Einstein theorized it traveled at the speed of light, which he believed to be the ultimate speed allowed in the universe.

After reading both sides I wonder if the effects of gravity may be dual as are subatomic particles. Scientists couldn’t figure out if an electron was a particle or a wave and now they think it is both. Maybe certain ingredients of gravity (perhaps waves) travel at the speed of light and other effects of the field much faster or instantaneous.

Tom Van Flandern in the article noted believes gravity acts something like an anchor pulling on a buoy. The effect of the pull of the anchor is instantaneous but the waves created by the movement of the buoy take time to travel.

I don’t have a revelation on this subject but it is interesting to contemplate. I have contemplated the limitation of the speed of light and feel there is something missing from Einstein’s thinking on this but have not yet pinpointed it. I think it is possible to go faster than light without reaching infinite mass.

Next Alex quotes me: “The Aquarian Gospel was not voice channeled, but Levi entered a state of conscious meditation and read the Akashic records. I personally believe he was 90% accurate or better as he related the life of Jesus.”

Alex: May I ask how a medium is reading Akashic records. I would think that in this meditation state his brain receives input not from his senses, but from the Akashic records “tape”.

If it is the case, then I can easily understand the medium seeing the original scenes, as if it were a video and hearing everything.

But what about transcribing conversations between original personages?

a) Does the medium actually hear them speaking in Hebrew, Latin, etc, then the medium somehow “understands” what they are talking about and interprets in English?

JJ When a medium who usually works on the astral level catches a glimpse of the Akashic records he or she does not read them in sequence but catches bits and pieces. When he then puts them together in his mind they are like kaleidoscope of colored information which makes for interesting dialog but jumbled and not very accurate. This is why a medium will sometimes come up with some startling true information but then be way off the mark on other items.

It takes either a master or a dedicated initiate focusing on the records to transmit them accurately. I personally do not know of any mortal that can do this, though many claim this ability. Levi who received the Aquarian Gospel spent a lot of time in deep meditation to read the records, but today few disciples will dedicate the time necessary to do what he did.

If a person is accurately reading the records he could recall the original language but because he will be unfamiliar with it he will normally concentrate on the meaning that is being conveyed. He will then translate the impressions into his familiar language.

 

Feb 27, 2013

Manipulation of the Free Will

Alex asks: Is manipulation infringement on the free will or not?

Good question. In other words, if you manipulate circumstances so the outcome changes have you infringed on free will? For instance, suppose both you and Bob are up for a promotion and Bob is more qualified. Then you spread an ugly and untrue rumor about him that causes the boss to promote you instead. Have you infringed on Bob’s free will?

The answer is no. The fact is that manipulation changes circumstances and circumstances change for us almost on an hourly basis. There are dozens of things happen to each of us every day that change or manipulate our circumstances.

Even if you take out the trash you are changing the circumstances so no one else in he family is faced with the decision to take it out. If you kiss your spouse you affect his or her circumstances so now she does not decide to initiate the affections because you did it first.

Manipulation by itself is neither good or bad, positive or negative. It is neutral like money and can be used to create a good and or bad depending on the intent and the luck of the initiator.

Instead of taking away free will manipulation increases it because each manipulation presents the one manipulated with additional choices.

Let me give a couple examples.

Brad drives ten boring miles to work everyday. During the drive he is almost in a trance and nothing much happens. The drive is the same every day.

One evening a couple kids siphon most of the gas out of his car. They think it’s funny that Brad will run out of gas on the way to work. Sure enough after about five miles he does run out of gas. Because of this he has to exercise more free will than normal and make some extra decisions. Should he call his wife for help, the AAA or walk to a nearby gas station? He decides to walk to a gas station and a sexy blond sees him and offers him a ride. They hit it off and she invites him to lunch. Now, instead of a boring ride to work all kinds of decisions confront his free will.

The kids thought it was funny that they were manipulating Brad’s circumstances, but they did not alter his free will. Instead, they provided him with additional choices.

If standard manipulation does not take away free will then what does? What does take away free will is an act that attempts to take away the power of decision in a certain area. This is normally accomplished through a government or some authority figure.

Let us suppose you lived in a country where the punishment was death if you even disagreed with your dear leader. Would this interfere with your power of decision to write a letter to the editor stating what you really think?

Yes, in this case free will is restricted and fewer decisions are made.

Let us suppose the fine was $5 if you were caught not having a seat belt. Would this interfere with free will? Only slightly because you could afford to pay $5. But suppose the fine was $1000. Would this interfere?

Yes, even I would buckle up whether I wanted to or not if the fine was that great.

Suppose you were a member of a cult with a prophet leader who you believe speaks for God. He tells you that God wants him to sleep with your wife. You do not want to allow this but feel forced into it because you think it is God’s will. The prophet is using your belief system to restrict your power of choice.

People have boundaries, which, when crossed, will yield their free will. Those who push the people through these boundaries are agents in limiting free will.

 

March 1, 2013

Thunderbolts of the Gods

Here is an interesting video presenting a different view of how the universe works. It lasts over an hour so watch it when you have some time.

 

March 2, 2013

Starting a Group

My Friends, Many times readers have asked what they can do to help in the work and in response I have often sated that the best thing a person can do is to start a local group. So far we’ve only had a handful make this attempt and they have found it difficult.

Now it looks like some enterprising individuals on the web have provided a vehicle which will greatly assist in enhancing group activity. The site they created is called meetup.com. I guess it’s been around for over a decade but I just discovered it recently thanks to Lorraine. Actually, now is a good time to use it because it is well seasoned and a lot of people are aware of it.

The reason I am happy to stumble across the site at this time is I am attempting to form a local group here in Boise. We had our first meeting on Feb 20 and just a handful showed up. Since joining Meetup we are getting a lot more interest. I think it will be very helpful.

If you are an enterprising individual you can start up a study class in your area. There are plenty of writings in the archives to provide material for a long time to come. I can also supply teachers with audios of various classes I have given.

If you are interested but nervous you can get your feet wet by attending other spiritually minded classes in your area and check out how they are operating. You will find a lot of them listed at Meetup.com.

The general address for meetup is: http://www.meetup.com/

The address to check out the Keys meetings is: http://www.meetup.com/The-Keys-of-Knowledge/

In the meantime I am going to forthwith include some of my past advice on starting a group;

Now I know that many of you wish the group could be together on a physical level, but there is something within our reach which is just as good. No matter where you live there are seekers out there who are looking for knowledge that you have. When you gather a handful of them and meet on a weekly basis you’ll have as good a camaraderie as we have here. If that idea doesn’t motivate you I don’t know what will.

The great part is you do not have to be a teaching whiz. All you would have to do is throw out a few of the questions we discuss on this list and you’ll have to chase them home. Many will be hungry for more.

QUESTION: Sounds good, but how does an amateur like me get started?

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 also have free meeting rooms if most of the group order something.

If you have a little money to work with you could find a meeting room connected with a local Motel, YMCA, New Age Center, Judo 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 the what you can do for free.

(1) Many newspapers have sections that are totally free where you can announce on a weekly basis details about any weekly meetings your group may have. Call then up and see what they have available.

(2) Local TV and Cable channels also have places for free announcements. Check them out.

(3) Hold a press conference. Select a place like a room at the local, library and send an announcement to all the media – Newspaper, TV, radio in your area with an announcement that you are forming a local study group based on the book The Immortal about a guy who just may have met John the Revelator. In a typical area you should be able to send out about 20 announcements and get 2-5 responses. There’s a good chance you would get on TV this way.

(4) Print up flyers (or we’ll print them for you) announcing your project and circulate them in book stores, metaphysical centers, health food stores and so on. We’ll work up a master copy for you.

(5) 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.

(6) 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 newsletters in your area and run a small ad there. Then run a small display ad in your local newspaper. In addition to this the classifieds in the local free give-away advertisers are often very effective depending on the area and they are often very inexpensive – sometimes just a couple dollars a week.

(7) If you are bold enough to do public speaking let me know and I will give you further advice.

You’ll need a name for the physical group. May I suggest THE SYNTHESIS GROUP (Or Keys of Knowledge).

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. https://freeread.com/archives/183.html

 

March 3, 2013

Group Dweller

Good quote on the Dweller Ruth from: https://freeread.com/archives/2722.html

Let me add a couple things that may help those having problems with negative forces.

I mentioned the importance of not talking about the negative forces but this must be used with judgment. It is a good thing that Leasel shared her problems with us as she was at her wits end and had to reach out for help.

A mistake that those experiencing a negative attack often make, however, is because it is so consuming to their attention they talk about it a lot to whoever will listen. Because energy follows thought this focus of thought creates a channel for the negativity to flow with greater and greater strength. So, yes, share your problem with those who may be able to help but do not share with those who cannot help unless prompted by your soul.

The principle of energy following thought is illustrated in a story I heard in my younger days in the mission field. In one district there were a couple elders who began experiencing attacks from what seemed to be evil spirits. After this occurred they began sharing their experiences with various members of the church and other missionaries in the district. Pretty soon the attacks and phenomenon seemed to spread like a virus. Other missionaries and members soon had similar trouble. After a time all anyone could talk about were the evil spirits and the scary things they were doing.

Finally, it got so bad that it drew the attention of the mission president.He contacted the missionaries and wisely told them to cease talking about the evil spirits. He told them not to talk about them in meetings, with members or other missionaries. They obeyed and a few weeks later all attacks of the evil spirits subsided and it became as if they did not exist.

The mission president probably had never been taught the principle of energy following thought but he had the correct intuition in following it.

Another thing that can be the cause of negative attacks is guilt. Unresolved guilt can keep the door to negativity open even if you try not to talk or think about the attacks.

There are two things that must be done to resolve guilt. First resolve the problem with the person you may have hurt. If this does not apply then confess your guilt to someone you respect. This principle of confession is used in some churches and it does offer relief.

The nail in the coffin must be struck by identifying the source of guilt. Guilt is caused by allowing some mortal to take the place of the God Within. Release this outside source from having power over you and follow the inner Holy Spirit instead. The inner Spirit does not use guilt to control you but supplies guidance instead.

 

March 4, 2013

Attacks

Dan: Seemingly “negative” things happen to everyone and one’s imagination, guilt, and/or desire to be special can make such occurrences seem more personal than they warrant.

JJ Very true. Ruth wants to know your motive with the “desire to be special” comment. I do not see any sinister motive here and do not think we should care about what your motive may be for you made a true statement. Many people take negative things that happen to them and attribute then to demons, Satan or dark brothers for the reasons you gave and more.

Indeed, some people go through sequences of bad luck and because they feel they are special beings they may feel that they are targeted by the devil himself when in reality no one of significance whether he be good or evil is paying much attention to them.

Dan: I have not experienced ANY “supernatural attacks” that I am aware of, nor I suspect have most other keysters.

JJ I think you are correct here. Real attacks are not that common. I have not met many who have given an accurate description of a supernatural attack. Now if we are talking about some type of supernatural experience, good, bad and neutral the percentage is much higher. I would guess that the majority here has had something occur which has been otherworldly.

Stephen’s account which he posted here and personally sent to me is quite interesting and he seems to have made definite supernatural contacts.

It sounds like Leasel and her family may be dealing with a dweller or possibly left over energy from earthbound spirits. Keep your thoughts and prayers headed her direction for they will help.

Dan: I’m just saying REAL attacks are uncommon and rare, thinking you MUST BE under attack (but PROBABLY are not) is most likely/commonplace.

JJ You are correct if you are referring to real attacks by the Dark Brothers toward some individual. The Dark Brothers do attack but they use key people in positions of power to manipulate the people toward their desired ends. All the steps that have been taken recently to reduce our freedoms are part of an assault by them.

On the other hand, many seekers have to deal with some type of influence coming from their Dweller. This can range from fear, guilt or just moving forward – to negativity of tremendous force that can be very nerve wracking to deal with.

The Dweller can be aroused by too much thought directed toward the negative or some type of positive action that may threaten to reduce his power.

One like yourself who has not had a definite supernatural attack may wonder if you are not significant in the work because no one has attacked you. The answer is that this should not concern you. Each seeker has a different cross to bear and different lessons to learn. No two initiates, disciples or aspirants have the same things happen to them but your soul has planned your life in such a way that your learning will have a maximum curve should you follow the lesson plan.

 

March 7, 2013

Global Warming

Here’s another letter I wrote to the Idaho Statesman. I would have liked to have said more but am limited to 200 words.

On March 6 you published a disturbing article telling us that Leftists views (approaching religious fever) on global warming will be indoctrinated into our kids minds from the eighth grade on. The weird thing is that one of the organizations promoting this, the National Center for Science Education, claims to oppose “the teaching of religious views as science.” Yet most global warming alarmists approach the subject with faith rather than science often resembling religious fanatics.

For Instance, the earth has not warmed since 1998 yet their faith still tells then the earth has been warming during this period.

Because the facts challenge their faith they changed their preaching to climate change rather than global warming. What challenges their faith though is the climate is always changing no matter what humans do.

Because the logic of skeptics disturbs their faith they have formulated a win win plan. If it gets hotter, its climate change but if it gets colder they are still right. If the weather is dryer it’s climate change but so is more moisture. There is no course the weather or climate can take that will cause them to revise their faith.

Here’s the reference to the article I mentioned; http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/03/06/2478937/climate-change-poised-to-be-par\t.html

 

March 7, 2013

Re: Global Warming

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

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

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

Nathan quoting me: (3) The first great surge of human produced CO2 from 1940 to 1976 mysteriously resulted in global cooling rather than warming.

Nathan: Can you really claim that CO2 correlated with this cooling you speak of, or is it just variability that I mentioned earlier which you’re citing.

JJ I didn’t say it correlated. What I am saying is that the result runs counter to what the global warming alarmists are correlating. It also runs counter to what their computer programs would have predicted.

Nathan quoting me; Since CO2 is a plant fertilizer there are benefits to CO2 emissions such as a greener more productive earth.

Nathan: That seems to be based on the false pretense that plants can absorb an indefinite amount of CO2, which they cannot. The average deciduous tree, for example, absorbs about 50 pounds (highly variable) of CO2 per year, far less than what, say, the average American puts into the atmosphere which is about 4,600 pounds per year.

JJ It is not based on the premise that plants can absorb an infinite amount of CO2. No one is saying that. Plants, as a whole though, can absorb quite a bit more than they do now or even more than in 1900.

Here are a few references for you;

 …like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population. Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 and increase its levels in agricultural greenhouses to between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv to increase productivity and improve the water efficiency of food crops far beyond those in the somewhat carbon-starved open atmosphere. CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into “natural” wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it’s “pollution,” then it’s pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit. Doesn’t sound too bad to us. LINK

CO2 acts like fertilizer for trees and plants and also increases their water use efficiency. All trees with more CO2 in their atmosphere are very likely to grow more rapidly. Trees like the high-altitude bristlecone pines, on the margins of both moisture and fertility, are likely to exhibit very strong responses to CO2 enrichment – which was the point of the Graybill and Idso study.atmospheric carbon the higher the concentration of CO2. Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years By S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Page 71-72

The Idso analysis also notes that higher CO2 levels act as fertilizer for trees and plants, and that higher CO2 levels also reduce the amount of energy needed by most plant species to conduct a process called photorespiration. So long as temperatures and CO2 are both rising, trees and plants gain vigor with which to exploit warming’s opportunities for range expansion. / The Idsos are widely published on CO2 benefits to plant growth and the phenomenon has been widely studied in dozens of countries because of its importance to crop growth. Their peer-reviewed analysis of forty-two experimental data sets collected by numerous scientists showed that the mean growth enhancement from a 300 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 rises from almost nil at 10 degrees C to doubled growth at 38 degrees C.24 At higher temperatures, the growth stimulation rises even higher.25 / The importance of CO2 as a fertilizer is endorsed by satellite observations of global vegetation from 1982 to 1999, which found an increase in global plant growth of more than 6 percent. The planet during that period featured slightly increasing rainfall and slightly rising temperatures – but the major change for plants was the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2.26 All of the regions showed positive gains in plant growth – despite the real and imagined environmental stresses that climate warming alarmists have been telling us threaten the world’s plant life. Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years By S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Page 83

Higher CO2 levels help all plants, in all environments. Growth increases are temporary only when the CO2 increase is temporary.

Your “source” contains a lot of “ifs” and “maybes” – truth is, all it does is raise conjectures about how growth MAY be limited in some cases.

C4 Plants – True, they have a mechanism for “fixing” carbon dioxide. But the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more they can “fix”. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world’s plant biomass is C3, not C4. The only crops that are C4 are corn, sorghum, sugarcane, and millet (with only corn being a major crop). C3 crops include soybeans, all small grains (wheat, barley, oats, rye), and the most important food crop in the world, rice. Additionally, even the C4 plants can be bio-engineered to be C3 plants.

Tropics – While it MAY be true that increased CO2 will be less beneficial in the tropics than in temperate regions, the vast majority of crops are grown in the temperate regions. So this is not an issue. LINK

 

 

 

March 8, 2013

Rand Paul

Adam Wrote: I sense a very “spirit of 1776” vibe when I hear Rand Paul speak. Passionate but calm, mental, measured energy. I thought yesterday’s filibuster was intensely cool on many levels. He didn’t walk on water, but holding it for 13 hours was rather impressive, no?

JJ I’ve had a good vibe from him since the first time I saw him. I like him much better than his dad and think he will go far.

Adam …Oh, and Lindsay Graham and John McCain showed their true “establishment” colors. These career Washington fixtures just cannot handle anything un-Washingtonly-orthodox. Bunch of tired, stodgy, old mouth breathers. Can they just shut eff up? No one cares what these jackwagons have to say.

JJ Agree. The light of change rarely strikes amidst the Old Guard.

 

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Gathering Audio 2012

This entry is part 7 of 31 in the series Audios

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Part 5

Part 6

Part 7

Part 8

Part 9

Part 10

Part 11

Part 12

Part 13

Part 14

Part 15

Part 16

Part 17

Part 18

Part 19

Part 20

Part 21

Part 22

Part 23

Presentation by Curtis Harwell

Part 24

Part 25

Part 26

Part 27

Part 28

Part 29

Past Life Session By JJ

Part 30

Contemplate the directions in the last part of Part 30 for a couple minutes in silence before moving on.

Part 31

Part 32

Part 33

Part 34

Part 35

Artie’s Presentation

Part 36

Part 37

Part 38

Part 39

Part 40

Part 41

Part 42

Part 43

Part 44

JJ On Oneness (Was cut off due to recording problem)

Part 45

JJ On Handwriting Analysis

Part 46

Part 47

Part 48

Part 49

Part 50

Part 51

 

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

Keys Writings 2013, Part 5

This entry is part 5 of 25 in the series 2013

Feb 14, 2013

The Road Ahead

The group is indeed interested in knowing the economical future of the United States and the world so they can prepare for things to come. Not only are seekers such as ourselves very interested in this but a large portion of the world is. We live in unstable times and people are concerned and just wish they knew what to do.

I have said many times that the exact future is not written in stone and cannot be predicted by anyone, even the masters. Certain cycles though can be seen and predicted fairly accurately. Some cycles can be predicted with exactness and others with only ball park accuracy. For instance, we can pinpoint the rising and setting of the sun from any location on the earth for centuries to come. On the other hand, we can accurately predict that spring will come soon but we cannot predict the day that fruit trees will put forth their first buds and make it official.

Predicting the economy is a little like predicting the seasons and the weather. We know we are going to have sunny and cloudy days, stormy and clam, but exactly when they will occur is still far from and exact science because of the many variables.

On the other hand, there are signs we can take into consideration in order to prepare. If we see dark clouds ahead there is a good chance that a storm will be coming our way soon. It is not a sure thing for maybe the dark clouds will shift in direction or become dispersed.

Now let us look at the economic signs we have in front of us. We have recently gone through an economic crash (2008) caused by extreme recklessness. The problems that created this has been tackled on a haphazard basis and most of them are far from fixed. In addition to this, we have a deficit spending problem, the full effects of which has not yet materialized.

This deficit spending and massive borrowing presents a possible outcome that could be worse than the Great Depression. Unless there is a massive course correction the question is not “If” disaster is ahead, but “When” it should come.

In looking at the future there is an important point to take into consideration that no economist brings up. Obama is a person blessed with extremely good luck.

When he ran for the Senate his win was a long shot. He was running against an extremely popular and good-looking Jack Ryan who was married to the beautiful Seven of Nine Character from Star Trek. Then a sex scandal was unearthed and Ryan was replaced with a very poor candidate causing Obama to win. Then when he ran for President the polls showed McCain ahead weeks before the election. Then the financial meltdown occurred and the blame was placed on McCain and his fellow Republicans. Obama rose in the polls and won.

In the 2012 campaign against Romney the polls showed Romney ahead by 4-6 points. Then Hurricane Sandy occurred and all we saw in the media was Obama looking presidential handling the crisis. Romney was nowhere to be seen for about a week before the election. Again Obama rose in the polls and won.

During the last four years Obama has made a tremendous number of bad economical decisions. One of the worst was his war on oil drilling and natural gas. In spite of this new technology has greatly increased production on private land. This has caused a reduction in imports that Obama took credit for. One economist is predicting that despite Obama’s lack of support for drilling that we will have an oil and gas boom. This, he says, will stimulate the economy and Obama will take full credit and be seen as the savior of the economy. This would be strange indeed if this happened.

Taking everything into consideration I will not make specific predictions but will give probabilities as I see them.

The probability of having a collapse of the dollar and the economy in the next ten years – 80%

The probability of it happening during the Obama administration – 50%. He’s human, subject to karma, so his luck could run out.

The probability that a collapse would be so bad that our government would break down for a time and there could be chaos – 25%

The probability that it would be bad like the Great Depression but the country would hold together and work things out – 55%.

A couple years ago, for the first time I recommended that we do our best to prepare for hard times ahead by storing up some food and emergency supplies. I have found that a number of things I bought back then have risen 25% or so in price so even if disaster does not occur some storage is a good investment. You’ll make better interest on it than most investments.

I think there is a high probability the stock market has is close to a maximum and will make a major drop. It would be a good idea to move funds to gold and silver until the economy looks more stable.

Unfortunately, if there is a collapse none of us will be as prepared as we would want to be and if there is a total breakdown there is not yet a gathering of lights as a place of refuge. It is my hope and work that such a gathering will take place before such a breakdown occurs.

 

Feb 17, 2013

Dangerous Teachings

I’ve been following a discussion about false teachers and prophets and the question came up about the danger posed by their false teachings. In other words, which teachings are dangerous and which are not and how dangerous are the various false teachings?

I thought this would be a good topic for discussion so I’ll make a few comments.

The first thing that needs to be clarified is this. The greatest danger of any teaching, true or false, lies not with the teacher, but the student. If the student has a high degree of soul contact then it matters not how false or crazy are the teachings presented. He will see the illusion and not incorporate that which does not register with the soul.

Therefore, if the teacher says the Jews are the spawn of Satan and must be eliminate he will not act upon such nonsense.

If another teacher says we are all brothers and one race is as worthy of love and respect as another then such a teaching will be registered in a positive light.

On the other hand, the student who is governed by lower emotions rather than the soul is a precarious animal. To such a person even the teachings of Jesus are dangerous. He may read Jesus saying that “if thy right eye offend thee then cut it out” and take this literally and either cut his eye out or maybe someone else he thinks deserves it.

He may read about Jesus overturning the tables of the moneychangers in the temple and decide his local bank needs taught a similar lesson and places a bomb there.

In other words, the words and works of even the greatest who has appeared among us are not safe fomenting in the mind of an idiot, but the most delusional of teachings are harmless when passing by the mind of the true disciple.

Does this mean that a teacher can give out all kinds of false teachings and no harm will be done? Or how about a true teacher? Can he just blurt out any teaching he wants without being careful of the content or wording and remain harmless?

The answer is that in both cases harm can be created. Both true and false teachers must keep in mind that there are only a handful of people with a high degree of soul contact. Fortunately, a lot of people not sensitive to the soul have pretty good common sense to assist them. But there are quite a few out there who do not check with their souls nor do they use much common sense. These people will take teachings both true and false and distort them to fit their mindset. In addition to this many false teachers prey upon these people and use their distorted view of reality to control them toward their own ends.

The true teacher must always take these deluded ones into consideration and give his words out with as much clarity as possible. In fact, even Jesus may have rephrased his statement about plucking out the eyes if he had given the idea a kittle more thought.

DK makes the additional point that there are many things that are true which are concealed and not given out because they could be dangerous in the wrong hands. For instance, there are some mantras that can control the elements that are closely guarded by the hierarchy.

Another point to realize is that a teacher who is in the light is not infallible and may have some error in his teachings. Then the teacher whose home is the land of shadows will teach a number of things which are true.

Perhaps the most important question that any seeker must ask as he examines a teacher is this. What is the teacher’s motive? Does he seek to deceive and take away my freedom and take on the role of the beast of authority so my freedom is diminished? Or does he (or she) tell the truth to the best of his ability and not take the place of your inner god but encourage freedom of choice in all things?

I’ve already tabulated many of the ingredients that differentiate the true and false teachings so I won’t repeat myself but keep in mind that freedom is the highest principle to look for. The false teacher will take it away by either obvious or subtle means whereas the true teacher seeks to amplify it in all he meets.

 

Feb 19, 2013

Free Will and Work

One thing I can say about Chris Nemelka is that he does come up with some provocative teachings. Some of his teachings containing the greatest amount of illusion will appeal to those who like the path of least resistance. It takes one choosing the path less traveled by to unravel the illusion.

In his blog of Feb 10th he talks about the time he has set for the Second Coming which is 2145 AD. On the date he says that Christ and his “Overseers” will come and set up a “fair” government and force humankind to abandon their bad governments in favor of good government ran by those who know how do get things done much better than ourselves. He maintains that the Overseers are upset that the rich are not relieved of their surplus and share with the poor so their needs will be taken care of. If we do not do this of our free will then we will be forced to do it in some type of communist system.

Now he’s gone a step further in discovering what upsets the Overseers. They do not like the idea that we do not have enough free will. This seems like an odd thing to upset them when you consider that in 2145 they seem to plan to take away free will in order to make sure we are forced to share our goods whether we want to or not.

They are so upset that there is not enough free will that they are considering moving ahead their time frame for domination from 2145 to 2070. He says that this violation of free will is so great that even John the Revelator is taken by surprise by it. If he had factored it in 2000 years ago the Book of Revelations would have been written differently.

Who knew?

So, what is this great violation of free will that he is talking about?

Is it the various tyrants that surface again and again seeking to control every aspect of human behavior/

No. That doesn’t seem to bother the Overseers. Even North Korea seems to get a pass.

Is it the criminals who “hurt and make afraid?” Doesn’t seem to be them. Chris often portrays criminals as innocent victims of the evil system. Even of Adam Lanza he said he was trying to do a good deed in shooting the 20 children. He was merely benevolently attempting to save them from the same pain he had suffered. I wonder why it took as many as seven bullets to the head to do that.

Is it the governments of the earth that tax us almost into poverty taking away the free will to spend our own money as we see fit?

No. He seems to have no problem with lots of taxes forced upon us.

Is he upset that the freedoms secured by us in the Constitution are being eroded creating a threat to many of our freedoms?

Not at all. He thinks the United States is the Beast bearing the mark of 666 and the founders were the rich selfishly seeking to secure their wealth by breaking off with Big Brother King George.

So, what is this great infringement of free will that bothers him so that the end time is moved ahead just to deal with it?

Brace yourself. It’s not what you think.

The big infringement is that all but a few of us have to work for the sake of money at a job that is not our first choice for enjoyment. He points out that a successful musician or an actor may really enjoy his work but the rest of us that have to go to an office, factory or whatever to do work that is not fun do not have much free will. He says this is a dreadful situation that restricts free will. What we need he says is “unconditional free will,” which apparently our leaders and bosses are robbing us of. Because most of us cannot do fun stuff to make money the coming forth of the Overlords may be moved up 75 years earlier than anticipated. They will then make sure that everyone has a job that is fun to do thus ensuring we all have free will.

I’m going to give my thoughts on this subject shortly but in the meantime this is an interesting subject to contemplate.

Does working at a job that is not our first choice take away from free will? If so, then who is to blame for this situation? Was someone else beside yourself supposed to supply you with a job opportunity that makes you happy?

Chris’ article on this subject is here: LINK

 

 

Feb 19, 2013

Re: Dangerous Teachings

Duke asks: How much correlation is there between the so-called spiritual gifts that a person possesses or can demonstrate, and the purity of their motives, actions, and/or beliefs? If you have any comments on the subject, you’d find at least one attentive audience member.

JJ The first thing to realize here is that many gifts claimed by the various gurus are based on illusion and not even real. Many who claim to heal are merely good hypnotists and the subject receives only temporary relief through the power of suggestion.

Many other so called signs ad wonders are brought about by hypnotic techniques. For example, a few years ago there were several local gurus who claimed to have the ability to call down spaceships and communicate with the officers on board. I was curious about this so I decided to attend one of these sessions. The group was full of believers who fully expected to see a spaceship. As the process began one of the group pointed to a bright object in the sky and called out – “I see a ship right there!”

I looked up to see what it was and offered a correction. “That’s not a spaceship. That’s the planet Venus.”

“Oh,” she said, sounding disappointed.

My bringing the lady back to realty seemed to break the spell of the group and that night no spaceship was seen and no contact made. I was never invited to join them again.

On the other hand, there are a few possessing real gifts of some kind. Does this mean we should then trust that which they teach?

No. A thousand times no. The true seeker must always run teachings of any kind past his soul before he accepts them. If he can’t get soul confirmation then he must at least run then by his logical mind and use his common sense.

So how does one who is in illusion develop what seems to be spiritual gifts?

the answer is simple. Energy follows thought. If a person, good or bad, puts a lot of attention (energy) on developing a skill then a certain amount of proficiency will be attained.

Even so, we have not seen in our age a person who can manifest the gifts that Jesus had 2000 years ago. If you see someone truly walk on water then he obviously has some knowledge about how that is accomplished and it would probably be worthwhile to ask him some questions. On the other hand, if he tells you to give him all your money or you are going to hell then do not walk away, but run.

 

Feb 19, 2013

Re: Free Will and Work

Alex seems to disagree with this statement I have made: “Now he’s gone a step further in discovering what upsets the Overseers. They do not like the idea that we do not have enough free will. This seems like an odd thing to upset them when you consider that in 2145 they seem to plan to take away free will in order to make sure we are forced to share our goods whether we want to or not.”

Here is Chris in his own words:

“So, without exception, one of the group must always agree to enter the game and give up free will to become the overseer of the rest.”

LINK

Without the experience of a free democracy that is fueled by free will, we might be left with the excuse: “How do you (creators) know that we are not fully capable of governing ourselves if given the chance?” The United States of America is the chance we have been given. With this chance, we have proven that no matter how much freedom we are given (or at least believe that we have been given), free-willed beings left to themselves cause each other harm and inequality.

When this purpose is fulfilled, we will be able to look back on the way the United States was established and what it did with the power of its democracy. At that point, we will rejoice in its success in adding to the effectiveness of our lessons learned concerning imperfect government. Although our creators will be happy that we had the experience, they will never condone one thing that the United States of the America has ever done—not one thing!  LINK

when we finally get a righteous and omnipotent dictator, we will then appreciate the loss of our democracy. LINK

Our batch of human beings had to gain the experience in order to realize the importance of the Universal laws that govern our existence and the profound importance of the role of a Christ—a DICTATOR with full power and control over any one of us.

(We hate DICTATORS! But we had to go through mortality to see why one was necessary. The situation in Iraq will further evidence the need for a Dictator. LINK

To learn that uncontrolled free-will is the cause of all of our problems, and that we cannot trust any of our mutually free-willed siblings with the task of overseeing our free will.

We must submit our free will to one who doesn’t have our same free will to become an unrighteous dictator … to one who is a harbinger of universal peace and equality. And I can guarantee you, this person does not live on this planet. LINK

The United States of America was part of the final lesson we needed to learn to realize that we could not exist as a human race without a Christ, a righteous dictator who limited and controlled human free will. LINK  Then in his book “Without Disclosing My True Identity” in chapter eight he h as a sections promoting the idea of a “righteous dictator.”

Does all this sound like the “Overseers” plan on letting us continue to use our free will if it goes against their “righteous dictatorship”?

I don’t think so.

Even with technology there will still be things that need done that is not fun work. Technology does not eliminate work but opens up avenues of different kinds of work that need done. There’s always the fun stuff ad the not so fun stuff that needs done.

Alex: There is nothing about Lanza in the above link.

JJ I didn’t say there was. Here is the exact quote from a previous post: … Adam Lanza wanted to spare as many children as he could from the devastating turmoil he was feeling, and had been feeling, from the time he entered kindergarten where the pressure to succeed and fulfill the image of success and leave his mark on this world first began. LINK

Alex:

The saddest thing is that JJ twisted CMN’s teaching and misrepresented them.

JJ I don’t think you’ve read him carefully enough. I cannot see any evidence that I have misrepresented him at all and you have given nothing that shows that I have. If you have some evidence I’d be happy to look at it.

 

Feb 20, 2013

Re: Free Will and Work

JJ, after quoting Nemelka:

Does all this sound like the “Overseers” plan on letting us continue to use our free will if it goes against their “righteous dictatorship”?

I don’t think so.

Alex: Here I disagree with JJ. They are letting us to continue to exercise our free will.

JJ I never said they were interfering with free will at the present time and don’t believe Nemelka has either. He says they are allowing us to have free will in the present so we can become witnesses to what bunglers we are and how much we need the Overseers.

Your accusation was that I misrepresented Chris’ teachings about them setting up a dictatorship in 2145 and I gave you a number of quotes verifying that he indeed does believe this and your free will, will be secondary to the will of the dictators. Free will is always limited under a dictator that you have no power to remove.

Alex: “Righteous dictatorship” is not a righteous tyranny as we might stereotypically think. Righteous dictators are very wise and knowledgeable advanced government, several notches above us in their spiritual development, unlike the politicians of today. Righteous dictators which would decree some things without asking you and provide these things without forcing. The first thing they will do is to provide basic food, shelter, education and medical help/healing for every one free.

JJ First of all there is no such thing as a “righteous dictatorship” where the dear leader must be followed without question or consultation. Whenever free will is relinquished to a dictator civilization and progress suffers.

Even if these supposed advanced humans came and supplied all our needs what good would it do? We would become lazy and slothful after a while. Struggle builds character and keeps us from devolving.

The fact that advanced beings are coming here to supply all our needs so we don’t have to work is pure fantasy in my opinion. But let us suppose they did come for that purpose. How will they get the food to feed the whole world? Are they just going to snap their fingers or are they going to dictate to us the work we need to do to make it happen?

Incidentally, I do not recall Nemelka even talking about them being a Santa Claus as you portray them. Do you have a reference?

Alex; Then everyone will have their own free choice either to continue to pay medical insurance or not, go to work or not, etc., he-he.

Will capitalism survive under such a dictatorial regime?

JJ Yes, capitalism always suffers under dictators. Look at North Korea. No one is buying medical insurance there.

Pol Pot did away with money in Cambodia and no one bought anything and peopled starved to death.

Alex It will collapse without a single drop of blood shed, since money — this horrible tool of exploitation — will be rendered useless by the dictators. Not a single bit of property will be expropriated from the rich as Russian communists did in 1917. Not a single cent on the bank accounts will be touched.

JJ This is a communist dictators dream. Eventually we will move to a society that will not need money but it will not be accomplished by taking away free will but by using free will.

Alex Every type of work can either be performed by the Earthlings or by the ETs with their robots and technology. Every one of us will have a choice either to do a certain work or leave it to the “dictators” with their robots.

JJ You are going off of Nemelka’s teachings for he doesn’t believe in ET’s. Here is what he said:

WE ARE ALONE IN THIS PRESENT UNIVERSE. THERE ARE NO OTHER HUMAN BEINGS IN THIS PRESENT UNIVERSE THAT WE PERCEIVE THROUGH OUR SENSES WHILE GOING THROUGH THIS MORTAL EXPERIENCE UPON THIS EARTH. We can create a telescope as large as we want. We can come up with all kinds of theories. We can travel to the ends of the Universe, as we perceive it, but we will never encounter another human being in the present Universe that we perceive as mortal humans … ABSOLUTELY NEVER. LINK

The only thing close to ET’s he believes in are immortal beings – not other beings like ourselves.

Overall I think you were unjust in accusing me of misrepresenting Nemelka’s teachings. I think that what I wrote about them was quite accurate and the quotes I supplied verified that.

 

Feb 21, 2013

Free Will and Work, Part 2

In Part I in presented these questions: Does working at a job that is not our first choice take away from free will? If so, then who is to blame for this situation? Was someone else beside yourself supposed to supply you with a job opportunity that makes you happy?

Some may buy into the idea that the drudgery of working at a job that is not your first choice takes away free will but such is not the case. What they do not understand is there is a difference between natural limitation in which all life forms find themselves and free will or a lack thereof.

Allow me to give examples of both.

Natural limitation: Example One: Johnny is a seven-year-old kid and is frustrated that he cannot run as fast as his older brother. His lack of equality here is not caused by anyone taking away his free will but a natural limitation. He can however use his free will to exercise regularly to increase his running speed.

Interfering with free will: Example One: Big brother ties Johnny up so he can’t run anywhere.

Natural limitations: Example Two: Bob and Ken are climbing a mountain. Ken gets to the top but Bob runs out of steam before he reaches it. “I can’t go on,” he says and climbs back down and misses the great view. Both have equal free will but Bob has greater limitation because of natural unequal strength and determination.

Interfering with free will: Example Two: Ken gets to the top and then prevents Bob from getting there by pushing him back down every time he attempts the final ascent.

Natural limitations: Example Three: John’s a good-looking guy and can have any girl he wants. Alonzo is not so good-looking and socially awkward. No one wants to go out with him. Is lack of free will holding him back? No, he is suffering from natural limitations.

Interfering with free will: Example Three: John tells all the girls he knows to not date Alonzo because he is creepy and insane which is a lie. Alonzo is a nice guy.

Natural limitations: Example Four: Julia is a naturally talented singer and has always dreamed of singing in a nightclub. After years of cultivating her talent she finally gets her break working for a popular club and loves her job.

Kathy also dreams of singing in a nightclub but doesn’t have a good natural voice. The best job she can find is as a waitress in the nightclub and hates her job. Every time she sees Julia singing away enjoying herself she thinks, “That could be me!”

Is Kathy suffering from someone taking away her free will? No. She is dealing with a natural limitation.

Interfering with free will: Example Four: Kathy is so jealous that she kidnaps Julia so she cannot appear for her next performance. This definitely interferes with Julia’s free will.

All life forms, even God, the One Great Life, find themselves with limitations in this universe. This does not mean that anyone is taking away your free will. On the other hand, the main purpose of free will is to remove limitations. Johnny can increase his running speed through exercise. Bob can so strength training so he can climb the next mountain. Alonzo can get advice on improving his appearance and socials skills. Kathy can take singing lessons or maybe develop a natural talent she has in another area.

No supernatural being is going to come down, wave a magic wand, and remove all of anyone’s limitations. For one thing even supernatural beings have their own set or limitations, but they do not see them as something that takes away their free will.

Man is that he might have joy and joy comes through applying ourselves and removing our limitations. If someone does this for us then the source of our joy is diminished. When we apply ourselves and make progress by removing limitations then the bird of joy encircles us always, worlds without end.

 

Feb 21, 2013

Re: Free Will and Work, Part 2

Tom: When one says the song of the 144,000 and image the light going to all who say this song is it ok to send the light to my Mom and imagine her when saying the song as she does not say the song as I do. I have tried to get her to say it. I read that one can sends the light only to those that say it.

JJ Like the Song says “Wherever I will the light to descend.” I wouldn’t visualize her in the circle of those saying it since she does not but visualize the light descending on her would be fine.

Ruth: I am wondering what the definition of “natural limitation” refers to?

Is the limitation caused through the laws of nature?

JJ There’s no mystery here. They are just the limitations of the circumstances in which one finds himself.

Ruth: For example, an alcoholic pregnant woman who drinks throughout her pregnancy has unnaturally affected the fetus with a toxic substance, and hence has tampered with the laws of nature, so that the baby is born with limitations of the physical body, emotional body or mental body or all 3.

Or are natural limitations created by the Soul for karmic reasons?

JJ Everything has a reason. Our current circumstances are the result of all of our past and the soul arranges part of them.

Ruth: Also what role do particular Rays play in natural limitations?

JJ Similar to different sets of clothes you may choose to wear.

 

Feb 22, 2013

Re: Free Will and Work, Part 2

JJ wrote: Everything has a reason. Our current circumstances are the result of all of our past and the soul arranges part of them.

Dan: love, Love, LOVE!!! this concept but there seems to be something wrong with your sentence structure – or at any rate my understanding of it.

So do you mean: SOME or most of our current circumstances are the result of our past (experiences, decisions, etc) and all the rest of our circumstances/experiences are designed/arranged by our souls?

So then, TRUE “accidents” – in which one experiences something NOT the effect of either our past and NOT designed by the soul – either do not happen (period) or would be so RARE as to be virtually non-existent. Is that right?

JJ All current circumstances in our lives and all creation and activity in the universe is the result of past activity and decisions made.

Some are much more obvious than others. If you shoot at a bulls eye and hit it then the result is obviously the result of your intention and action.

On the other hand, if someone bumps you in the middle of a shot and you hit a passing dog then this result is not so obvious. Even so, it is still the result of the past, but more subtle things are involved.

All accidents are the result of one of three categories.

(1) Something planned by an intelligent force. For instance, I believe that the accident I had at age 13 that changed the course of my life was planned by my soul.

Then there are planned accidents less benevolent such as the evil husband disabling the brakes on his wife’s car.

(2) Carelessness. If I stub my toe this is merely an unplanned careless event not planned by intelligence but still the result of past activity.

(3) Collisions of subtle forces. DK talks about this. When Susan Carter injured her foot as discussed in the recent gathering audio she suffered a collision of forces moving in her life. A sensitive person can sense when such a collision is about to take place. If he does he can take pains to be extra careful and avoid an accident.

In the end, it is important to realize that some accidents are a part of a plan and others are not and could have been avoided. Even so, they are still the result of past activity and decisions set in motion.

 

Feb 23, 2013

Re: Free Will and Work, Part 2

Dan: So, even though every experience may NOT necessarily be “part of the plan”, nothing ever happens to us that isn’t either 1) a direct result of our past actions/decisions, or 2) a design of our soul (or both). Correct?

JJ Close, but not quite. To be technically correct we need to take out the word “our” and just word your first statement thus: “nothing ever happens to us that isn’t either 1) a direct result of past actions/decisions.”

The individual does have some things happen to him that may not be the result of his past actions and decisions but is the result of the past actions of the group to which he belongs. For instance, when a nation becomes involved in a war both good and bad people are affected. Many did nothing to get it started but still may suffer from it.

We are all part of a greater body. Take a look at your body. Perhaps your head wants to go on a roller coaster ride and makes that decision. During the ride the stomach becomes upset and thinks, “I didn’t ask for this.” Once the body decides then all parts are affected. Even so, we are all parts of a greater body.

JJ wrote: Collisions of subtle forces. DK talks about this. When Susan Carter injured her foot as discussed in the recent gathering audio she suffered a collision of forces moving in her life. A sensitive person can sense when such a collision is about to take place. If he does he can take pains to be extra careful and avoid an accident.

Dan: Could you talk a little more about these “subtle forces”, maybe give some examples of what might constitute such a “collision of subtle forces”?

JJ These forces are caused by a number of things. For the individual it may be problems going on in his life.

Let us say that Ben has been living a carefree life when suddenly he discovers his wife is having an affair and on top of that he may loose his job. This creates a stream of emotional energy that distracts him and makes an accident much more likely.

On the other hand, distractions leading to accidents can come from more subtle things.

Let us say that Jim’s son is being bullied at school and is depressed but acts like everything in his life is fine. As Jim is driving home his subtle body picks up the negative vibe from his son. He does not register the negative energy enough to consciously understand it but it does have the effect of distracting his attention and making him more accident prone.

In addition, the distractive negative energy may be coming from a number of different sources.

If one feels such subtle negative energies it is important that he be very careful when driving or in any circumstances where an accident is possible. When I feel such energies I say to myself: “You do not need to have an accident today.”

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

Keys Writings 2013, Part 4

This entry is part 4 of 25 in the series 2013

Feb 3, 2013

Good Laugh

If you want a good laugh check this out.

By the way Obama holds his gun it looks like he has not shot much if any.

 

Feb 4, 2013

Letter

Here’s another letter I am sending to my local paper. I am limited to 200 words so I had to be concise.

The arguments to ban assault rifles are based on raw emotion and totally lacks the use of logic and common sense. In 2011 only 323 people were killed with rifles and only a portion of these are the so-called assault rifles. On the other hand, 496 people were killed with hammers and clubs. Anyone who takes a breath and thinks can see that banning semi-automatic rifles makes about as much sense as banning hammers. If you really want to save lives then it makes more sense to ban cars, which kill over 30,000 people a year.

Actually, banning bicycles should make a lot of sense to the gun-banning mindset. In 2010 there were 618 deaths from cyclists who crashed into cars and over 50,000 injuries reported on top of the many thousands not reported. Should we really be teaching our kids to ride such a dangerous instrument?

In 2010 there were 3615 deaths from motorcycle accidents. Motorcyclists are 35 times more likely to die in a crash than a passenger in a car.

There are all kinds of things more logical to ban than semi-automatic weapons, but banning weapons appeals to those who are governed by emotion.

 

Feb 6, 2013

Aftershock

I’ve recently read an interesting book called “Aftershock.” The authors thinking about the economy is very much in alignment with my own.

They predicted the collapse of 2008 and see bigger one coming in the near future. They cannot pinpoint the date but think it will happen sometime between this year and 2016. After the next collapse they see an unemployment rate of up to 50% and a strong devaluation of the dollar.

He recommends investing in physical gold or stock related to necessities. He also says coal stocks are good because in a collapse demand will remain high.

Here’s a review from Amazon from one called ClubLevel that gives a good overview of the book.

This review is from: Aftershock: Protect Yourself and Profit in the Next Global Financial Meltdown (Hardcover) “Aftershock: Protect Yourself and Profit in the Next Global Financial Meltdown,” by David Wiedemer, Robert A. Wiedemer, and Cindy S. Spitzer, is written for the layman, and thus is an easy-to-understand viewpoint — though a startling one. It’s important to note the authors’ wrote this book as a means to promote a financial service they provide; caveat emptor.

Following are 3 examples (my numbering and bracketed comments) of explanations of underpinnings of the authors’ economic opinions:

(1) “Income Growth versus Housing Price Growth 2001-2006. Contrary to what some experts say, the earlier rapid growth of housing prices was not driven by rising wage and salary income. In fact, from 2001 to 2006, housing price growth (Housing Price Up 80%) far exceeded income growth (Income Up 2%).” [A graph of this data suggests, “bubble.”]

(2) “Despite massive growth in the U.S. economy between 1928 and 1981, the Dow rose only about 300 percent. But after 1981 it rose an astonishing 1400 percent.” [A graph of this data suggests, “bubble.”]

(3) “Most people, even most “experts,” find it much easier to recognize a bubble (like the Internet bubble of the 1990s) after it pops. It is a lot harder to see a bubble before it bursts, and much harder still to see an entire multiple-bubble economy before it bursts.”

The authors see our current economy as a linked, multiple-bubble economy. The 6 bubbles (co-linked):

1) The real estate bubble (housing): Popped in 2007-2008

2) The stock market bubble (stocks): Popped in 2009 (Currently being bolstered by the dollar bubble)

3) The private debt bubble (credit): Popped in 2008-2009

4) The discretionary spending bubble (consumer spending): Popped in 2008-2009

5) The dollar bubble (inflation is caused by increasing the money supply beyond what is needed to keep up with economic growth. “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning expert on monetary theory). Pops when? “…our best guess (as of the Spring of 2011) is that significant inflation will begin in the 2013-2015 range.”

6) The government debt bubble (government spending): Pops when? “In the short term, massive money printing by the Fed will likely continue to boost the stock market and help temporarily stimulate the economy. However, in the long term (likely in the 2013-2015 range), a heavy price for this temporary stimulus will have to be paid.”

In 2006, the authors described the popping of the first 4 bubbles as the “Bubblequake,” and accurately predicted the timing of their occurence — hence, their credibility today. However, they also expected the final 2 bubbles to pop as well, this occurrence being described as the “Aftershock” — an event that will be felt worldwide, and one that will be a lot more disruptive than the popping of the stock market and housing bubbles. They learned the U.S. government can forestall popping of these bubbles by printing dollars to pay debts, while simultaneously borrowing money — in part — to pay for debt financing. Hence this “second edition” of their first book, which takes a closer look at the dollar bubble and the government debt bubble.

By 2015, given the popping of the six bubbles, life in the U.S. (and around the world) will go on (albeit bleakly); the U.S. will have a poor credit rating, and will not be able to borrow money as it is doing on a massive scale today (Countries such as China and Japan will choose to stop lending at some point in the future; at that time, the U.S. will have to figure out how to pay its debts (Tax Revenue: $2 Trillion per Year; Current Debt: $15 Trillion). The answer may be to continue to print dollars without supporting revenue (the Fed’s Quantitative Easing or QE initiatives), which theoretically could make the country debt-free, though with resulting inflation, high unemployment and low-performing markets.

What to do about this bursting bubble scenario on a personal level? If one agrees with this premise, then the authors of the book hope you will try their newsletter (1st two issues are free), and visit their website for further financial advice (simply search for their website using the search terms, “Aftershock website” and “Wiedemer”).

Finally: Author Adam Haslett has an interesting perspective as to how we as citizens will all come to terms with our new economic reality in the following Salon article (simply search for this article using the search phrases, “Adam Haslett” and “This Is Our New Normal”)

Here is the link:

 

Feb 8, 2013

Change Through Crisis

I came across an intriguing quote. Here it is:

“People only accept change in necessity and see necessity only in crisis.” Jean Monnet

This points out a profound truth in human nature but to see it we must go beyond the black and white. The black and white interpreter may argue and say, “I’d be happy to accept the change of being a big lottery winner.”

Obviously, the author was not talking about this kind of change. He’s talking about those changes that take effort that calls us to take the path less traveled by.

This particularly applies to the dire situations that our nation finds itself in. Our government is presently borrowing 47 cents of each dollar that we spend. This can only go on for a finite time period or we will suffer disaster. But are we making any changes to create a safer direction? No. None at all. The amount we borrow continues to go up despite some nebulous claims of cutting back.

Unfortunately, a large number of people like the idea of Uncle Sam playing Santa Claus and do not want any changes that affects them. They are like the shopaholic who loves to shop and uses the credit card over and over just because he or she wants more stuff. The addict only makes a change when there is a crisis.

Addiction, particularly applies to drugs. The person enjoys the high and often does not consider quitting until he has a crisis. Maybe he almost kills himself or someone else. Maybe he loses the love of his life. Necessity drives change and crisis creates the necessity.

The money spent on social programs is a sacred cow for those on the receiving end but we must take a look at them. The most important program to keep intact is Social Security because so many depend on this just to survive. Even so, we could raise the retirement age of those who are not under it yet by a couple years and that would ease the burden somewhat.

Medicare and Medicaid is a financial nightmare for us. In 1958 we paid $8 a day (about $80 in today’s money) for a hospital room after my accident. A couple weeks ago we took Artie’s mom to the emergency room for about three hours and they billed Medicare $5,500. Something is wrong here. Before Medicare was created our medical costs were reasonable so you didn’t even need insurance, but not any more.

The do-gooders in the government created our medical nightmare and now they are in charge of fixing it. With Obamacare, instead of fixing it they made it worse.

On top of the outlandish fees charged by Medicare there is tremendous fraud. Last I heard it was $60 million a year and going up.

Unfortunately we cannot even talk about raising the age for Medicare because through Obamacare Medicare is basically extended to all citizens after it is fully implemented.

There are lots of other places we could cut but we refuse to even look at them because some voters will scream and protest.

Things will be different when the next crisis comes. Cuts will be forced upon us just as they were during the Great Depression. There was so little money during some of this period that some schools closed their doors and many teachers were laid off. Some kids didn’t have a school to go to.

Our government could have been responsible with our money but they have been crazy people instead and are bringing us to a point of crisis. When that crisis appears then reality will stare us in the face and many things will be automatically cut, either because of lack of money or worthless money.

It is sad indeed that even the dumbest of people know that they cannot live of borrowed money forever and must tighten their belts when there is not enough money to pay their bills.

The smartest of those in Congress and the executive are not as bright as the worst among us with our personal finances. Does entering elected office create brain damage? I wonder.

 

Feb 9, 2013

Questioning God

Alex asked if God gives out tests to people. I have written quite a bit on this subject in the past. Here is a compilation of some of my comments.

Questioning God, Part 1

Sterling writes:

Jesus offering himself as a willing sacrifice is one thing. Abraham sacrificing his son is entirely another. Jesus was the victim of a Jewish culture who rejected his (mostly) peaceful teachings. Abraham was victimizing his son. Those are diametrically opposite acts.

Bottom line: Never should an act that is supposedly “commanded” by God, go contrary to conscience. Conscience should trump all, always, no exceptions.

That is the check that prevents atrocities in the name of God.

This is an important subject to bring up Sterling – one that I have been meaning to elaborate on for a while.

It is certainly true that there have been many atrocities committed in the name of God or religion. In fact, it seems that whenever you see or hear of a person doing something extremely unreasonable that religion is somehow involved. An exception may be the female astronaut who drove 900 miles in diapers to kill her boyfriend’s new girlfriend but even here a religious element wouldn’t surprise me.

The problems with communications thought to be from God or a higher source is they come from three sources:

The Beast or outer authorities who are accepted as speaking for God. The inner emotional nature. Real higher intelligence.

Now if a person rejects the idea that there is such a thing as real contact with higher intelligence then he is wise to just reject all commands inner and outer that do not make sense or seem harmful.

BUT

If the person believes there is such a thing as contact with intelligence higher than his own self then it is logical that this higher vision and seeing will go against many of his preconceived notions.

The problem we encounter is that those in categories (1) and (2) above will think they are in contact with higher intelligence either directly or indirectly and may receive destructive intelligence. How is one to tell that he may not be dealing with category three?

For one thing, category one is easy to eliminate. If the seeker is receiving commandments from God through a man and not his inner self then he should not trust any outer advice that does not make sense.

This is easier said than done as all the suicide bombers in the middle east (for example) are recruited by individuals who claim to speak for God and command the unsuspecting souls to go sacrifice themselves and kill the innocent.

Don’t think that they are the only ones who will follow odd commands. Just ask the faithful Mormons what they would do if the Prophet told then to sell all they have tomorrow and immediately move to Missouri and see what they say. Almost all of them would do it without question.

If they would do this without question then they would do much more – perhaps unthinkable things.

The world is just fortunate that a prophet has not come along who is deranged. Fortunately, most religious leaders at least conform to the morals of the day. There are exceptions. A notable one was Jim Jones who commanded his people to drink poison Kool Aide. Hundreds did without question.

The question then arises – what about true communication with higher intelligence? How should we handle this?

The first step in dealing with it is to learn to differentiate between something received from the lower self and that of higher benevolent intelligence.

The problem for those who have not yet made higher contact is their highest reception comes from their own emotional nature. If they associate an aspect of their emotional nature with God (as many do) then they have a problem. Any knowledge or commands they may receive could lead them most anywhere and create significant harm.

There is a strange difference between those who receive a command from the emotional nature and those who receive one from benevolent higher intelligence and it is this. Those who receive from their emotional nature will usually follow without question and those who receive from higher intelligence will be very questioning and doubting – at first.

Many would assume the truth would be the other way around, but it is not for this reason.

Those commands from the emotional nature are placed there by the thinking and feeling of the person himself. Because the direction (however odd) comes from himself he is likely to instantly and without question accept it. It usually fits within his belief system even if it is something crazy like drinking poison Kool Aide.

Now the person who receives higher intelligence must do so through the soul whether it comes from his Higher Self or a Master. When he reaches the point where he makes his first solid soul contact he has already passed beyond the stage where he is deceived by his lower emotions. When making his first soul contact he realizes the vibration and intelligence behind it is different than an emotional communication. Even though he realizes this he is reluctant to believe the communication is from God or higher intelligence or that it is reliable. He usually rejects it the first several times it is received.

But some time after the rejection he comes to realize that he made a great error in ignoring the communication – that he would have been much better off if he had followed the advice.

After several times of seeing the higher intelligence was better than his own he decides to give it a try the next time it comes. Then when it does come the information is difficult to accept. If he does accept it he later finds that the guidance saved him much grief and over a period of time he finds that this contact through the soul is the closest thing there is to infallibility. The only thing that can cause problems with it is if his own memory and feeling nature distort that which was received, but if the disciple is true to himself this will be reduced to a minimum.

Part 2 Let us comment on Socioheresy’s post. He says:

Trusting only what the Spirit of God tells you is great in theory. The trouble is, in my experience this so-called Spirit of God tells everyone something different.

Everyone I know well who has claimed that “The Spirit of God” was speaking to them has turned out to be either lying or badly mistaken.

JJ:Here’s what creates the problem. One communication through the soul does not contradict another communication through the soul, BUT over 90 percent of what people call soul communications, contacting the Holy Spirit, God, receiving revelations, Jesus, the Spirit etc. are merely contacts made with the emotional self. A thoughtform may be involved, but always there is emotional feeling that makes the person positive he communed with the divine in some way.

An emotional contact disguised as a divine communication brings information that is peculiar to the person’s own thinking and feeling nature which is different than any other person. Thus an emotional revelation will not be in harmony with either reality or other people’s emotional revelations – unless they are tapping into the same mass thoughtform.

On the other hand, soul contact brings contact with an essence that vibrates at the registration of true principles. The contact of one person will not contradict the contact of another. Neither will contact at one period of time contradict contact at another time in an individual’s life.

There is a principle that helps here. The lower cannot understand the higher, but the higher can understand the lower. The person who makes emotional contact cannot understand or relate to he who has soul contact. He who has soul contact can understand emotional contact as well as soul contact and differentiate between the two.

Visualize the path to liberation as an actual path ten miles long through a diverse landscape. True soul contact begins the journey at the zero point.

Many people without soul contact have been taught about this path and what it will be like. Some concentrate so much on it that they have dreams, visions, strong feelings and imaginings of what will be found upon the path.

The problem for them is that almost all the details they reveal about the path are not only wrong but do not even agree with each other.

On the other hand, those who have actually entered the path and traveled upon it do know what will be found at the various markers of 1, 2, and 3 miles until they get to ten.

Let us say there is a beautiful lake at the three-mile point and the traveler meets two others who claim to have knowledge of the path. The person who has not traveled the path but imagines that he knows will not describe the lake or know anything about it. But if the pilgrim meets a fellow traveler he will indeed know about the lake at the three-mile point and the two can share communion.

Now let us take a traveler who has gone to the seven-mile point who meets another who has gone only to the three-mile point. They both will have knowledge of the path up to the lake and will give the same non-conflicting revelations about it. But the seeker at the three mile point will have no certain knowledge of what lies between the three and seven mile point.

He who is farther along on the path will understand all that has transpired behind him and his knowledge will encompass all that the second traveler has, plus four extra miles. The second traveler can understand up to the three-mile point, but he cannot completely understand the first traveler’s knowledge until he also arrives at the seven-mile point.

Even though two who are upon the path will not contradict each other their descriptions may differ just as do our descriptions in physical reality differ.

For instance, visualize two seekers arriving at the three-mile point. One looks to the right and concentrates on taking in the beautiful lake. The second sees the lake also but is captivated by the beautiful mountains on the left.

When teaching one may talk about the mountains and the other concentrate on the lake, but both will be aware that both the mountains and the lake were there. There may be a difference in their description, but no contradiction.

SH: If I start following some inner voice that I labeled “The Spirit of God”, why in the world should I expect to be the exception? Am I so special that my Spirit of God would be the true one?

JJ: You will not be the exception. Eventually everyone finds soul contact, but we all find many illusionary paths before finding the right one.

The worst thing we can do is nothing like the two guys paralyzed in the parable of Decision. If we follow the highest we know and move ahead to the best of our ability we will indeed make many mistakes, but the pure in heart will discover their mistakes and correct them. It is only a matter of time before the true seeker enters the path as a knower.

SH: JJ still has my attention, but not because I believe anything divine is in communication with him. He has it because his ideas are original and interesting to me. I don’t care where he gets ’em from, but the less divine contact he outright claims the more likely I am to listen. I probably would not have read The Immortal if it had been published as non-fiction.

“Always follow the highest you know” is a much more useful teaching in my opinion. That is sheer brilliance. It’s a megathought, a singularity of pure truth, six words that can change a planet – Screwy Dewey at his finest. Those are indeed immortal words because they work for everyone no matter where they are (hello), and I don’t care if he got them off the back of a cereal box.

JJ: How’d you know I got that off a cereal box?

Seriously, I’m glad you realize the significance of that phrase. It is indeed something we can all do without worrying if we are high or low on the ladder. It matters not that the highest one knows may be different than the highest seen by another. If we follow the highest we know, and correct our mistakes as we go, then the path of liberation lies ahead. Not only this, but all who do this receive an inner peace and stability even though outside forces may be aligned against their progress.

Part 3 Here are the questions I asked the group to ponder:

Is it possible to receive harmful information or direction when it comes to you through the soul?

If you do receive something that can create more harm than good then should this be an indication to you that you are not receiving through the soul.

Is it possible that the disciple can receive some extremely difficult direction through the soul – that may seem dangerous and contrary to all that he has believed in the past?

Sterling was concerned (and rightfully so) about those who receive harmful revelations in the name of God or supposed higher intelligence. Unfortunately, there have been many who have created great harm and even killed the innocent, even their own children – all feeling they are directed by God.

Does this mean that we should just play it safe and outright reject all communication that comes to us that is above our ability to understand?

For the person who has not established soul contact this would be a good course, for all harmful acts in the name of God do not involve soul contact. Unfortunately the religious ones without true contact are the most eager to do anything in the name of God to get their big toes in heaven.

The key to harmlessness is not to resist all higher intelligence but to learn to recognize the soul. Safety lies in following those communications that come through the soul and using your common sense to make all other decisions not directly related to soul communications.

So how can one be sure he is getting something through the soul and even when sure how do we know that something crazy and wild-eyed will not be commanded that will be harmful?

The answer is two-fold.

First, the seeker must learn to recognize the vibration of the soul.

Secondly, he must test its accuracy over and over like a spiritual scientist. If time and time again the communications are accurate then this gives sure evidence that true soul communion has been achieved.

I have tested communications through my own soul many times. It seemed each time I did that more difficult to believe communications came. But I tested them and they proved to be accurate and beneficial. Then after much testing and gaining faith in the inner voice I received several whoppers that tested every fiber of my being. But even here the soul led me in the most harmless direction and one with great reward.

Overall I have found my soul communications to have been 100 percent reliable as far as I have been able to test them.

Visualize that ten mile path again. Let us suppose there are several pitfalls that are extremely helpful for the seeker to know. A brother has already traveled the whole thing and is observing you on your journey. He realized two things that may give you a major problem. There is a fork at the four mile point and a trap at the six mile point. He gives you a warning to not take the left fork and then another to avoid the trap. If you knew for sure that this brother has traveled the path and loves you would it not make sense to listen and heed his advice? After all, there is no way you can gain his knowledge through reason and common sense alone.

Even so, if a master or high intelligence speaks to you through the soul you will know the communications are sent through the love of the soul and it is to be trusted above the seekers own intelligence.

The tricky part is to establish true soul contact and learn to differentiate between emotional contact with the desire body and that of the soul energy.

 

Feb 10, 2013

Disturbing Video

The guy admits he is deceptive one moment and claims he is a prophet the next. Here’s a quote from him in a newspaper interview:

“My whole purpose, though, was to write the sealed portion. Get the sealed portion done. Sell it to the church. My whole idea was to sell it to the LDS church. I was going to sell it to them, because all the Mormons are looking for the sealed portion to come back. I thought I had a good talent for writing. I was going to write it up and sell it to them. They could do with it what they wanted. They probably would have kept it off the market.” Link

Since the church didn’t want to buy his Sealed portion he apparently decided to present himself as a divine messenger with whom immortals are competing to talk to on a regular basis.

Of course some things he writes are true but a lot of his writings are very deceptive. On the sealed portion site I have pointed out many illusions in his teachings. For this he has condemned me as a servant of Satan and calls me his enemy.

Here’s a site ran by a guy who was once a true believer like Christine but also lost money and a lot of time to Chris authoritarian dictates.

 

Feb 11, 2013

Christopher Dorner

You’ve probably heard about the alleged cop killer named Christopher Dorner.

Here is a recent update:

He felt he was unfairly fired back in 2008 and now he is seeking revenge by killing fellow cops and their families until his name is cleared. If the LAPD will just admit that they are corrupt and he is innocent of wrong doing then he will stop the killing.

It turns out that Dorner is a big lefty who wants gun control and thinks Piers Morgan is a great guy and loves Obama, Feinstein and leftists in general.

He funny thing is that many on the Left are coming forward supporting the guy and comparing him to Rambo.

Question: Is the guy a hero like Rambo? Does he really have a case?

You can read his manifesto here:

 

Feb 12, 2013

The Left

Nathan writes: I want to know, what point do you find in referring to this thing called “the Left.” It seems to me to be very vague to have any meaning…

JJ I think what is identified with the Left and the Right in this country is pretty well understood by most people.

The Left is generally identified with beliefs in big centralized government, big spending, lots of controls and regulations, higher taxes and fewer freedoms for the individual as they are acquiesced to the State.

The Right is generally identified with smaller government, lower taxes, less spending on social programs, fewer controls and regulations, attempts to balance the budget and maximum freedom for the individual.

Nathan …and as far as I can tell the way you refer to it doesn’t make it seem like some ideological perspective you’re denigrating as much as it does just some stigma…

JJ I’m definitely talking about an ideological perspective. I come from a libertarian perspective where the central theme of maximum freedom is the rule of thumb. The Left from this perspective is anything that takes us away from maximum freedom and the Right takes us toward it. Dorners ramblings tell us that he supports more government controls which will lead to less freedom.

Nathan: Many of your posts go something like “Look at this current event, see how outrageous some of the reaction is, they are from the Left, the Left is out to destroy us.”

JJ I do not believe I have said the political left is out to destroy us. They have good intentions but many of them are full of illusion and I point them out. My dialog with the thinker and true believer attempts this.

Nathan; Sound like an us versus them mentality, yet who the “us” and “them” are isn’t really known. What’s the point? Who are “the Left,” if they are anyone specific at all? If so, is it really fair to lump them all into the same characterization?

JJ Who the Left and Right are in any situation should be crystal clear. It is not clear why you should think otherwise.

For instance, the Left supports fewer freedoms to own and use guns as specified in the Second Amendment whereas the Right wants a very liberal freedom to own and use them. There is nothing nebulous or unknown when you go through the various beliefs one by one. Things get pretty specific.

As far as the us verses them mentality the criticism of this is often voiced by the New Age community. It sounds good to them that this should be avoided yet it cannot be. Why? Because we live in a world of duality and even the most con confrontational will have an “us verses them mentality” pop up when presented with a belief he does not like. Many like to see themselves as living beyond this type of thinking yet none do. I have never met such a person myself.

Jesus had an us verses them mentality most of his life as, he time and time again, argued with the Jewish leaders and presented his case as opposed to their delusional thinking.

Gandhi had an “us verses them mentality” when seeking to overthrow the English rule.

I think the phrase can refer to a positive direction and that is one should avoid seeing the opposition as evil that needs to be destroyed. We need to recognize that we are all brothers and the “them” out there who are opposed to ourselves should be changed with enlightenment rather than destroyed with steamroller tactics.

 

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2013, Part 3

This entry is part 3 of 25 in the series 2013

Jan 22, 2013

Debunking the Sandy Hook Debunkers

That was a good common sense article Larry. Link

It reached similar conclusions to myself. I’ve still been researching and contemplating Sandy Hook and have eliminated a number of points that are troubling skeptics. Here are the anomalies and conspiracy points I have discounted.

(1) There were no murders as they were faked.

Some think a conspiracy faked the murders but if you put your mind in the thinking process of a conspirator this would be a foolish thing to do. Even the biased bumbling media would be likely to discover such a thing.

(2) Robbie Parker and others were hired actors.

Again, this is very unlikely as it would be too easy to expose.

(3) Robbie Parker and others were actors and not the real parents of slain kids because they were caught smiling and looking cheerful during interview times.

Their behavior did seem odd but you can’t really predict how various people will handle a tragedy like this. Their odd behavior does not prove anything.

(4) Emily Parker who was supposed to be dead showed up in a photo with Obama after the shooting.

The two photos used for comparison were about two years apart and the girl with Obama was most likely her sister as claimed. After two years Emily would look older than the girl with Obama. Here is a good analysis: Link

(5) A fundraising site was place placed on Facebook before the tragedy. It was explained that the site was created before the event but for another purpose. Then after the massacre the purpose of the site was changed.

Because these and other points have been credibly debunked many dismiss all points presented by skeptics.

The conflicting reports on the guns is troubling as well as the possibility of a second gunman. It is also troubling that the ambulances went to the fire station rather than the school as ambulances were blocked from getting to the school.

Perhaps the most troubling of all is that there are no witnesses that have come forth. All but one who witnessed the shooting is dead. Both the shooter and his mom is dead and Lanza had no friends in the present time.

It is possible that this was a preplanned event but it is much more likely that the details of the event are merely manipulated to give gun control advocates in our government the ammunition they need to bypass the Second Amendment.

 

Jan 23, 2013

The Lords

Ruth notes that DK mentions quite a few different Lords and wants to know more about them. There are Lords of Karma, Flame, Destiny, Compassion, Liberation, Light and even Evil.

The first thing to understand in reading DK is he doesn’t give a lot of details in defining his terms. He seems to expect his readers to already have a good foundation in Theosophical terms and if details or definitions are missing he expects readers to either get the information intuitively or read between the lines.

He does acknowledge that new readers will have a difficult time in understanding him but encourages them to press forward and if they do that pieces will eventually fall together for them.

Hence there are no locations in DK’s writings where you can go to get clear definitions of the various Lords.

It may be helpful to consider what is meant when a being is referred to as “Lord of’ something. What does this mean? It merely mans that he is a master of the thing specified. Thus a Lord of Light is a being who has mastered the art of staying focused in the light and using such light intelligently. A Lord of Liberation is one who understands the principle of freedom, uses it successfully in his own life and ring-pass-not. He can guide others to the path of liberation.

A Lord of Compassion is one who has great empathy for fellow life forms and loves his neighbor as himself.

Where are these Lords, Ruth asks? There are various lords in the human kingdom and up in the various spheres as well as other planets. How many are there? Who knows? Quite a few all together.

Ruth: I am wondering then, is there a specific distinction or reason between why there are “Masters of Wisdom” instead of referring to them as “Lords of Wisdom”?

JJ They could have called themselves Lords of Wisdom but it just doesn’t sound as cool as Masters of Wisdom. After all, the main master to give out the teachings is Djwal Kool. (Real spelling revealed for the first time)

 

Jan 26, 2013

Underwater Hotel

Here’s the Latest project that not only houses people on the water but under the water.

 

 

Jan 27, 2013

Good Book – Sabbatai Sevi

I just read an interesting book about a little known character in history. His name was Sabbatai Sevi who lived from 1626-1676. He claimed to be the Jewish Messiah and gained quite a following. His work hit a snag when he was arrested by Muslims in Constantinople and later told to convert to Islam or be tortured to death. He decided to convert which discouraged many of his followers but not all. The true believers made all kinds of excuses for him even to the point of claiming that his true self ascended to heaven leaving behind a shadow of himself who pretended to convert.

The book I read is called “The Lost Messiah” by John Freely and is available at Amazon.

A good summary of Sabbatai’s life is found at Wikipedia HERE

It leaves out the important detail that the sultan threatened his life to get him to covert but otherwise is a good summary.

How about you? Have you read any interesting books the past year? If so tell us about one or two of them.

 

Jan 27, 2013

The Gospel of the Kailedy

Zenochio wrote:

There is a very little-known book that I recently re-read called “The Gospel of the Kailedy.” Very little information is available about this supposedly ancient book–where it came from, how it was found and translated, etc. One website says that those who came over to England with Joseph of Arimathea were known as the Kailedy, and there is speculation that this is Joseph of Arimathea’s own account of Jesus’ life.

JJ The Gospel of the Kailedy sounds interesting. I found a link to the full text here:

 

Jan 28, 2013

Questions

Ruth asks: RJ: “When the door opens once again for the highest from the animal kingdom consciousness to incarnate into human form, will these animal souls incarnate into the newer life forms created by humans?

JJ When the animals through fusion enter the human kingdom they will pick their opportunities to inhabit life forms just as we do now. If technologically created forms are available to humans they will be available to them because they will be human too.

Ruth; Was Hitler going to work on this same technology so he could create the “overlords”? Or was that a different type of technology?

JJ Computer technology was not available to Hitler but the Nazis would have used it when it became available. The Dark brothers have their own technology they could use to incarnate if they could have lowered he vibration of humanity enough to create a window.

Ruth: DK mentions that as we raise our vibration, then we become smaller, and even the animals will become smaller also. Will that take thousands of years for humans and animals to become really small until they “disappear” from sight?

JJ I do not recall DK saying this. Do you have a reference?

Over the millennia we have become larger. The average height around the time of Jesus was around 5’5″ for men. It is possible we may change again, becoming larger or smaller but we certainly will not become very tiny.

Ruth: JJ, I was wondering what your thoughts were about Sabbatai Zevi as being the Jewish Messiah?

Is Jesus allowed to proclaim himself as the Messiah to gain followers?

JJ There is no one to stop any of us from proclaiming anything we want. Where a particular proclamation is good or bad thing to do is another matter.

Sabbatai was no Jesus or Abraham but was a man with a big ego. I suspect he may have incarnated in this life as Chris Nemelka.

 

Jan 29, 2013

Unusual Questions

I have to give credit to Alex for bringing up questions I have not been asked before. After teaching for all these years this is rare.

Alex follows the teachings of the Raelians which has an unusual philosophy. Here it is in his words:

On the planet of Elohim the things are different. According to Yahweh (related by Claude Vorilhon), on the planet of Elohim, with the help of some medical procedure, they can extend their life span to about 1000 years. (First people on Earth created by them on the same principles also lived about 1000 years.)

However, they can not combat aging completely, nor they can regenerate tissues at will. So after about 1000 years it is time to die… But they found a workaround death.

What they do. Before death of a person they scan his/her brain and store all the thoughts and memories on a computer. Then when the person dies (or before that, does not matter), they scan DNA code from some cells. After that, using the scanned DNA they recreate a physical body with the same features and properties as of the deceased person. This growing of the physical body literally takes 10 minutes! Special machines are designed for that.

Now they have a copy of the deceased person. Now the most important. They download all the stored memories and thoughts from the computer into the brain of this just created body. The person comes back to life, remembering and being fully aware of him/herself. There might be a small memory gap from the time the memories have been scanned last time to the moment of death, but it is not significant. Also it might take some time for this person to readjust to his/her new healty physical body, which would be created usually younger — 25 years of hysical age.

But basically the person continues! Such process of recreation perfomed every 1000 years or in some cases after deaths resulted from accidents.

(Also, using the same technology, they can recreate dead people from Earth. To do that they need to scan the brain and take a DNA sample. They do it on rare occasions under hypnosis.)

Now the questions (assuming that this technology of immortality really exists and not just sci-fi): 1) Which soul reincarnates this freshly recreated body: – the same soul of a deceased person; – any random soul which likes the new young fresh body; – no soul, the copy thus becoming an intelligent robot with only a memory of a certain person?

2) The plot thickens if we take into account that they can create several copies of the same deceased person. Which one will be the real continuation of the deceased person and who will become an imposter? (By the way, the fact that we have many messiahs, Jesuses, Moseses and other prominent figures popping up here and there, is it not because of the experiments of Elohim?)

3) If a random soul enters a recreated body which remembers him/herself as a completely different figure, will it not be confusing for the soul to live in a body with such memories? (End Quote)

JJ Fortunately the Raelians are incorrect about life after death. There are number of spheres of existence of which they seem unaware. Their belief seems entirely centered on the idea that physical reality is all there is.

Even so, in this huge universe there are probably civilizations who have developed the technology mentioned. Assuming this is true let us look at Alex’s questions.

1) Which soul reincarnates this freshly recreated body?

Here on earth 80 years or so in one body is enough for the lessons we have to learn so imagine how we would feel after a thousand years. Most of us would be ready for a new body. If a clone of yourself was created and you had a chance to enter into it you would see from the higher angle of the soul if this is a wise thing to do. Most likely the answer would be no and a different entity would incarnate into it. It would not be a mindless robot unless it was manufactured that way.

2) If we take into account that they can create several copies of the same deceased person. Which one will be the real continuation of the deceased person and who will become an imposter?

Two different clones would normally be occupied by two different entities – similar to identical twins.

3) If a random soul enters a recreated body which remembers him/herself as a completely different figure, will it not be confusing for the soul to live in a body with such memories?

This is similar to the situation of walk-ins that we have talked about earlier. If a different entity occupies the body he would have the body’s memories and at first assume that he is that individual. As time passes he would have personality changes and become the entity he really is but with influences from the body he occupies.

 

Jan 29, 2013

Only in America

This has been circulating around the internet. No one knows for sure who the original author is but it makes some great points. It apparently was written by a Canadian.

1) Only in America could the rich people – who pay 86% of all income taxes – be accused of not paying their “fair share” by people who don’t pay any income taxes at all.

2) Only in America could people claim that the government still discriminates against black Americans when they have a black President, a black Attorney General, and roughly 18% of the federal workforce is black while only 12% of the population is black

3) Only in America could they have had the two people most responsible for our tax code, Timothy Geithner, the head of the Treasury Department and Charles Rangel who once ran the Ways and Means Committee, BOTH turn out to be tax cheats who are in favor of higher taxes.

4) Only in America can they have terrorists kill people in the name of Allah and have the media primarily react by fretting that Muslims might be harmed by the backlash.

5) Only in America would they make people who want to legally become American citizens wait for years in their home countries and pay tens of thousands of dollars for the privilege while we discuss letting anyone who sneaks into the country illegally just

magically’ become American citizens.

6) Only in America could the people who believe in balancing the budget and sticking by the country’s Constitution be thought of as “extremists.”

7) Only in America could you need to present a driver’s license to cash a check or buy alcohol, but not to vote.

8) Only in America could people demand the government investigate whether oil companies are gouging the public because the price of gas went up when the return on equity invested in a major U.S. oil company (Marathon Oil) is less than half of a company making tennis shoes (Nike).

9) Only in America could the government collect more tax dollars from the people than any nation in recorded history, still spend a Trillion dollars more than it has per year – for total spending of $7-Million PER MINUTE, and complain that it doesn’t have nearly enough money.

10) Only in America could politicians talk about the greed of the rich at a $35,000.00 a plate campaign fund-raising event.

11) Only in America can a man with no background, no qualifications and no experience … and a complete failure at his job … be reelected.

 

Jan 30, 2013

Interesting Story

Leaked emails prove Obama “backed plan to launch chemical weapon attack on Syria and blame it on Assad”  Link

 

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

Keys Writings 2013, Part 2

This entry is part 2 of 25 in the series 2013

Jan 17, 2013

Conspiracy Theory Revisited

Blayne: Take 9/11 for instance we have gone over it several times and I have shown people the proof and pointed people to http://www.ae911truth.org that has proven it beyond doubt with overwhelming evidence far more then Sandyhook yet people still claim they don’t “believe” when it is not a matter of belief it is a matter of facts and evidence. Has anyone looked there beyond a cursory look? Apparently not since no one has come back and refuted a single piece of evidence much less the conclusions of 17 hundred architects and engineers…

JJ The solid evidence for a conspiracy at 911 is miniscule compared to Sandy Hook and I have refuted all the major points of 911 and brought up others that no one has refuted.

The evidence for the 911 conspiracy is similar to the moon landing hoax conspiracy where people just find what they are looking for. There are always coincidences and strange facts surface in a major event and even with Sandy Hook 90% of them have a plausible explanation. Maybe the 10% does too but we don’t have the necessary information. I saw no such 10% that defied explanation from 911. Thankfully we have put the moon hoax conspiracy to bed now we have flown satellites over the landing sites and taken pictures. This has convinced all but a few.

Blayne I would beg to differ. You have not refuted a single point on the ae911truth.org site and I have refuted everyone of your points multiple times. 😉

JJ You need to go back and reread our arguments. I think most of the group here would think I refuted them quite substantially.

Blayne:  Of course you think that. However most of those that agree with you just take your word for it.   As I have said no one here including you has refuted a single point on the ae911truth.org site. For those that think they already have please put your money where your mouth is and go to the site there is a nice little list of main points on the front page in the far right column pick anyone of those points and refute them here.   They have proven beyond a shadow of a doubt the towers fell because it was a controlled demolition, that it was physically impossible for the planes to bring the towers down. That is much better evidence of conspiracy then Sandyhook and that is just the tip of the iceberg.   There is video of BBC news caster reporting tower 7 had fallen when it was in the background still standing and on an on. There is a mountain of evidence you simply choose to ignore.   If I remember right your main claim is that they could have never gotten all that explosives in place. When it doesn’t matter because it been proven they were a controlled demolition.   Go ahead and make my day.. 😉

JJ I haven’t seen any credible evidence at all that the three towers were the act of a controlled demolition. On a believability scale of 1-100 I would rate this belief as a minus 10 – kinda in the category of Jack and the Beanstock. You and Dean are the only two here I know that accept this.

And I have read a lot of material on this and watched a lot of videos.

Blayne:  So the fact that it is physically impossible for the buildings to fall at the speed they did without explosives clearing the path below them before hand simply means nothing to you… LOL!   There you have it illustrating my point once again. Another dodge with a non answer ignoring the facts and evidence and a poor attempt at ridicule to boot to divert attention away from the facts.   Just curious why for as long as we have discussed this off and on have you refused to address a single fact on the ae911truth.org site but instead just make off the wall comments like this?

JJ You sound like the Moon Landing Hoax people and wouldn’t be surprised if you didn’t also at one time believe that. They claimed that the moon landing defied the laws of physics and was an impossibility, but guess what? We now have photos of the landing sites proving for sure that we went to the moon. So I guess the laws of physics were not broken after all. Someone just miscalculated – which happens often.

When we argued this subject I covered the points you brought up. If you brought up some at the site you mentioned then I did cover them. I went there today and didn’t see much that was interesting or coherent.

When we discussed this earlier I countered all the points you made and you merely dismissed them or did not reply and moved on to another point claiming I had not answered when I did. Your mind is made up and we have already covered this subject into the ground so I don’t know why you keep bringing it up again and again. Maybe you ought to read some material on the other side like the book “Debunking 9/11 Myths: Why Conspiracy Theories Can’t Stand Up to the Facts.” If you read only the arguments on one side then that’s what you’ll be inclined to believe.

Blayne: You never refuted anything I brought up.

JJ This is completely untrue. I made dozens of posts refuting you and you were oblivious to being refuted. I don’t have time to get sucked into the same tired arguments again that bore most of the people here. I will post some general principles in discovering the truth behind conspiracies.

 

Jan 18, 2013

Forest and the Trees

Arguing about conspiracy theories is rarely productive as both sides usually have their minds made up but one thing they are good for is providing fodder for the seekers to sharpen their ability to perceive truth.

For instance, we either went to the moon or we did not. There is no gray area in the truth here. Those who were fooled by the so-called conspiracy evidence need to reflect and examine their thinking and ask where they went wrong. If a person can be fooled on one proven point then maybe he is fooled on a number of items.

The tricky thing about examining conspiracies is that there are real conspiracies in the world so one is foolish to just dismiss them all out of hand. Each one should be examined for its merit and analyzed. Arguing about conspiracy theories is rarely productive as both sides usually have their minds made up but one thing they are good for is proving fodder for the seekers to sharpen their ability to perceive truth.

That said, what are the major and minor points to consider? Do many miss the forest and only look at the trees? Yes, the big picture is often overlooked and those who are deceived get lost in the details.

Let’s see what we should be looking for if we want to find a real conspiracy composed of shadowy characters pulling strings in the background.

Major point: A shadowy conspiracy that must keep its identity secret must be composed of a small number of people to succeed. The ideal number is three. If there are more than six with a general knowledge of what is going on then the chances of the conspiracy being exposed is great and exponentially increases as more participants are added.

Most of such successful shadow conspiracies in our history have been murdering people who are considered obstacles. A conspiracy to murder has the advantage of only needing a small number of insiders to accomplish the job.

Sandy Hook fits in this category. We do not know if there was a conspiracy but one is possible because it could have been pulled off with three to six insiders.

On the other hand, many conspiracy theories would demand thousands of knowledgeable people participating. Two such conspiracies are the Moon landing and 9/11. Because both of these would demand thousands of participants and hundreds of insiders the mathematical probability of them being credible just from this one principle is so miniscule that they should be dismissed out of hand. The reason these conspiracies have to be very limited in number is that when more than six people are involved the chances of someone spilling the beans becomes high. When dozens or more are involved then you can be sure that the conspiracy will be exposed.

There has never been a proven shadow conspiracy that has involved more than a handful of people.

Conclusion: If you want to find a real shadow conspiracy look for one that can be carried out by a handful of participants.

Minor Point: A detail that doesn’t seem to make sense or seems too coincidental.

Sandy Hook has quite a few of these. For instance we have a picture of one of the dead girls, Emily Parker, showing up after the massacre. Then we have her dad being cheerful and laughing just before an interview.

The moon landing conspiracy claimed that the flag planted by Armstrong waved as in a wind which was impossible. Photos showed no stars in the sky and convinced them the astronauts were in a studio. The angle and color of shadows are inconsistent giving them more supposed proof they were in a studio.

Happenings like this are odd but they can be explained away.

The point is that after every major event anomalies will be discovered. A number of strange coincidences always seems to surface, even in events where it is obvious that no conspiracy exists.

Second major point: Real conspirators rely on tried and proven methods and do not want to try something new that requires great risk or would have a high risk of exposing them.

For instance, if the moon landing was a hoax then it would only be a matter of time before it was exposed by another nation checking out the landing sites. Why would anyone risk such a sure fire exposure?

Conspiracy people claim that the Twin Towers was a controlled demolition, but the largest building ever brought down with explosives was the J.L. Hudson Building in Detroit which was only 22 stories high. The Twin Towers were 110 stories and any technology to bring them down would have been very experimental and unproven. Only a fool would have tried such an unproven method and anyone smart enough to get away with a conspiracy is not a fool.

Minor point: It seems odd that the buildings collapsed as they did.

These details prove nothing because we have never witnessed the destruction of a building this size. Trying to guess all the details from theory is like the scientists trying to guess the results of the first atomic bombs going off. They knew nothing for sure until they actually exploded one and examined the results.

Science thought it was against the laws of physics that the universe could be increasing in the rate of expansion, but they found they were wrong when they discovered the very odd fact that the speed of expansion is increasing.

Observations around events that reveal oddities are the rule rather than the exception. A lot more reliable criteria for making a judgment is to look at the big picture and examine what is logical there.

Keith: Ideally, any crime committed can be best achieved by doing it yourself with nobody involved. Crimes can involve many people and succeed. Caesar’s assassination is an example of more than three persons being involved and succeeding. The Kennedy assassination probably involved more than three

JJ I said that three was the ideal number for a conspiracy, not that you couldn’t have one with a greater number. The larger the number the more awkward it becomes.

LWK did a good job in classifying the conspiracies as those that are intended to be kept secret (as the moon landing and 9/11) and those that require secrecy for a short time followed by the incentive of glory and power such as Caesar’s assassination and Stauffenberg’s group.

Another difference is no one can be proven to have known 911 was coming but Hitler knew there was a conspiracy against him. He suspected some of the players but did not go after them because it would hurt his credibility with the military. He was almost relieved after Stauffenberg’s failed attempt. He stated that he finally could go after the conspirators and still keep the support of the military.

All the main conspiracy accusations today involve shadowing characters that do not want to be discovered before, during or after the event.

If Kennedy was killed by a conspiracy I would guess there were only about a dozen who orchestrated it.

By contrast, the moon hoax would have involved over 100,000 – a mathematical impossibility. 911 would have involved thousands which would have made it impossible to keep secret after the event happened.

Let us suppose Stauffenberg and his group assassinated Hitler and wanted to keep it secret. Could they have succeeded? Not a chance.

Even so the thousands of supposed conspirators with the moon hoax or 911 could not have kept the details secret. We would have all kinds of insiders showing up on Sixty Minutes with disguised voices spilling their guts to clear their guilt.

Blayne:You forgot the Gulf of Tonken hoax that got us into the Vietnam war. They have admitted it never happend and it required hundreds of Naval and army personal to keep it quiet. Or how about Operation North woods? Here is a good list of proven

JJ The Gulf of Tonken and other examples prove my point. It was not kept secret. We now know all about it. Conspirators can often keep a plot secret, but after it is executed people pay attention and the truth comes out if there is a significant number of people who know about it.

It has been a dozen years since 9/11 and if it was a conspiracy as claimed then there would be dozens of the thousands involved who would be willing to talk about it just as many are now happy to talk about the Gulf of Tonken.

Blayne: This still does not explain the fact that the buildings could not fall through their own mass at near free fall speed as if there as nothing below them. Most of the building below where the planes hit was completely intact. Demolition is the only thing that can cause a building to do this as it clears the mass below.

JJ Wrong wrong wrong. Demolition is a thousand miles from explaining it because the technology does not exist to take down buildings like the Twin Towers. Your whole point rests on technology that has no existence and has never been tested.

Blayne; The details prove everything in this case…

JJ Then where are your details explaining an impossible demolition??? I have seen no good details on this that go beyond fantasy thinking.

Keith: If 9/11 was a government conspiracy then the individuals behind it in the U.S. facilitated the terrorist attack for their own ends. I do not think they organized the attack from the ground up. They became aware of the pending attack which they could have prevented and deliberately let it happen. If the buildings were demolished by explosives after the planes hit, then the conspirators used their black-ops network to carry it out.

JJ At least you are presenting something that is a possibility here. It is possible some in inner circles knew an attack was coming and did nothing to suit their own purposes.

On the other hand, you think the regular 9/11 conspiracy could have been carried out by few dozen people. This is not possible. There would have been hundreds involved in planning and planting the explosives. There would have been hundreds of soldiers involved in faking the planes and capturing and executing the passengers as claimed.

There would have been hundreds more who participated in faking the phone calls from the planes. This doesn’t count the masterminds who had to include hundreds more in their circle. If it was a conspiracy as claimed I would suspect that there are thousands who could expose it.

 

Jan 18, 2013

Unbelievable

Here is an excerpt from my book illustrating the improbability of orthodox conspiracy theory and 9/11.

So, here’s the situation they present: Bush, the supposed dumbest president in history, was a major player in a conspiracy that involved the cooperation of thousands of participants, pulled off the most infamous disaster in history, and never got caught. Thousands of people are pointing fingers at him, trying to nail him, but he is outsmarting them all, great genius that he is.

Here’s the conspiracy story in a nutshell: Bush and Cheney, in cooperation with invisible power brokers and the military, arranged the hijacking of four planes – Flights 93, 77, 175 and 11. Somehow, after they took off, they were mysteriously snatched out of the skies and taken to an undisclosed location. At this location, the passengers were killed and disposed. The planes were also destroyed, obviously completely pulverized that very day to prevent any recognizable piece from being later used as evidence to the crime.

This was an ingenious accomplishment on the part of Bush and other conspirators when you take into account the whistle blowers at minor atrocities such as Abu Ghraib. 9/11 was much bigger than making men perform tricks while naked.

Just imagine being in the military and designated as one of those disposing of the passengers. Four planes land and all the hundreds of passengers are unloaded and lined up to be shot. You and dozens of others are to kill them and dispose of the bodies. Isn’t it amazing that not one of them has anonymously spoken to the press?

After the planes were snatched out of the air, an amazing thing occurred. They were replaced by missiles or special pods created by the government. These missiles were painted and fixed up to look like planes, but were not planes. These missiles had no passengers on board, but were specially designed to accomplish the evil deed.

They had to make it appear that the passengers were still on board to the end so they faked phone calls made from passengers to loved ones on the ground. All the dozens of loved ones involved were fooled into thinking they were talking to the real person because the government somehow knew in advance who was going to be on each plane and duplicated the correct voices in advance using voice technology. Conspiracy people do not even ask how a bungling bureaucracy can even manage to successfully retrieve the phone numbers of the correct loved ones to call, let alone make them think a computer voice is a family member.

I don’t know about you, but if a computer called me pretending to be my wife, I think I could tell if I was talking to her or not.

The missiles then went about to accomplish their evil mission. The first was substituted for Flight 93 and crashed in a field in Pennsylvania.

What was that about? I know if I were a conspirator, the last thing I would do is to go through all that trouble just to crash a missile in a field. Strange.

The second, the substitute for Flight 77, crashed into the Pentagon. What was that about? The military attacking itself? Oh, yeah… that was just to remove suspicion. That really worked, didn’t it? Even though dozens of people saw a plane, some even close enough to see the passengers, they were fooled. It was really a missile.

The other two missiles, which replaced Flights 175 and 11, plowed into the two Twin Towers buildings. Though millions of people saw the video of this, what they saw were not planes, but missiles or specially built pods that landed in just the right places to not interfere with the planned explosive demolition.

Explosive demolition?

Yes, and this is the amazing part. The conspiracy people believe that the Twin Towers and WTC 7 were brought down by a controlled demolition by the use of pre-planted explosives. Even though the largest demolition by explosives has been just over 20 stories, the conspirators decided to go for the Guinness Book of World Records. They increased that record not twice, or four times, but over five times and did it simultaneously with not one building, but two, along with a smaller record-breaking building on the side.

They didn’t care that the technology for such an unknown feat had not been perfected or tested. Instead, they recklessly went ahead blowing up the buildings, just hoping everything would work as planned. This would have indeed been a dumb thing to do, but it turned out that Bush was extremely lucky that things worked out.

Planting the explosives was the difficult part and really illustrates the hidden genius of Bush to have pulled this off.

Hundreds of workers with blow torches and construction tools would have had to enter the buildings and, without being seen, tear out the walls in thousands of locations in each of the Twin Towers. Then they would have had to pull out blowtorches and cut out “V” notches in the thousands of steel beams that supported the towers.

Next, they would have had to wire one explosive charge to another in thousands of locations, destroying and disrupting offices as they moved along. After this, they would have had to repair their destructive work before each worker entered his office again. The repair would have had to be so seamless that none of the thousands of people in the Twin Towers would notice that any changes were made.

Even more amazing is that none of the hundreds, or perhaps even thousands, of demolition workers have spilled their guts. Not one of them has gone to the press to become the hero of the ages. Maybe the conspirators had the military kill them all.

Again, the question arises. When the military lined up and gunned down all the demolition workers, was there not one of the assassins that had a prick in his conscience and was willing to tell his story?

I guess not.

It must have been the genius of Bush that pulled this all off so seamlessly.

If you believe this is the way 9/11 really happened, then I have a bridge to sell you, cheap.

Sorry, I do not have time to answer all the time consuming questions. Instead, just google the answers or go here:

We have already covered this subject to death and I have no interest i repeating what I have already said.

 

Jan 19, 2013

Re: Forest and the Trees

Blayne: The Gulf of Tonken incident did not come to light for decades Along with many other incidents…. there goes your point. There have been dozens willing to talk about it.

JJ The truth of the Gulf of Tonkin was available from the beginning. A number of insiders tried to reveal the truth. Senator Wayne Morse had an informant shortly after the incident that revealed the truth to him, but wasn’t able to stop us going to war. The 9/11 incident was much more massive and would have involved many more people but we have no Senator or member of Congress claiming to have an informant giving us details of a conspiracy.

Not one insider has come forward with any testimony on a 9/11 conspiracy let alone evidence of a demolition. If your belief were true many would have come forward by now.

JJ Quote Wrong wrong wrong. Demolition is a thousand miles from explaining it because the technology does not exist to take down buildings like the Twin Towers. Your whole point rests on technology that has no existence and has never been tested.

Blayne: Yet the fact remains they fell at near free fall speed mainly into their own footprint. The only way that could happen is to have their mass below them cleared out of the way and the only tech that we know of that can do that is controlled demolition.

JJ You keep bringing up this freefall doctrine just like you did a couple years ago when we covered it thoroughly. We both gave our explanations and now you want to do the dance all over again. Why? You’re not giving any additional light this time around.

The last time I gave you this reference: LINK

And here is a more recent one illustrating that the freefall was not such a freefall after all.

 

Of course the conspiracy people counter this but unconvincingly.

Blayne: Also I wonder why you think taking down the towers would be any different then any other high rise? The tech has existed for decades.

JJ You have absolutely no proof of this. Either prove it or quit making this claim from the seat of your pants.

JJ Quote: Then where are your details explaining an impossible demolition??? I have seen no good details on this that go beyond fantasy thinking.

Blayne I have posted them many times.

JJ Strange. You keep saying this but I have not seen it. Has anyone else?

You then want to bring up many details that we have already discussed. If you want my answers on the rest of your questions go back two years and read my posts. They are still there.

I will add this interesting quote from the popular Mechanics book on the subject of demolition.

“if you look at any building that is imploded, the explosives are primarily placed on the ground floor and the basement,” Loizeaux (a demolition expert) says. “Why? Because you want to remove the columns when you have the majority of that stored potential energy above where you’re taking the columns out. You want to release as much energy as possible. if you look at the collapse of these structures, they start collapsing up where the planes hit. They don’t start collapsing down -below.” Loizeaux says even if explosives had been placed on the upper floors, they would have generated significantly more dust and debris than mere “puffs.”

Despite his credentials as a physicist, Jones is among those who make faulty assumptions about controlled demolition. in putting forth his case that the buildings were brought down with explosives, Jones writes: “Roughly 29000 pounds of RDX-grade linear-shaped charges (which could have been pre-positioned by just a few men) would then suffice in each Tower and WTC 7 to cut the supports at key points so that gravity would bring the buildings straight down.”

According to Loizeaux, Jones is simply wrong. “The explosives configuration manufacturing technology [to bring down those buildings] does not exist,” Loizeaux says. “If someone were to attempt to make such charges, they would weigh thousands of pounds apiece. You would need forklifts to bring them into the building.”

The biggest commercially available charges, Loizeaux tells Popular Mechanics, are able to cut through steel that is three inches thick. The, box columns at the base of the World Trade Center towers were 14 inches on a side. If big enough charges did exist, Loizeaux says, for each tower it could hypothetically take as long as two months for a team of up to 75 men with unfettered access to three floors to strip the fireproofing off the columns and then place and wire the charges.

“There’s just no way to do it,” Loizeux says, adding that it is similarly implausible that explosives could he smuggled into the buildings. “If you just put bulk explosives in file cabinets next to every column in the building, it wouldn’t knock those columns down. It would blow the windows out. It would trash the [building] and probably blow out two floors above and a floor below . . but it wouldn’t knock the [buildingl down.”

 

Jan 19, 2013

If It Will Save One Life

I’ve always hated the “save one life” argument. The Left uses it as an emotional argument often to take us away from freedom. They used it to create the irritating 55 MPH speed limit and all kinds of regulations. They have spent up to a billion dollars to save a life with nuclear energy regulations where for about a hundred bucks they could save a sick kid in Central America.

 

Jan 19, 2013

Re: 9/11 Analysis

Dean You should have already researched it.

JJ I have researched supposed whistle blowers before but new attempts at supplying them come up all the time. None from any insider and none with any convincing evidence.

Dean: I already gave you witnesses in the link, there is many more I didn’t reference, but you are so much in denile so nothing will help you?

JJ You’re dreaming of another reality. Just make a feeble attempt to give us one actual whistle blower that goes beyond someone hearing a noise, hearsay or something. Give me one like the actual witness to the Gulf of Tonkin that was on the ship and spilled his guts to Senator Morse. Maybe you could supply a soldier feeling guilty for gunning down the passengers of the planes after they were miraculously snatched from the air – or maybe someone who fabricated the cell phone calls or helped plant the explosives etc.

Blayne’s whistleblowers “FBI translator Sibel Edmonds, the most gagged woman in America, having the State Secrets Privilege imposed on her twice, went public last year to reveal that Bin Laden maintained “intimate” relations with the US right up until 9/11.

JJ It’s common knowledge we supported Ben Laden during the Russian war with Afghanistan and if we kept some links going that proves nothing. This gal was no insider with any knowledge of a conspiracy.

Blayne: Another whistleblower is former Sergeant in the United States Army named Lauro “LJ” Chavez. Chavez was stationed at MacDill AFB where he claims he witnessed unusual preparations for a potential airplane hitting the base on the morning of 9/11 and distinctly heard officers talking about a stand down. This led him to go public in questioning the NORAD stand down and the demolition of the twin towers.”

JJ Again, a million miles from an insider. Lots of people have heard strange stuff. Listen to Coast to Coast and you’ll be amazed, but observations and hearsay does not prove a conspiracy.

As I said, out of the thousands that had to be involved not one with real knowledge has come forth. Surely one of the hundreds that had to plant the explosives would feel enough guilt to come forward. The fact that no one has ought to tell you something.

Good information on the black boxes is here:

Blayne: Again if no conspiracy can exist without an original conspirator coming forward how did the Manhattan Project stay secret?

JJ The Manhattan project didn’t stay secret. Right after the bomb hit Hiroshima everyone knew about it.

It is fairly easy to keep preparations a secret but after they are executed it is another matter. After 9/11 was executed some participants would normally come forth – particularly rank and file workers just doing their job planting explosives.

JJ Of course the argument made in the video is invalid. The speed of a transfer of force is faster than freefall which explains the supposedly strange data.

Blayne: You have never gotten past the fact that it is physically impossible for a plane and low grade fire to bring down a metal framed building much less the speed of the fall. Yet you continue to thumb your nose at over 1700 architects and engineers informing you of that fact… Talk about fantasy land geeze..

JJ Nothing to get over. It fell at the speed it fell whatever that was for there seems to be lack of agreement on this except for certain truthers who are always 100% sure they have the facts right.

This is just like the moon hoax conspiracy except the moon hoax people had better evidence.

To calculate what an event would accomplish when it was a one of a kind event often results in occurrences that baffle calculations.

Keith listed a number of them from the Moon Hoax but at least he accepts the photographic evidence of the landing sites we now have. The laws of physics were not violated. Instead many just either calculated incorrectly or used bad data in the process.

True believers will never prove their 9/11 conspiracy theories because they make no sense. 20 years from now we will still have no insider whistle blower and the truthers will continue with this same tired debate.

On Sept 11, 2010 we started going back and forth on this subject for about two weeks through about 200 posts. I’ve tried to not repeat myself this round but I think we have covered this enough so unless some really significant new material is presented this will be my last post on this subject for some time to come.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE