Keys Posts 2012, Part 18

This entry is part 31 of 40 in the series 2012A

July 1, 2012

Taxes & Slavery

Duke: So, by your calculation, (Reference) sixty-something percent of the income I generate ends up going for taxes?

In other words, sixty-something percent of my labor ends up helping out our military, the elderly, the unemployed, victims of natural disasters, education, those in poverty, road & highways, many worthy causes in third-world countries, some of our threatened allies overseas, police & fire services, research, pollution reduction, the space program, and so on… is that right?

Sixty-something percent! Wow, I had no idea that my labor was making such a large positive contribution. No, I don’t necessarily agree with everything my taxes go for, but the net result is overwhelmingly positive instead of negative.

Thanks for letting me know!

JJ Yeah, it wouldn’t be so bad making the sacrifice if the whole 60+% went to worthy causes and was not wasted, but the government is so inefficient that about half the money is completely wasted and another half is not worthy making about 25% of our taxes going to something worthwhile. That’s why a 15% total tax bill (instead of 60%) is a lot more reasonable and could produce an even greater benefit than we have today.

Here’s an example of inefficiency: Obama’s Economists:

The Stimulus Has Cost $278,000 per Job

Here are examples of frivolous waste that has tremendous costs in addition to inefficiency:

The really bad part is we borrow money, in addition to high taxes, to do these things placing a great burden on our children and grandchildren.


July 1, 2012

Duke: Yes there is waste and inefficiency, but I do not accept your claim that only 25% of our taxes end up going to something worthwhile. Do you have a solid basis for that number, or is it based your broad assumption that half is wasted and the other half spend on something not worthwhile.

JJ It was an intelligent guess but I’ll be backing this up with some specific figures as this series I am writing continues.

Duke: Nor do I accept your equating the paying of taxes with slavery. I think you took one aspect of slavery and treated it as the whole of the matter, using wording that can also be applied to the paying of taxes by someone who begrudges them, and so you have extrapolated that paying taxes therefore equals slavery. Here is a somewhat more complete definition of slavery…

JJ Here is what I actually said in my post: “It is true that the overburdened taxpayer does not have all the restrictions of a plantation slave but a significant portion of his labor is forced upon him to pay taxes he doesn’t accept.”

I concluded that the core aspect of slavery is to be forced to labor against one’s will, but “the overburdened taxpayer does not have all the restrictions of a plantation slave.” This year the average person has to labor from Jan 1 to April 17 just to pay the taxes that are not hidden. That is a big chunk of freedom lost. I’d much rather spend that time having fun.

Duke: Housework probably has just (if not more) as much in common with slavery, but it is also not the same thing.

JJ You’ve gotta to be kidding. I can chose to do no housework if I want and no one will come after me but if I do not pay my taxes I can be fined and sent to jail. No comparison to either plantation slavery or taxpayer slavery.

Duke: Most people begrudge paying taxes because it’s easy to see the effect of money coming out of their pocket, and harder to see the benefits of a strong military, a good road system, programs that assist the disadvantage, education, research, reduced pollution, etc.

JJ I have no problem paying taxes for things that cannot be taken are of by free enterprise but whenever a group spends money that is not theirs with no accountability there is always tremendous waste and frivolousness in the name of doing good. I’m not going to just sit back and tell myself I am happy when over half my tax dollars are wasted.

Duke: And I was serious when I said that it was encouraging to learn that sixty-something percent of what I generate goes through the system as taxes at some point – it means my contribution actually amounts to something.

JJ Then by this reasoning if you increased your taxes to 80% you’d feel even better.


July 1, 2012

Duke: You can also choose to avoid having an income tax bill by simply nor working or working less, and no one will come after you and fine you or send you to jail unless you have outstanding debts, or incur debts that you do not pay.

JJ I disagree. You cannot just choose to have a non taxable income. There have been several years that I have had a very low income, but because I was self employed I still had to pay a self employment tax and if I didn’t do so then they would have come after me. Believe me in those lean years this tax money was very hard to come by and there was no option to not work.


July 1, 2012

Duke: Well you could theoretically have chosen to work for someone else, or even to be unemployed, if you really didn’t want to pay any income tax. But this is very much a side issue; the more important issues are a) whether or not taxation amounts to slavery, and b) whether most (about 75% by your reckoning) of the money we pay in taxes is wasted one way or another.

JJ I don’t maintain that paying taxes is slavery, for most are willing to pay a fair tax. I am saying that excessive taxation where we have to pay more than are willing, or go to jail, is a form of slavery. A slave has to work against his will for recompense that is much less than the fruit of his labor.

“For thus saith the LORD, Ye have sold yourselves for nought; and ye shall be redeemed without money.

“For thus saith the Lord GOD, My people went down aforetime into Egypt to sojourn there; and the Assyrian oppressed them without cause. Now therefore, what have I here, saith the LORD, that my people is taken away for nought? they that rule over them make them to howl, saith the LORD; and my name continually every day is blasphemed.” Isa 52:3-4


July 2, 2012

 The Illusions that Grow Government              

This and your previous post on slavery/taxpayers was really good Rob. Did you write the slavery-taxpayers points yourself? If so, good job.

I hope you don’t mind me asking this of you but I think the group would find this of interest.

You are openly gay yet you do not fit the gay stereotype that is projected by the media. If you believe the media all gays are big liberals who want big government to give them more and more free stuff and services. I assume that you have a lot of gay friends. Do many of them think like you or do most of them fit the stereotype? Are any of them offended by the stereotype?

We have several gays on the list and they are all reasonable people – not really fitting the media stereotype. I have a nephew who is gay who reminds me a lot of you and is miles from the media stereotype. Anyway I think the group would find your comments on this subject interesting.

July 2, 2012

The main point to consider is that I did not equate over taxation as being exactly the same thing as plantation slave labor but that it has the prime component of slavery which is forced labor without recompense. What I am saying fits in with the following definition you quoted:

“…all work or service which is exacted from any person under the menace of any penalty and for which the said person has not offered himself voluntarily.”

This is the problem with many arguments is that one side will say; “Your definition does not exactly fit the parameters of my one definition so I will not accept it.” Most words have several layers of definitions and we have to look at the context of the argument to see if the person is using it accurately.

We had this same problem with the word “legal” a while back.


July 3, 2012

LWK In principle slavery should be simply defined as the condition of being forced to work for the benefit of others without your consent. “Force” is not necessarily some slave master with a whip, but government penalties and sanctions that make one accept one’s slavery as best available alternative.

JJ Good point Larry. Few would argue against the idea that the people in North Korea are slaves. The people are not bought and sold, they are not whipped to force them to work and they do not have many ingredients of plantation slavery. Yet they are definitely in a state of slavery for they are forced to toil against their will. All societies that have existed have possessed some ingredients that enslave people, some much more than others. To say that any nation is free of slavery ingredients because they do not have all the parts encapsulated in plantation slavery is way too black and white that misses the slavery principle by leaps and bounds.


July 5, 2012

Total freedom includes the freedom to harm. This freedom must be restricted to a degree but not completely. People are free to lie, betray friends, hurt feelings, attempt suicide, commit adultery which are harmful. It’s a judgment call which freedoms to do harmful actions need to be restricted. Some like rape and burglary definitely need to be restricted.


Jul 5, 2012


Ruth: JJ, I also have a question for you as Teacher of this group, so that I can understand the psychological technique behind this.

When you compliment certain people (men usually), on their posts, do you compliment them for a reason? E.g. is there a particular motive behind your compliment, because I notice that you do not compliment everyone who may have made great posts in the past?

JJ I wind up complimenting more men than women mainly because men post a lot more than females do here. For instance, out of the last 65 posts only 10 were by females.

Of course I compliment people for a reason – I have a reason for everything I do, don’t you? A lot of people make good posts and if I complimented all of them the compliments would be fairly meaningless. I make a compliment when someone says something that I think is fairly original or particularly helpful to the discussion. The last two compliments I gave were on lists that originated with the writers own thinking. When I read Rob’s list I wondered if he wrote it himself or copied it somewhere. I thought it was good enough to have merited publication somewhere.

I complimented Dan on his original list of restrictions of freedom by government. It struck ne as something I may use myself.

I compliment not just on quality but on things I find particularly interesting and helpful. That may be different with me that for you or others. Others give compliments also which is good because everyone needs some encouragement now and then. I am certainly not the only judge of quality here. Ruth BTW I am not fishing for compliments either, because these days I do not care whether I am complimented or not on my posts.

JJ I think you do care as you have brought this subject up a number of times.

Ruth Isn’t a compliment really, in effect, catering to the other person’s lower self or ego, or trying to make the other person feel good about what they did?

JJ Why would you think this? Even God wants recognition for his work and wouldn’t let Moses enter the promised land because he did not give it to Him.

Flattery caters to the ego but this is based on illusion. A recognition of a work well done is very helpful and encouraging and even God likes a pat on the back.

By the way, you do a great job coming up with helpful quotes from a number of sources.



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 Free Study Group HERE


Keys Posts 2012, Part 17

This entry is part 30 of 40 in the series 2012A

WHAT IS YOUR STORY? – By Artie Dewey


(Note from JJ Several people have asked Artie for a summary of her presentation at the Gathering. She has written it up in three parts. Enjoy.)


Have you ever seen the Jack in the Box commercial where Jack and his cohorts are standing in a loud nightclub on the sidelines trying to talk? Jack asks “Why are we here?” One guy says “You said we should try Club Chipotle.” Jack replies “I said we should try a chipotle chicken club.” Then he described the combo and the price of $4.99 which includes fries and a drink. One woman asks “Did you say you wanted a drink?” Jack answers “I said a drink comes with a combo”. She gets all excited and asks “You know how to mambo?” Jack, all cool and clever, says proudly “Of course I can do the robot”

Does this style of communication sound familiar in your house? You talk past each other because neither one can “Hear” the other – figuratively speaking in most cases, but I think JJ doesn’t hear as well as he used to, so it’s literal for me – and then you get into an argument over something you may not have even been talking about in the first place!

Misunderstandings like this can sometimes be sorted out if you go back in the conversation and retrace who said what – and women are superior in doing this, even years later. The problem is men don’t admit to saying what THEY said – right?

More difficult misunderstandings to sort out are those that involve our OWN thoughts and beliefs.

Do you believe what you think? This is an interesting question.

Of course we believe our own thoughts because they come from us, right? If we don’t believe our OWN thoughts, whose thoughts DO we believe? Do we, in fact, consciously create our thoughts?

Last year, we learned in my talk about the Healing Code that most of our adult stress stems from unquestioned childhood beliefs we formed from our environment – things our parents, siblings, friends, and teachers did and said to us. As children, we were sponges with no maturity and experience to filter the negative, self-limiting feedback we absorbed into our subconscious. Since many of these childhood memories (the Healing Code calls them “heart pictures”) silently dwells in our subconscious, we aren’t aware of how our past effects our ADULT lives until a stressor triggers a reaction that often isn’t appropriate to the situation.

Have you heard of the statement in The Course in Miracles that says “I am never upset for the reason I think”.? (This is one of JJ’s favorites and he relishes reciting this to me sometimes in an argument – what man in his right mind tells his wife “you’re not upset for the reason you think?”) Why is this statement true? WHY do we get upset for reasons we’re not even aware of?

The answer is in the word “upset”. When we’re upset and emotional, the subconscious takes over and conscious well-thought-out responses fly out the window. Most of our negative reactions that bubble up from our subconscious are AUTOMATIC, like habits and learned skills like walking and driving. Because they’re based on deeply engrained beliefs about ourselves and the world, we’re attached to them and they even define who we are.

Are we likely to give credence to thoughts and feelings that we believe are true because they’ve been with us for so long, even if they no longer serve us (and maybe never did) ? Of course.

How often do we change our minds, particularly our long-held beliefs? Not often, which is why people don’t change that much during adulthood. Do we ever stop to ask if our thoughts are true? Probably not. Our UNINVESTIGATED, engrained beliefs that become our STORY is what I’m going to talk about today.

A book that caught my attention this year after I heard the mention of it by Jenny McCarthy on Oprah, is called “Loving What Is” by a woman named Byron Katie. Katie – as she’s commonly called – was a severely depressed suicidal alcoholic living in the desert of Barstow, California. For years she raged at her family, traumatized her kids, had no friends, and lost her successful real estate business because of her problems.

One morning, after sleeping on the floor of a basement room of a rehab facility she checked herself into because the other women were afraid of her and because she didn’t consider herself worthy of a bed, she woke up in a totally different state of consciousness. Some would say she had a nervous breakdown, others like JJ and I think she may have become a walk-in. She didn’t recognize her body but was fascinated by it, she didn’t know who she was and where, she didn’t communicate in the usual manner, etc. She literally acted like a non-human alien who jumped into a body without preparation.

Anyway, after adjusting to her body and surroundings, all this lead her to question every thought and belief she ever had – negative and positive -, and this unraveling over a period of time brought her peace from depression, anger, disappointment, addiction, etc. and healed all her relationships. (It resulted in a divorce because her dysfunctional husband was threatened by her new consciousness.)

Through word of mouth, people from around the world came to her door to find out about this peace she had found. She was no New Ager and read no self-help books in her life, so when the New Agers she counseled left her house, they would often say “Namaste”. She thought they were saying “No mistake”, and she thought “Wow – these people really get it!”

Since then, Katie’s teachings have become a machine – she’s written several books with the help of her next husband (I’ve compiled portions of 4 of them for this talk) , she tours the world giving seminars, she’s done personal counseling with thousands, she founded a 28-day facility program for the addicted called Turnaround House, she offers a 1.5 week School of the Work and a follow-up Institute for graduates that offers professional certification. Her extensive web site is Katie offers free audio and video downloads featuring actual sessions with clients in workshop settings, free downloads of resource materials, etc.

Katie calls this process of questioning your thoughts and beliefs “The Work”. I’m first going to cover her 6 basic principles before we talk about the inquiry.

1) Principal #1: Katie’s foundational belief is “I’m a lover of what is, not because I’m a spiritual person, but because it hurts when I argue with reality. No thinking in the world can change it. What is IS.” The principle is notice when your thoughts argue with reality – we suffer when we believe a thought that argues with what is. “If you want reality to be different than it is, you might as well try to teach a cat to bark. You can try and try and in the end the cat will look up at you and say Meow.”

Using “Shoulds” and “Shouldn’ts” in our language suggest a state of mind that projects into past experiences and tries to change the present and the future. They’re evidence of wanting a different reality. You reject what’s happening and interject SHOULD and SHOULDN’T as if they can change reality. “I should be able to trust people” (Wayne). “My boss shouldn’t ignore my intelligent input.” “I should have known this wouldn’t work out.”

What you think shouldn’t have happened SHOULD, because it DID. No mental arguing in the world can change reality – it only causes you stress. The more you stick to the belief that you’re in control of the events and people in your life, the more you’ll fight reality every step of the way. We have no idea what’s going to happen next with total assurance, which makes the game of life exciting, even for God.

This is not to say that we should accept everything that happens without judgment because it’s not possible or desirable. But by accepting what’s happening (but not necessarily liking it), and keeping the mind clear and the emotions calm, positive action to remedy a situation if it’s called for is possible. Instead of cursing the darkness, we light a candle.

Accepting reality not only positively affects our relationships and events in our lives, but also our physical bodies. The book “Intuitive Healing “states “Our beliefs trigger biochemical responses. No organ system stands apart from our thoughts. What you really believe programs your brain chemicals.” The body has its own consciousness and life, but, like the subconscious, the body takes your mind’s direction, whether it’s life- affirming or non life-affirming. The body’s consciousness will tell you through pain and illness when the stresses are more than it can handle.

For example, anger can increase inflammation; anxiety can cause jittery platelets and high cortical levels; grievance can lead to cancer, the most common emotional cause of cancer.

Listen to the body and respect its message – don’t let thoughts that argue with reality enter in to stop the body’s healing process, like “I shouldn’t be sick” or “I hate this tumor. I’m going to battle with it” -Ever hear of the “courageous fight with cancer” statement often used in obituaries?

You’re not present to help your body if you deny or fight against what’s happening to it. Do you think your body will heal from illness most efficiently when you’re tense and fearful, fighting it as an enemy? Use compassion and acceptance and ask the body what it needs from you. Be grateful for its health and support and calmly and rationally give it what it needs to heal.

Another way we argue with reality is when we tell ourselves we HAVE to do things – I have to go to work, I have to clean the house, I have to go grocery shopping. These things become stressful chores when we argue with reality. In knowing that we don’t HAVE to do anything and that we only do what we DECIDE to do right now, we just do things in peace and acceptance, and they can even become pleasurable. This is an important point I personally have learned over the years in regards to housework. I have complained and martyred myself that I HAVE to do all this housework and nobody appreciates it (sound familiar?). When I get the response, “if you don’t want to do it, don’t do it”, that just twists the knife – if I don’t do it, who will??? Finally, in my old age, I realized that I do chores because they make ME feel good when I do it, and I would do it even if no one was around to appreciate it, so I might as well enjoy the process instead of fighting it and making everybody around me miserable.

The bottom line is that when we argue with and reject reality, we create a fantasy life, and live it as if it were true. We believe a lie. We aren’t present in our own life when we deny the truth of it and we aren’t present for others when we deny the truth of who they are because we’ve detached ourselves.

2) Principle #2 : Stay in your own business. There are 3 kinds of business: Yours, mine and God’s (that which is beyond anyone’s control). Much stress comes from living outside your own business or “sphere of influence” as Steven Covey calls it – there is separation from yourself and you’re not living your own life, because you’re not in it. Every wonder why people who’s life is tied up with minding others’ have lives that don’t work? Nobody’s living it! When you think you know what’s best for someone else, you not only avoid facing your own problems but you’re also frustrated, anxious and lonely because you’re out of your area of control. The next time you’re feeling stressed, ask yourself whose business you’re in mentally – it’s usually not your own.

3) Principle #3 : Meet your thoughts with understanding. It’s not our thoughts but the ATTACHMENT to them that causes our suffering. Attachment means believing a thought is true without questioning it. Most people think they ARE what their thoughts tell them they are without question. It’s amazing when I watch shows that help people – lose weight, or get themselves together financially, or help them heal relationships, etc. -how many of them say they feel worthless and unworthy – it seems to be a common denominator. They believe their own thoughts and beliefs despite proof to the contrary. This is why obese people who lose a lot of weight often gain it back because they don’t see themselves as thin regardless of what the mirror or scale says. Outward success doesn’t change the inner dialogue.

Unfortunately, we can’t control our thoughts. (According to Deepak Chopra we CAN control them because they are not us – we are not our thoughts, emotions, body, etc. ). I disagree. Just because we are more than our thoughts doesn’t mean we have control over them – just as we are more than what happens to us doesn’t mean we can control what happens to us. Our thoughts come unbidden, they usually come from the subconscious so we don’t CONSCIOUSLY create many of them, and sometimes they work against our own best interests. Ever notice this? How many times do you say something that just pops out of our mouth and you wonder “Where did THAT come from?” Or you meditate and get all excited that you didn’t have a thought for 10 seconds, but then realize you just had a thought that you didn’t have a thought? Byron Katie believes we don’t really think – we’re BEING thought. This seems far out, but if we’re the thoughts of God, as JJ teaches, then maybe she’s right.

Katie’s theory is that if we can’t control our thoughts, don’t try to control them, or suppress them (this leads to cancer) ,or change them (as in positive affirmations) , or let them go (as in meditation practice). They will let go of YOU if you meet them with understanding. Be the observer of your thoughts and treat them like friends coming for a visit, but don’t automatically believe them. The only way to unravel them and release their power over you is ask questions about them – are they true?

Do you believe or find credible your thoughts while dreaming? No. They come from you, so why not? Because they come from the subconscious and they’re often silly and don’t make logical sense. Thoughts from the subconscious aren’t any more reliable just because you’re awake. Once a thought or belief that is painful is met with understanding AND skepticism , the next time it appears you may find it interesting or even funny. After that, you may not even notice it.

4) Principle #4: Become aware of your stories, which are your thoughts about what’s happening that are untested, uninvestigated theories of what things mean. What things mean is the left brain’s job – to make sense of our environment. When unexplained and/or unexpected events happen – for example, when someone doesn’t contact you when they’re supposed to (common culprits are contractors), when your boss invites you to come into his office at 4 pm on a Friday, when a cop’s siren goes off behind you on your teenager has missed his curfew by an hour – the left brain begins creating stories to defend yourself, explain the situation, blame the other person, etc. Ever notice that? I must be a great storyteller because before I know what’s happening for sure, I’ll weave a story about what’s probably going on and I upset myself – and then I find out what really happened – totally unlike my fantasy – and I feel stupid. Anyone ever do that?

There are also stories we tell ourself that encompass more than an event – they’re stories that we use to explain our lives. Small stories breed bigger ones. Bigger stories breed major theories about life and we become defined by the stories we tell ourselves. Your personality takes it as a badge and you wear it. For example, how many people define themselves as cancer survivors, or rape survivors, or a minority, or ADD/ADHD, or obese, or poor, or unemployed, etc. – almost to the exclusion of all else? Some of our stories empower us, many disable us. Every disabling story is a variation on a single theme: THIS SHOULDN’T BE HAPPENING – I shouldn’t have to experience this – This is unfair. When we recycle these stories, we move out of the truth and live in fantasy, which reduces our power of decision.

Most of our stories involve other people, particularly those close to us. The problem is that we often know less about those close to us – our spouse, children, parents – than a stranger we’ve talked to for an hour. We only know our STORIES about them and don’t have a clue who they really are. Also, our understanding of other people is limited by what we think we already know and the projections of our own thoughts we’ve placed on them. This is what happens sometimes in the process of falling in love (more likely, lust) with a person who doesn’t share your values, like a “bad boy” for a girl or a “toy boy” for an older woman. We create a romantic, fantasy story about how wonderful and exciting and attractive the person is, regardless of the facts that may say otherwise. Your friends and family don’t see what you see in the person and you think they just don’t want you to be happy. Sound familiar? Love is blind – we don’t get to know the person, even after we’ve married them, until the “honeymoon is over.”

Tony Robbins, who’s livelihood is helping people to empower themselves, says we get stuck in our negative stories through repetition that tell us we can’t become more. We connect through the pain and problems in our lives even when it’s not necessary. Stories of our problems are the biggest addiction in humanity – they become a pattern. Problems allow us to escape our fears, especially if they’re big enough, bad enough and not our fault. Robbins’ foundational advice is to divorce your story if it doesn’t serve you and marry the truth. Affirmations don’t work because they don’t challenge you to see the truth and tell a different story.

What’s YOUR story? What’s your story that you’ve attached yourself to and may even by part of your identity?

5) Principle #5: After looking at the suffering behind your thoughts, reverse it and look for the THOUGHT behind the suffering. If you have a thought that argues with reality (“this shouldn’t be happening”) then you have a stressful feeling and then you act on that feeling, creating more stress. Rather than understand the original cause – a thought – we try to change our stressful feeling by looking outside ourselves and blaming others. This phenomenon is called PROJECTION or EXTERNALIZATION. When an event happens that causes internal stress, this is the alarm clock that says you need to look inside at what you’re telling yourself. Iyana VanZant has a cute acronym: PAIN: Pay Attention Inward Now.

How do you know when you’re projecting your stuff on other people or events? If you receive what is happening as a point of interest or information, you aren’t projecting. If it causes you internal stress, the mechanical reactive ego will tend to look for fault outside of yourself, as a defense mechanism – we judge in others that which we reject or disown in ourselves. This is projection. The problem is “What we can’t be with won’t let us be” – we have to deal with it. People who do horrible things that land them in prison do these things because they externalize their pain, not because of their pain – they don’t look inward and deal with their pain – they take it out on other people.

Principle #6: Use inquiry to investigate the truth of your thoughts. It’s a way to end confusion and experience peace. Inquiry is more than a technique – it reveals inner aspects of our being – our thought process, our past experiences and what has hurt us, how we see the world, how we protect ourselves or beat ourselves up. Our subconscious thoughts meet the moment because we move thoughts into the conscious mode -out of the dream state. It’s like asking yourself “where am I going?” when you’ve been on automatic pilot mode driving to work when you meant to drive to church. You wake up to reality.

Often, when we think we’re being rational, we’re really being spun by our own thinking, which can get us into painful positions we uphold in our mind. Neuroscience identifies a part of the brain called “the interpreter” as the source of the familiar internal narrative that gives us our sense of self. One scientist was quoted in the book Cell Level Healing “Perhaps the most important revelation is precisely this: the left cerebral hemisphere of humans is prone to fabricating verbal narratives that don’t necessarily accord with the truth. The left brain weaves its story in order to convince itself and you that it’s in full control. It amounts to a spin doctor. The interpreter, or left brain, is really trying to keep our personal story together. To do that, we have to learn to lie to ourselves. We tend to believe our own press releases.”

Self questioning – investigating the truth of our thoughts – uses a different, less-known capacity of the mind to find a way out of its self-made trap. It’s an ongoing and deepening process of self-realization where the mind notices each stressful thought and undoes it before it can cause any suffering. This process of inquiry is the meat of Katie’s work. Quoting her: “Through inquiry we discover how attachment to a belief or story causes suffering. Before the story there is peace. Then a thought appears, we automatically believe it and the peace disappears. We notice the feeling of stress in the moment, investigate the story behind it, and realize it probably isn’t true. The feeling lets us know that we’re opposing what is by believing the thought. It tells us we’re at war with reality.”


Now, to get to THE WORK:

The first step before self-inquiry is to vent your feelings on paper. Katie developed a “JUDGE YOUR NEIGHBOR” worksheet (available for download on which has 6 questions that encourages you to “bitch” in delicious detail about some body or some happening. This is a strictly confidential sheet that allows the ego to go crazy without mental or moral censorship. This is the opportunity the ego has been waiting for and it will gladly tell you everything, like a child. It’s best to be judgmental, harsh, childish and petty. Don’t try to be wise, spiritual or kind. Those experienced in doing this process say they get pettier and pettier and more and more uncensored because it gets harder and harder to find something to be upset about over time.

When you commit to writing down your feelings, you find out a lot about your thinking, values, and experience. You take a look at what’s been swirling around inside you for years, without asking yourself what’s the cause and what’s the solution. Sometimes we just get lost in the mind’s chaos and we don’t know what to do to feel better. In writing them down, you see your feelings in physical form and through inquiry, you begin to understand them, deal with them and heal them . This is all a therapist does, right? Why pay a therapist when you can do this for free?

The next step of inquiry is to respond to 4 main questions about the feelings your wrote down:

1) The first question that is the entry gate to opening the mind is IS IT TRUE? Katie says that if you do nothing else, this is the most important question you can ask yourself. What is the REALITY of it? Remember, in reality, shoulds and shouldn’t s don’t exist. They are just observations and wishes.

Let’s say you wrote down on your worksheet “My children ALWAYS disrespect me and I’m OUTRAGED by this. They SHOULD clean up after THEMSELVES so I don’t HAVE to do it. ”

These 2 sentences are rich with examples of the principles we discussed earlier… • “My children always disrespect me” invites the question IS IT TRUE? Is cleaning up after yourself the proof of respect or lack of it for a person you live with? (If so, a lot of husbands ALSO disrespect their wives.) • Do they ALWAYS do this? (Absolutes are a tip off that you’re stretching the truth, even if it’s partially true. No one does anything all the time except breathe. • The 2nd statement has a should, which argues with reality – they shouldn’t clean up because they don’t – that’s the reality of it. • It also implies that you’re out of your business because cleaning up after THEM isn’t your job, it’s theirs. • Finally it has “so I don’t HAVE to do it.” also argues with reality because you don’t have to do anything. If you want to do it anyway, acknowledge that and do it without stressing yourself out.

2) The 2nd question, as a back up is CAN YOU ABSOLUTELY KNOW IT’S TRUE? This question is for those who answer yes on the 1st question IS IT TRUE? We can’t absolutely know anything, especially about what another person is feeling. Going back to the example, I know a lot of people, especially husbands who don’t consider it disrespectful to leave their crap lying around – this thought doesn’t even occur to them. Thinking we know another person’s mind is folly and it keeps us from doing the work to know our own mind.

When our remarks contain extreme reactions like “I’m devastated”, “I’m terrified” “I’m outraged” – these often aren’t really true. A common technique therapists use is to get to the foundational truth of what you’re feeling – it usually boils down to fear of loss of love or positive regard of others even when we’re very angry, but manifests as something else to cover our vulnerabilities. Look at not only the truth of the situation, but your own TRUE feelings about it.

If you’re not sure if something is true or not about what you’ve written, there are 5 additional statements that may help to bring your true feelings out:

a) Add “and it means that__________” to a statement you’ve made to bring out more feelings. For example, you might add after the disrespect statement above ” and it means that I feel alone and unloved by my children”. Anger wasn’t the real feeling in this example – it’s hurt and vulnerability.

b) Ask what you think would happen if things were the way you want them. You might say “I would feel loved and appreciated if they picked up.”

c) Imagine what’s the worst that could happen when you write down something you don’t want to happen, and then ask if it’s true. This is a common technique for reducing stress over events we can’t control. For example, you might say “I’m dead and my children never clean up after themselves. The house is condemned and they become homeless and die of starvation.” Ask Is this what could REALLY happen? Extreme worst case scenarios help us put things in perspective. Living with the fear of negative outcomes is often more painful than the actual event, which I call the “wait till your father comes home” threat.

d) Look for shoulds and shouldn’ts you can use if you haven’t already used them to add to statements of fact that are true, but don’t lead to realizing deeper feelings. Saying “my children leave crap around the house” doesn’t evoke the feelings that “my children should clean up after themselves” – the latter statement reveals expectations, beliefs, disappointments, etc.

e) Another way to find the truth: Where’s your proof? Bring all your evidence and ask if it’s true.

For example, the statement “my children don’t respect me” used the proof statement “They don’t pick up after themselves”. I posed the question “is not picking up after yourself proof of disrespect?” 2nd, where’s the proof that you HAVE to pick up after your children? Does your family force you at gun point to do it?

3) Going back to the 4 inquiry questions: the 3rd question after is it true and can you absolutely know it’s true is HOW DO YOU REACT WHEN YOU BELIEVE THAT THOUGHT? Picture yourself in the situation and see the people or events that are causing you stress. See your reactions – what do you say, how do you say it, what’s your body language look like, what feelings are going on inside you? With this question we notice INTERNAL cause and effect as opposed to external cause. When you believe negative thoughts, there’s an uneasy feeling or stress. If you realized from the 1st question that the thought really isn’t true for you, then you’re looking at the power of a lie and what the power of your thoughts can do to you and those around you.

A follow-on question Katie asks to this one is “can you see a reason to drop that thought – and I’m not asking you to drop it because you can’t and don’t even try.” Once you see the truth of it, the thought will let YOU go, not the other way around. A reverse variation on the question is “Can you find one stress-free reason to keep the thought?”

4) The 4th question : WHO WOULD YOU BE WITHOUT THE THOUGHT? With this question imagine yourself NOT reacting, as you did in the 3rd question – just observing. Then imagine who you would be if you couldn’t think this thought. How would your life be different? How do you feel without the story? How do people respond to you? Which feels kinder and more peaceful – with or without your story? In our example, if you didn’t think you’re disrespected just because your kids don’t pick up after themselves, how would you feel? You would feel more calm and have the presence of mind to come up with options. A couple of things I can think of: a) If your kids are young, tell them calmly and pleasantly to pick up their stuff before they do anything fun, and make a game out of it – call them vacuum monsters and set a timer to see how fast they can “suck” up their toys b) if they’re older, make a notation on a chart that they owe you a set amount of money for the task you did on their behalf. By removing a negative emotional response which shuts down creativity and engagement in a solution, you can get what you aim for without shooting yourself first in the foot.

For many people, life without their story is literally unimaginable because they’re so attached to them – they have no reference for it. When asked “who would you be without the thought?”, “I don’t know” is a common answer to this question in Katie’s experience. This imagination exercise helps us to come up with more positive and effective alternative realities that helps to unstick us from long-held recycled beliefs and give clarity to understand the situation and act efficiently. We step back from the situation and become the observer of our scripts, and then decide if and how we want to rewrite them. (Chopra says that the highest form of intelligence is the ability to observe yourself without negative judgment and attachment. As you watch yourself, you gain insights.)



Finally, Katie has developed THE TURNAROUND, which is the hardest part of The Work because it requires an open mind and heart. In this process, you take what you’ve written of others and see if your words are as true or truer when it applies to YOU. As long as you think the cause of your stress is “out there”, your problems will never be solved because you’re not in your own business and therefore have no control. You’re forever in the role of victim when you blame the external.

The turnaround is done in 3 steps and you don’t have to believe them – they just open your mind to seeing other options that may be as true or truer for you. If some statements are too hard to accept, add “sometimes” and see if it’s true, or substitute a different but related word. Then list examples of how they could be true for you.

The 3 steps are: (all turnarounds below are applied to the example worksheet statement )

1) Turn it around to YOURSELF • “I should pick up after MYSELF”. Is this true? We all should. Am I setting a good example?) • “I don’t respect ME”. Is this as true for me as I think it is for my kids?

2) Turn it around for the PERSON • “My kids SHOULDN”T pick up after themselves.” They shouldn’t because they don’t – this is reality. Deal with this first. • “My kids SHOULDN’T respect me”. Why should I EXPECT anybody else to respect me or love me? I can’t control that and it’s MY job to respect and love me. Cut out the middle man. If you want something you’re not getting, give it to yourself – that way, you get exactly what you want.

(3) Turn it around to the OPPOSITE • “I should respect me.” Yes. • “My kids should pick up after ME.”(HA HA) • “I don’t HAVE to pick up after them because I don’t have to do anything I don’t decide to do.” • “I’m not outraged – on the scale of the outrageous, this is a 2.”

Katie suggests that you always do the 4 inquiries BEFORE a turnaround because without them to open up your mind to other possibilities, the turnaround can feel harsh and shameful. The judgment turned back unto yourself can set up self-defensiveness, which closes your mind to solving anything. If you’re open to the questions and see other sides to the issue, then the turnaround will be additional revelations rather than mental gymnastics.

Once you’ve learned to go inside for your own answers and opened yourself to turnaround, you’ll see that most everything you think you see on the outside is really a projection of your own mind. We see who we are by seeing who we think other people are. In discovering the innocence of the people you judge, you’ll come to recognize your own innocence.

Katie says after successfully doing The Work for a while, you’ll actually LOOK FORWARD to problems that pop up so that you can process them without stress and defensiveness, and without hopelessly applying willpower to force to eradicate the situation from your life. If you live with the person you’ve judged, you may as well look forward to the problems as you go – it makes life easier. If you don’t live with the person, you probably find yourself living with them in your MIND, so you may as well look forward to it. It’s no longer necessary to wait for people or situations to change in order to experience peace and harmony. Whether you go through life with lots of stress or with peace and acceptance, the trip is the same – the difference is HOW the journey is made.

Only after you’ve done The Work on other people, Katie suggests you can do it on yourself. She says this order is important because the ego will put up defenses if you start with yourself, so you need practice first. We have 20/20 insight vision about other people, but not ourselves.

TRYING to love and approve of yourself can be just as painful as seeking the love of others, and the results are just as unsatisfying. You think other people think there’s something wrong with you because YOU think there’s something wrong with you. By seeking to gain other’s approval, you’re trying to stop them from thinking what YOU are thinking. In every inquiry about painful relationships, you discover that the stress is caused by your own thinking. Katie says “If you haven’t undone painful thoughts about yourself, you can get into a bubble bath, light candles, recite positive affirmations and pamper yourself in every way – and once you’re out of the tub, the same thoughts will come back to haunt you. It’s like staging a seduction, only you’re the one trying to seduce you”

A good place to start in questioning the parts about YOURSELF that stress you out is questioning what you’re most ASHAMED of. Secrets cry out for inquiry – you can’t be free if you’re hiding from yourself.

Step 1: Write down “what I’m most ashamed of is” or “what I don’t want you to know about me is___________” (Applied to our worksheet statement: “What I’m most ashamed of is that I sometimes hate my kids and I look for excuses to gripe at them. I like being a martyr and try to make my kids feel guilty.) Step 2: Write down what you think this means: “…and that means that__________” (Ex: “…and that means that I think I’m a bad mother and person.) Step 3: Inquire into each meaning. Is it true that I’m a bad mother and person for feeling this way sometimes? Ask yourself for your own truth – treat each question as a deep meditation – ask and gently wait for the heart’s answer to surface. Step 4: Turnaround your responses, even if they are difficult, and find 3 genuine ways in which the opposite is as true or truer – you may discover that everything you thought it meant isn’t necessarily true. (Ex: “I don’t think I’m a bad mother. I’m not ashamed that I sometimes hate my kids. I’m not supposed to always love my kids until I do.” Is this as true or truer? This inquiry allows the mind to give you other truths that can set you free to love them or not, and to be a very good parent regardless of what you’re feeling about them at the moment. By freeing yourself of parental guilt, you can find your love naturally, and you can really hear your children and be with them, and you don’t have to do anything or be anything you’re not.

Katie has a great quote about being ourselves that can be turned into a meditation: “I am the perfect one to be me and no one else can be it. I must be this height to be me, exactly this weight, exactly this age. That is the requirement to be me. There are 2 ways of being me: one is to hate it and one is to love it. Since I don’t have a choice but to be me, which will it be? I am perfectly myself”. When you love yourself, you love the person you are always with.

Katie says that if you really want to be free, CRITICISM from others can be a gift. Feeling hurt or wanting to defend yourself means there’s something you don’t accept and love about yourself – it’s the part you want to hide. The worst that can happen is that you’re hearing the truth. Isn’t that what you want? No matter what anyone says to or about you, if you experience stress, then you are the one who’s suffering in the moment. Stress is the signal that it’s time to question your own thinking. When someone criticizes you, don’t try to rebut and defend. Settle into it and ask yourself “Is it true? Could she be right? Can I see how someone might see me that way?” An interesting response would be “Thank you for letting me know. You could be right.” Notice what that does to the argument and feelings involved.

The saying goes that friends are people who agree with you. Enemies -and family – are people who don’t.

Quote: “For the personality or ego, love is nothing more than agreement. If I agree with you, you love me. And the minute I don’t agree with you, the minute I question one of your sacred beliefs, I become your enemy. You divorce me in your mind. Then you start looking for reasons why you’re right, and you stay focused outside yourself – when you’ve focused outside yourself and believe that your problem is caused by someone else, rather than by your attachment to the story you’re believing in the moment, then you are your own victim.”

A couple of things to keep in mind about criticism: 1) The person who is criticizing you is telling you what they think – telling a person they shouldn’t think that or feel that way is futile. We think what we think and feel what we feel. Their opinions of you are just their observations and they don’t have any meaning for you except that which you give it, which is true of everything in our lives. You’re out of your own business when you worry about what others think of you. If you live your life and let people form whatever impression they want about you, without your engineering – and that’s what they’re doing anyway – you open yourself to be responsible for your own happiness and live the highest you know.

The 2nd thing to keep in mind: When criticism isn’t true of you, it’s probably a projection from the other person. It’s about them, not you.

Finally, a word about FORGIVENESS. Forgiveness is giving up the hope that the past can be different. FORGIVENESS and inner PEACE is possible when you realize the truth about projections, about your underlying beliefs, about your reactions to others actions based on your past experiences, about minding your own business, and about the fact that we’re all doing our best. You realize that your suffering is largely your own doing. Look at your thoughts, ask questions, see what applies to you, and set yourself free.

I’ll end with a quote from the I Ching: “It is only when we have the courage to face things exactly as they are without any self-deception or illusion that a light will develop out of events by which the path to success may be recognized.”


Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE


Keys Posts 2012, Part 16

This entry is part 29 of 40 in the series 2012A

June 14, 2012

Question on the fate of the universe

Tom When you say God has to let the old universe go…does that mean it will all go back to a point known as the BIG CRUNCH? and no longer expand, but come back on itself and die out…then GOD creates a new universe?

JJ Essentially, yes. The universe will eventually die and matter will return to spirit for billions of years of pralaya. Then a new universe will be born slightly more complex than this one.


June 16, 2012

Rehash of DK?

Ruth: No I do not agree that much of what JJ teaches is a rehash of DK and others.

JJ I’m glad you see it that way because I have gone out of my way to insure that the teachings I present are not a rehash or merely a rewording of something already presented. I think Larry realizes this and if his point is that many of the components of my teachings have been presented in some form in the past then this is true to a degree. However, probably the only thing I have taught that could be considered a real rehash would be my classes on White Magic which did indeed elaborate on DK’s book.

On the other hand, most of my teachings either present new material or new light on old principles. For instance, the Keys of Knowledge presented in the Immortal series along with other teachings there are not found anywhere else. Then no one wrote about the Molecular Relationship before me. In fact I had to invent the phrase to even intelligently talk about it.

In the Gathering of lights I present the gathering as a principle behind evolution, something no one did before me that I know of.

I was the first, about 40 years ago, to write a whole book proving reincarnation from the scriptures. Since then many others have used my ideas and references.

The Gods of the Bible presents the idea that man and God are one with a thoroughness from the Bible and the Hebrew in a way that has not been done before.

My new book, The Unveiling, gives a totally different interpretation of Revelation that nothing else out there even resembles.

Then, if you go through the archives and pick any article the chances are you will find no other teacher, past or present, saying the same thing. I might add though sometimes I have explained esoteric teachings of the past for the purpose of bringing students up to speed with concepts often discussed in metaphysical circles. These could be considered a rehash though there are not a lot of posts dealing with this.

As far as facts that are used in many of my writings – yes many of them are used by others and where pertinent I reference where they came from. but facts are much different than a picture painted though the grouping of many facts and ideas. Einstein used many facts readily available when he presented the theory of Relativity, but that did not diminish the value of the new picture he presented.


June 26, 2012

Negating the Beast

Maryellen: Aren’t we all sick of hearing how this one channels Seth or Ramtha or whoever? I got SO sick of hearing everyone say they were channeling someone, it brought me to a place where I couldn’t read another channeled book. Then suddenly JJ’s first book just appeared on my computer screen and I’ve been here ever since.

JJ Fist let me note that I took some time off after the gathering but am now back. We had a great gathering and another fine group of people.

Have you noticed, as Maryellen has, that most of the spiritual teachers of this generation have called upon the authority of the Beast to support their words? Here are some of the ways:

(1) I am channeling this great entity therefore you need to believe my words because they are not mine but are from a Master or great Spirit.

(2) I am the reincarnation of ___ therefore if you reject me you would have rejected ___. You need to believe me without question.

(3) I have been visited by the great being who is ____. Therefore you need to believe me or you will be cursed.

More could probably be listed, but you get the idea.

One of my most important missions is to expose the source and power of the Beast and the means to destroy it. Therefore, the fewer claims I make the better for it gives readers the complete freedom to reject anything I say and not have any guilt from the possibility of offending God or some great being.

Many there are who have merely done a good job of creating writing and claimed to channel someone who was a figment of their imagination or lay claim to an experience that never happened. The writings of The Teaching of the Masters of the Far East is one example. It is said that Spaulding never even wet to India but had a good knowledge of metaphysical principles and wrote them in story form – but instead of stating they were fiction he published them as a true account. This has happened many times and it causes numerous seekers to not question any of the teachings – some of which are not true.

Jesus said the path to the Kingdom of God is narrow and few there be that find it. Few find it because they are distracted by the need for the authority of the Beast. Many want to know for sure if my account of John is 100% true or false so they can either cling to him as a Beast or seek another Beast.

As it is, the acceptance of all the teachings through me are left up to the readers own soul. Progress is slow at present for “few” can handle this path but the numbers will grow during the Aquarian Age.


June 27, 2012

Re: Negating the Beast

Dean: Well as Ruth references you have said you are the reincarnation of a friend of john, of someone planning Hitler’s assassination.

JJ Stauffenberg was not a person of any spiritual authority and a virtual historical unknown when I made mention of him.

Dean: In your books you make reference to people in the past who you were a reincarnation of that did significant things.

JJ This was in a book of fiction with no authority attached and no historical figure that I was a reincarnation of was even named.

Dean: You have wrote in your book how a great entity of light went into your body and overshadowed you.

JJ Again, this was in a book labeled fiction with no authority attached. It may or may not be true.

Dean: That all the dark forces were attacking you. All this people on the list from reading your book, have taken this all seriously. I can tell by reading the posts.

JJ So dark forces attacking you makes you a beastly figure? Wow. A number of people on the list have recounted a number of attacks. Do you view them the same way???

Dean: And you claiming that you are the disciple of john in your book.

JJ You’re making things up. I make no such claim. Making a statement in a fiction book is not making any claim. The only claim is the actual teachings are true as far as my ability to discern and teach it is concerned.

Dean: I don’t think you are that much different in this way JJ. To the others claiming something. Like at our number 3. lol.

JJ I doubt if anyone but you will be stretching his imagination that much to make such a wild connection.

We covered this subject thoroughly in the past and I do not like to repeat myself so I do not know why you keep bring up your grudge on the way I have presented teachings in the Immortal books. Your grudge is duly noted and yet I proceed on the highest I know.


June 29, 2012

Fabulous if True

Maryellen: This is SO fabulous if true! And what a great example of the means justifying the end! Hats off to Roberts!!!!!!!

Interesting point of view. Worth the time to read.\ ng-term-decision-with-obamacare/

JJ It’s not as promising as the article says. He writes:

“His ruling means Congress can’t compel American citizens to purchase anything. Ever. The notion is now officially and forever, unconstitutional. As it should be. Next, he stated that, because Congress doesn’t have the ability to mandate, it must, to fund Obama-care, rely on its power to tax.”

Justice Roberts stated that the Court does not have power to mandate but the Court actually gave no ruling related to this or the Commerce Clause meaning that the whole matter could come up again on this or another illusion.


June 30, 2012

Einstein Quote?

Francine writes: The professor of a university challenged his students with this question. “Did God create everything that exists?”

A student answered bravely, “Yes, he did”.

The professor then asked, “If God created everything, then he created evil. Since evil exists (as noticed by our own actions), so God is evil.  The student couldn’t respond to that statement causing the professor to conclude that he had “proved” that “belief in God” was a fairy tale, and therefore worthless.

Another student raised his hand and asked the professor, “May I pose a question? ” “Of course” answered the professor.

The young student stood up and asked: “Professor does Cold exists?” The  professor answered, “What kind of question is that?…Of course the  cold exists… haven’t you ever been cold?”

The young student  answered, “In fact sir, Cold does not exist. According to the laws of  Physics, what we consider cold, in fact is the absence of heat. Anything  is able to be studied as long as it transmits energy (heat). Absolute  Zero is the total absence of heat, but cold does not exist. What we have  done is create a term to describe how we feel if we don’t have body  heat or we are not hot.”

“And, does Dark exist?” he continued. The professor answered “Of course”.

This time the student responded, “Again you’re wrong, Sir. Darkness  does not exist either. Darkness is in fact simply the absence of light.  Light can be studied, darkness can not. Darkness cannot be broken down. A  simple ray of light tears the darkness and illuminates the surface  where the light beam finishes. Dark is a term that we humans have  created to describe what happens when there’s lack of light.”

Finally, the student asked the professor, “Sir, does evil exist?” The  professor replied, “Of course it exists, as I mentioned at the  beginning, we see violations, crimes and violence anywhere in the world,  and those things are evil.”

The student responded, “Sir, Evil  does not exist. Just as in the previous cases, Evil is a term which man  has created to describe the result of the absence of God’s presence in  the hearts of man.

After this, the professor bowed down his head, and didn’t answer back.

The young man’s name was Albert Einstein.

JJ I thought this didn’t sound like Einstein talking so I checked it out and it appears to be a creative story merely attributed to Einstein in 2004. Here is a good article on it:

The article nevertheless does contain some good points for consideration.



Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Keys Posts 2012, Part 15

This entry is part 28 of 40 in the series 2012A

June 10, 2012

Benjamin Crème Again

JJ Quote: “I was surprised to hear him declare boldly that Christ was going to appear in about two months from the date of the lecture. He was going to be on television and his presence would be so powerful that the whole world would just know who he was and accept him.”

Sorin: The last sentence sounds uncharacteristic of Crème. Crème is more nuanced than this. He did not and he would not say in what I’ve read and seen something as categorical and naive as “so powerful that the WHOLE world would just know who he was and accept him”;

JJ Evidently you have not been following Crème for that long. I have been following his progress since 1982. He is fairly nuanced now but he wasn’t in the beginning. In his teachings during the Eighties and Nineties he made many bold and literal predictions and none of them I heard came true. After a while, even his close followers became concerned so he became more nuanced and started avoiding making specific predictions that made him look like a charlatan in the eyes of many. For the past decade or so he has just been saying that the “Day of Declaration’ is near.” He now says that Maitreya (Christ) has appeared on television interviews 59 times by March 10, 2012, but he refuses to say who it is.

JJ Quote “Well two months passed and this glorious event did not happen. Later I heard he moved the event forward, but still it has now been over ten years (Now 23 years) and no mass TV appearance of the Christ with every eye recognizing Him.”

Sorin: Crème says Maitreya has had around 60 presences on various television channels around the world up to the present. Now, the following must be considered with a grain of salt and only as a hypothesis: many people say Raj Patel is actually the physical vehicle of Maitreya. I’ve watched a lot of Raj. He seems an intelligent and reasonable young man, apart from his stuttering. One thing that is very curious about him (you can clearly see this on his first TV interviews) is that he doesn’t blink!

JJ This little mystery is easy to solve with Crème’s own words. Here’s the headline in an article he wrote: “Raj Patel is not Maitreya, but the World Teacher is here – and needed.”

Larry said: JJ stated a simple fact that he witnessed.

Sorin: Full objectivity is rarely (if ever) achieved. Nobody states “simple facts”, one colors “the simple facts” with his own subjectivity, experience and his present state of being.

I would say JJ’s opinion was colored by his feelings on Crème. That happens to people all the time, via the universal law of attraction and repulsion.

JJ What someone actually says has nothing to do with opinion or feelings. Either someone says a thing or he doesn’t. For instance you just wrote, “Full objectivity is rarely (if ever) achieved…”

Is it my opinion that you said it? No. There it is in black and white. You wrote it and there is no opinion or argument involved.

Even so, I heard very clearly with my own ears Crème say that the Day of Declaration was going to occur in the next Spring from the time of the lecture I attended, which was a couple months away. He gave a definite statement that Maitreya would appear on worldwide television and communicate with viewers by mental telepathy and people would be convinced that the Messiah had come.

When I tell Crème believers of this their eyes just seem to glaze over and either outright reject what I am saying or rationalize it. I get this same effect from Mormons when I tell them of my meeting with Mormon authorities Mark E Peterson and Bruce McConkie. The just cannot accept I am telling them the truth because my account does not fit the thoughtform they have of their leaders.

I am not the only one who recalls Crème making such a prediction. Crème verifies this in one of his own books. He says that when the “Day of Declaration” occurs, “The Christ will come on the world’s television channels, linked together by satellite. All those with access to television will see… [His face]. He will establish a telepathic rapport with all humanity simultaneously”. While the Christ is speaking… everyone will feel far more love than they’ve ever felt before, that massive outpouring of love will cause hundreds of thousands of ‘miracle’ cures [to] take place simultaneously.” Quote from Crème’s book Maitreya’s Mission I 1986 Page 23

It is interesting that he wrote this years after I heard him set a date in the lecture I attended.

Crème kept making this same prediction over and over setting new dates. The last one I know of occurred in 1997 where this was broadcast over the media:

“British Futurist Says ‘World Teacher’ Will Be Seen On TV Within Four Weeks”. Canada NewsWire. 2 December 1997. “British futurist Benjamin Crème states that Maitreya — ‘World Teacher’ for the coming age — will be interviewed on a major American network before the end of the year. This will be followed by appearances on other networks around the world and, within months, will lead to a global satellite hook-up where Maitreya can speak to all people simultaneously — in their own language.”

If Christ is speaking through Crème then he is one mixed up Messiah who doesn’t have a clue about his own schedule for he has made dozens of wrong and unfulfilled predictions about his appearance.

Here’s an interesting tidbit I just came across:

Q. Will Barack Obama be the last president of the United States? I believe it was either Maitreya’s associate or your Master who said that eventually the US presidency will be replaced by a group of wise elder statesmen and that former president Jimmy Carter (in office, 1976-1980) will be invited to join them if he lives long enough.

A. That is still the Plan so there is every chance that Mr Obama will be the last President. Dec 2008 Article

JJ I assure you that Jimmy Carter will not participate in such a thing in this lifetime.

June 10, 2012

Re: Crème Again

Sorin We’ll wait and see I guess.

Thanks for your reply again. It offered me a very important point of view.

JJ You are definitely the most open minded person who has come here and brought up Crème’s teachings.

June 11, 2012

Re: Crème Interview

JJ Quote: Here is an interesting interview with Benjamin Crème by Sean David Morton in December 1994:

RJ Isn’t Sean Morton sort of in the same “league” as Crème anyway?

So it is kind of like the pot calling the kettle black, because both are tapping into the same psychic abilities of the Atlantean consciousness and using the knowledge for various reasons and to make money etc.

JJ Quoting an interview where he is recalling actual dialog is a much different thing than supporting his philosophy. An interview is something that can be proven to have happened. Many parts of a belief system cannot be proven.

June 11, 2012

Measuring Success

Tom: I was wondering how one measure success and why some people seem to have their own opinions about success.

For example, I am an artist? Am I a successful artist or not?

JJ Measuring success is quite easy. Are you achieving the goals you have set for yourself? If so you are successful. In doing this I would suggest you not set a goal of having everyone like you or your work. Anyone who does this will never feel successful.

June 11, 2011 Re: Crème Again

Soryn: Here is another “witness” on Crème’s work with the Masters:

He seems reasonable and honest. Should I trust him 100%? Wayne Peterson supports Crème’s work. He actually said having met Maitreya (that appeared to him as an Asian, if I recall correctly) at one of Crème’s lectures. He also offers his account as a participant at Crème’s transmission meditations – and I can relate very much with what he’s saying.

JJ I have come across all kinds of people who have claimed to have contacted masters, Christ, Sanat Kumara, resurrected beings, beings higher than God and famous people of the past and my criteria is the same for all of them.

Are they bringing forth any light that they could not have received by reading a good religious or metaphysical book?

Do they bring new light on old principles or teach new ones?

Do they show any potential of initiating anything that can improve the world?

Do they support the principle of freedom or are there part of their teachings that count on enslaving mankind – such as forcing men to do good – forcing them to share their wealth for instance?

Wayne Peterson’s message of loving each other seems benevolent, similar to what we would hear from an average minister or Sunday school teacher so that is well and good but one doesn’t need contact with a master to teach this.

I can’t find anything malevolent in the video but neither do I find anything that inspires me as much as a paragraph from DK. It is possible Peterson received some type of positive contact that is distinct from Crème where he will avoid the wild-eyed wrong predictions which obviously came from a confused source.

Here is just one of many who have as credible of story as Peterson. PDF Download of another with outstanding claims.

It doesn’t matter how strong the claim is the important thing is to run the teachings by your own soul. Paul said this:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other gospel unto you than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed.” Gal 1:8

I would reword this as follows:

“But though we, or an angel from heaven, or a Master, or God Itself give any teaching not in harmony with your soul, or that will enslave mankind, let him be rejected.”


Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Keys Posts 2012, Part 14

This entry is part 27 of 40 in the series 2012A

 June 9, 2012

Benjamin Crème

Here are some previous comments I have made on Benjamin Crème. (Posted in response to reader interest)

April 1999 Glenys mentioned Benjamin Crème. I remember the first time I read the “words of Christ” as they were revealed through him. They left me completely flat. No new knowledge, principles or wisdom. Then somewhere around 1988 he came up to Boise to give a lecture. I thought I’d try and be open-minded and listen to him. I was surprised to hear him declare boldly that Christ was going to appear in about two months from the date of the lecture. He was going to be on television and his presence would be so powerful that the whole world would just know who he was and accept him.

Well two months passed and this glorious event did not happen. Later I heard he moved the event forward, but still it has now been over ten years (Now 23 years) and no mass TV appearance of the Christ with every eye recognizing Him.

Benjamin Crème was a student and personal acquaintance of Alice A. Bailey and he has a small amount of true data of the reappearance, but is caught up in a number of illusions and will continue to make false predictions.

It’s possible that someone may surface who claims to be Crème’s version of the Christ, but I assure you that such a one will not be able to speak words as beautiful as the Sermon on the Mount or give even one parable comparable to those of Jesus.

After we pass the year 2000 we are going to see more false Christs and prophets appear. Link


Thanks for your posting, Adrian, of some of the teachings of Benjamin Crème. Actually, a large portion of the teachings you mentioned are not original with Crème, but with Alice A. Bailey of whom Crème was a student.

Many new age gurus have read the works of Alice A. Bailey and presented teachings gained from her books as their own original material. Because her books are quite technical and difficult to read many students of such gurus are impressed that the material is original.

There are a number of teachers who claim to be channeling every master available who only present a rehash of Bailey and other writers.

It may be advantageous to present certain points to look for in a true representative of the Brotherhood and one who is under the illusionary path.


1. The first thing to look at is the teachings he or she presents, for the Brotherhood does not like to repeat itself. If it does it is only for clarification purposes. A false teacher’s highest teachings will be a repeat of information that has already been revealed.

Crème’s highest teachings are Alice A. Bailey quotations.

2. The false teacher will teach in data and not principles. If there is anything new in his teachings it will be in the form of unprovable data.

One of the few new things in Crème’s teachings was some data about the number of disciples who have passed through the various initiations. Even on this he has over estimated the number.

3. The false teacher will make fantastic predictions that do not come true.

I recounted in my last post such a prediction by Crème.

4. The false teacher presents himself as a humble servant, but subtly works to draw attention to glorify himself and his ego.

When I heard Crème in person make his false prediction I sensed that it originated in glamour. Also, his mannerisms seemed very centered in glamour. To confirm my suspicions I went to meet him after the lecture and got his autograph. I am an expert handwriting analyst and saw immediately on looking at his writing that I was correct. The guy revels in attention directed toward his ego.

5. The false teacher will lie when it furthers his purposes.

I personally think that Crème just makes up a lot of the “teachings” that are supposed to come from Christ and is aware of this fact.

6. The false teacher will usually emphasize teachings of the passing age, which is the age of Pisces at this time.

Crème’s message of sharing and sacrifice sound pleasing, but they are presented in Piscean format and are not workable in the coming age.

7. He will not offer you a way to prove to yourself that his teachings are true, but will want you to accept him through faith in his personality. Those who are sure that he is correct are convinced through outer signs.

Crème has offered no way for us to know the truth of his teachings.


1. The bulk of his teachings will not be a repetition of writings already in existence. His or her teachings will either be new or throw new light on teachings already revealed.

Look at the two greatest in history, Jesus and Buddha. They may have quoted some from teachers of the past, but overall their core message was new and brought additional light to the world.

2. The true teacher will stress principles more than unprovable data. Also, they will generally reveal and explain new principles.

3. The true teacher is not infallible, but will be cautious in making fantastic predictions. The predictions he does make will be very reliable and will often be clothed in mystery as are the writings of John the Beloved and Nostradamus.

4. The true teacher may be accused of being in the work for the ego, as even Jesus was, but in reality his prime goal will be service to humanity. He only seeks recognition for his true accomplishments, when it furthers the work, and will never seek the recognition that belongs to others.

5. The true teacher will attempt to so live his life so he will never lie or deceive. If he does not achieve perfection in this he recognizes his mistake and seeks to correct it.

6. The true teacher will emphasize the coming principles of the Aquarian age. He will not abandon the good of Pisces and sacrifice, but his main attention will be on the coming energies of service as we discussed earlier.

7. The true teacher will teach students a path that will lead to verification through the soul and Spirit that the principles he teaches are true. Those who are convinced he is correct are sure because of powerful inner confirmation rather than outer signs, even though outer signs may seem to manifest. Link

Here is a dialog I had with a Crème follower: April 22, 2004 My Friends, I know many old timers do not want to discuss Benjamin Crème again, but we have a new member who I think shows some good potential and I would like to share some thoughts with him. I do not plan on taking much more time on this subject.

Robert: Whether Crème is a so-called prophet (your word), I do not care to indulge in a semantical debate. Although it would be wise to consider everything Crème speaks as a hypothesis, before denying and disbelieving his words. I ask – are you crystallized in your beliefs when it comes to Crème? Has your mind been made when it comes to believing him to be a so-called false prophet? A gentle gust of wind cannot move a heavy, stubborn rock.

JJ: I could turn this around. Are you crystallized because you disbelieve my words and do not even consider that Crème is representing something else besides the Spiritual Hierarchy?

Are you crystallized because you do not accept Sally of Detroit’s channelings from Zor of Zurkin II declaring that the world will enter the 5th dimension next week?

Using the discerning qualities of the mind to weigh the facts and come to logical conclusions is more the mark of one who has not crystallized rather than one who has.

Perhaps we should soon talk about the principle of crystallization and exactly what it is.

The conclusions I have reached on Crème have been through study of his materials and the use of such discernment in connection with the sensing of spiritual vibration.

If I were crystallized I would not have read his writings to discover whether or not they are true.

Robert: I do not disbelieve that you heard Crème speak in 1988 that the Christ will be seen on television, but I cannot believe it either.

JJ: I do not understand why you cannot believe it. Do you really consider that I would have just made it up?

Robert: So, for me, your point is moot. I can only validate my experience and my knowledge and my understanding. If you believe Crème has lied to you, should that cancel out the intuitive response to what I have heard and read? JJ, brother! The story your tell will not be the authority of truth.

JJ: This does not make sense. This would mean it would be worthless to study history, the scriptures, Bailey material, or even Crème’s revelations because they are not linked to your direct experience. The mind can discern much truth by reading and considering the accounts of others. To dismiss the factual account I give because it does not agree with a preconceived notion is strange indeed for a seeker.

When I relate what I saw and heard it should have much more credibility than a statement of some belief in a theory or doctrine.

Robert: As far the so-called prophecies, they were given to Crème by a close associate of Maitreya during the late 80s. I do not want to make any mistakes, so in the coming days I will attempt to obtain the exact writings of those predictions. I’ve read them before and they are quite curious. Maitreya never meant for them to be so-called prophecies, they were more like statements he made from observing the law of cause and effect.

JJ: I do not think so. Crème came to Boise and I attended his lecture. I had already read a book or two that he had written – not in the name of an associate of Maitreya, but Maitreya himself. When Crème spoke to us and talked about the Maitreya messages he made no mention of receiving them from this associate you mention. In fact he demonstrated how he received his revelations by going into a meditative state where he stated that he would be overshadowed – not by some acolyte – but by Maitreya himself. It was around this period of his lecture that he stated that in April of that year (I believe it was 1987 or 88) a few months from the lecture that Maitreya would appear on worldwide television and announce himself. At that moment every person on the earth would experience a oneness with him and realize that Christ had come again.

I was quite amazed at such a black and white prediction, but attempted to analyze it objectively.

I could find many reasons to disbelieve such a prediction and none to believe it.

I rejected the prediction for the following reasons. (1) I had knowledge that Christ would not come until some time after the turn of the millennium. This was too soon for him to appear. (2) I had read most of Crème’s material he had published to that date and received no soul confirmation on them. (3) To cause every person on the earth to accept Maitreya, even the born- againers would involve the use of force on the human will. This is contrary to the methods used by the real Christ. He always works with free will to the maximum possible. (4) Crème’s teachings that were supposed to come from the Christ revealed no new principles. The Christ of the Bible taught around a principle in almost every sentence we have of his dialog. DK revealed much new light and amplification of principles. I can find little or no new light in Crèmes writings.

Can you find anything that is not just unverifiable data? So far no Crème follower has been able to give us even one piece of new light.

(5) I sensed a strong sense of glamour around him. To check my observation I wet up to him after the meeting and asked for a sample of his handwriting. He gave it to me rather reluctantly. My long experience in handwriting revealed that Crème’s glamours were exactly as I had ascertained by watching him.

Concerning your comments on Crème’s statement that the real Saddam is dead and the one caught is a double I will add this. I found Glenys’ finding that his wife thinks the captured Saddam is a double to be interesting and it is remotely possible that this is true.

Overall, it does not make sense because of the following reasons:

(1) If the military were to deceive us why would they want to present a fraud to the world and even allow his wife to visit?

(2) If he was killed earlier it would have been advantageous for the military to merely announce he was killed so they wouldn’t have to deal with a live person, relatives, a trial etc.

(3) DNA analysis revealed it was Saddam. Now it is remotely possible there was fraud or a mistake here, especially if the double were a relative and had similar DNA.

(4) Dozens of people close to Saddam met with him after the capture and none questioned that it was really him.

(5) None of his daughters have questioned that the prisoner is not Saddam Hussein. One of them did think he was drugged to mellow him out. This is believable.

(6) It would be incredibly stupid to purposefully proclaim a double was the real Saddam. Any intelligent person would have to realize that such a fraud would come unraveled and would destroy the Bush administration.

I haven’t received any revelation on this matter but I would give a 95% chance that we have the real Saddam. On the off chance the captured one is a double I would guess it started with an honest mistake that turned into a cover-up by the military and Bush doesn’t even know the truth of the matter. Then too it is possible that the double is a relative with a close DNA match and even the military is deceived.

(7) The anti Bush media here and in Europe has not picked up on the double story. If there was any hard evidence they would be on it.

Robert: You are correct that Crème had indicated that Dennis Kucinich had a good chance of capturing the presidency – but you are forgetting or neglecting a specific part of what Crème has said, which is – if Kucinich was nominated as the democratic candidate. Quote in context my friend : )

JJ: I didn’t quote and my statement is accurate. Here’s an exact quote from the last Crème follower on the list:

“Crème has said that the Hierarchy supports Kucinich, that Kucinich is the only presidential candidate who is receptive to the mental impressions from the Hierarchy. Crème has also said if Kucinich gets on the bill as the Democratic presidential candidate, he will become President.”

The fact that Crème talked about the possibility that Kucinich could actually get the nomination, let alone “become president” shows a great error in judgment. Thank God the real Hierarchy are smarter than this. Thank God I am smarter than this. From the first time I heard his Kucinich’s name and felt the vibration around it, even before I saw and heard him I sensed that he had no chance.

I take it back there is a one in a million chance. Here is a possible scenario.

John Kerry’s botox (which he says does not exist) bursts, causing a temporary obstruction of vision. He slips on a glossy anti Bush flyer, falls on his head and sinks into a comma.

John Edwards and Howard Dean rush to an emergency meeting where Democrats are trying to decide who to back. Their cars run head on into each other and both die.

Joe Lieberman eats a piece of bad ham and becomes comatose.

Al Sharpton storms into the meeting and demands support for the nomination. Sheila Jackson Leigh feels that Sharpton has steamrolled over her and grabs him by the neck and strangles him. She is then hauled off to jail.

Clark Gets amnesia and can’t remember his name.

Hillary actually keeps her word and decides to serve out her senate term.

Kucinich alone enters the meeting and as he approaches the committee he steps on a bare power cord and electricity shoots through his body lighting him up. The committee sees this as a sign from God and the Democrats back him to the Convention.

After the convention two days before the election it is revealed that Bush killed JFK. The public is so outraged that they vote for Kucinich in protest and he wins.

Ahh, well, the Kucinich true believers can always dream.

Robert: As a side note, we have been given the information that the Hierarchy is supporting and throwing the weight of their assistance behind the democratic candidate – even though it’s not Dennis Kucinich.

JJ: Crème’s Hierarchy, perhaps. The real one merely teaches correct principles and let’s us decide for ourselves. There are disciples in both parties and the Hierarchy isn’t telling half the disciples to switch parties.

Robert: I’ve read in the archives why you believe Crème is a Communist and his support of enforced sharing. Is the source of this information to be trusted?

JJ: It’s supposed to be Crème’s own words as revealed by Sean David Morton. He has written quite a bit and I’ve seen no evidence of him being an outright fabricator.

Here is part of an interview with Sean David Morton written in 1994:

The ultimate purpose, according to Crème, and I quote, is to “Give over all of your power and energy to the Masters so that they can use it as they please, to facilitate global change.” Someone has something backwards here! Spiritual Masters are suppose to reflect the Light of God and the Creation through themselves down TO US, not the other way round. And what do these “Masters” need with all our energy? To quote the now deceased Capt. James T. Kirk, “Excuse me! What does God need with a Starship?” As Crème and I spoke, he began to lay out his global philosophy. His anger was clearly directed primarily at America. He felt that all of Western Civilization should be destroyed and dismantled so that the wealth, mostly of America, could then be “re-distributed” to feed the starving huddled masses of the world. “By what means?” I asked. “They must come to a place of consciousness for it to take place.” he answered. “And if they refuse to do it willingly?” I asked slowly. “Then it should be done by force, if necessary!” “That,” I replied cautiously, truly wanting to hear what he had to say, “sounds like Communism.” “And what’s wrong with Communism?” he retorted. “Are you a Communist?” I asked. “Young man, I have been a card carrying Communist for 32 years!” The plot thickens. “Have you ever been to Moscow, or studied there? “Many times!” he said with pride.

I asked the last Crème disciple who did not accept this to merely ask Crème if the quote are accurate and if he is a Communist, but he refused. You ought to write him a letter or call him and ask him if he is or has been as card-carrying communist and if the above is quoted accurately and reflects his views.

Robert: I’ve read the interview and I do not put my faith into the honesty of the interviewer. The tone of fear colours the entire article. Whether Crème is a ‘card-carrying member of the Communist Party’ is a relative, personal attribute. The actual life that Benjamin Crème lives should be evaluated. However, that was not me confirming that he is a member of the Communist Party. I have no idea – and whether he is or not – is a superficial statistic. The man is 82 years old and still steadily doing his work.

JJ: What concerns me more than being a communist was this statement: “And if they refuse to do it willingly?” I asked slowly. “Then it should be done by force, if necessary!”

It appears that Crème believes in dismantling America through old style Soviet style tyrannical force.

That’s not the Hierarchy I’m associated with.

Does such philosophy not concern you? You seem to be a reasonable young man. Could this be your blind spot?

Robert: The pity is that one of us is more right and the other less right. Time will tell – time will solidify the fact.

JJ: Time has already spoken on many of Crèmes predictions and teachings. I’d say that at least 90% of the times time has spoken, it has spoken against him.

Robert: The fact that what Crème speaks is true and that he is in contact with a Master of Wisdom and has been willingly working for the reappearance under direct inspiration from the Hierarchy – or the fact that Benjamin Crème is not and has not.

JJ: It would be sad indeed if the Hierarchy cannot see the future as well as I can – or Glenys can, or Larry can…

Robert: All in all, you are certainly entitled to your beliefs – the glory of free will! The modest suggestion that I make is that you become aware of all the good that Benjamin Crème has done and continues to do, if you are not already aware.

JJ: I have followed Crème for almost 20 years. I read his first book and have checked out his new teachings from time to time. So far I have not been able to find one enlightened statement from the man. Can you give us even one good paragraph that turns on a light?

Let me put it this way. Open any Alice A. Bailey book dictated by DK and read a paragraph at random. Then try and find one paragraph by Crème or his Master which is equal to it.

Robert: The work is One.

JJ: It is indeed, but there is a dark Hierarchy opposed to the one work and workers many levels down are trapped by their illusions. I feel impressed to make an effort to awaken you to find the real power of the soul and let it guide you through the Crème maze to the feet of the real Master of Light and Love. There is more awaiting you than you have imagined.

I sense a person with great potential in you, more than any Crème follower (co-worker or whatever) I have met and hope we can eventually see as one. Link


Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Keys Posts 2012, Part 13

This entry is part 26 of 40 in the series 2012A

June 3, 2012

Finding Light

It’s been a while since I gave any group assignment so I thought it was about time for another one. Here it is.

There is now more information available at our fingertips than any time in recorded history. This means there is not only more falsehoods in circulation but also more truth. Many here are seekers of truth and have found some good information on the web so it is time to share. Each of you who are willing I ask you to do this. List for us the three sites that you believe to have the most light available to the public. If you cannot think of three then list one or two. The Keys and anything to do with me is not to be included in the list.

Have fun.


June 4, 2012

Re: Finding Light

Thanks for your participation in naming your favorite enlightened sites. There were some good ones but Johann wins the gold star for the best one that was new to me which was: HERE

I would suggest that everyone bookmark this for it contains references to all the Alice A. Bailey texts and quite a bit more.

I have to agree with Adam in naming South Park as a source of light, unorthodox though it is.

One of my favorite quotes from the archives is that “One with soul contact can find more truth in the National Enquirer than one who is in illusion can find in the Bible.”

I’ll name a few sites I use a lot. These are not known for metaphysics but I find then very useful.

(1) Drudge Report – I probably use this site more than any other. He is very fair in presenting news that may be disturbing to both sides of the isle.

(2) Wikipedia – I find this to be very useful in giving a good synopsis of just about any subject.

(3) Sacred Texts – You can find the text of thousands of spiritually entered books free of charge. HERE

(4) Blue Letter Bible – If you want to research the Greek or Hebrew of the Bible this is a good place to start. HERE

(5) Science Daily – I like science sites like this one. HERE

(6) Google – I not only use Google for regular searching but to find free books – many recent ones. Here’s the key. Find the book you want a copy of and retrieve a sentence out of it from somewhere in the middle. Then place that sentence in the extract phrase blank in Google search. If text of the book is anywhere online this will find it for you. If you can’t find a phrase from the book you want go to Amazon and pull up the book. With most books Amazon will allow you to look inside where you can retrieve the sentence you need.

Feel free to inform us of more of your favorite links.


June 4, 2012

Re: Finding Light

Yes, I see you posted that a couple years ago and Larry Woods and I both referenced it. I must have forgot about it. Even so I do think it is the best site for light that was referenced in response to the assignment, so Johann still would have gotten the gold star. Your references to the theosophical; sites were good too. They have a lot of good books and articles available free.


June 8, 2012

Romney and Philo

Wow, Dean… I have no idea how you got the comparison of Philo to Romney. Romney’s the type of guy I would get along with pretty well if I had the chance to sped some time with him but I am repulsed by a guy like Philo within seconds.

I don’t think Romney is running for power’s sake but think he has a sense of mission about saving the country economically and thinks he is the man for the job.

I do not have a picture of the guy who I patterned Philo after but he is nothing like Romney. A picture of this guy will give you a rough idea of the look, even though the guy here may be a decent fellow and has darker hair.


June 8, 2012

Obama looks more like Philo than Romney

Obama definitely looks more like Philo than Romney even though he is black. The first one may be Photoshopped though.




June 8, 2012

Boring or Not

Keith: The first few times I saw Romney he immediately reminded me of ‘Woody’ from the Toy Story movies. Just a nice puppet with a geeky look. I guess J.J. likes to hang around with the upstanding, boring geeky crowd. Wow! Maybe the keysters list is made up of bunch of over the hill geeky nurds just like Romney. I would find it much more interesting to sit down and have a private discussion with Obama than Romney any day. Who wouldn’t want to sit down with a Napoleon/Hitler type. It’s has a macabre type of attraction – like going to see some guy on death row a few hours before they are going to be executed.

JJ While I would find it interesting to interview Obama he is not the type of person I would like to hang out with. I think he is closed-minded and if I presented ideas he would pretend to consider them but nothing would come of it. I do not like hanging out with these type of people though I would enjoy confrontations with them.

I would enjoy discussing business ideas with Romney as well as ideas to improve the economy. I sense he is somewhat (but not entirely) open to ideas of this nature.

Since I have a Mormon background I would enjoy talking Mormon doctrine with him and would be interested in knowing if he thinks he is part of the fulfillment of Joseph Smith’s prophesy that the Mormon Elders will save the Constitution.

I do not consider someone boring because he is not wild and crazy though there are a lot of politicians I do consider boring and have little desire to even interview or have a beer wit them or ask them any questions. Among the ones much more boring than Romney are, John Kerry, Al Gore, John McCain, Harry Reid, Nancy Pelosi, Bob Dole, Rick Santorum and a host of others.

I would enjoy having a beer with Bill and Hillary Clinton, George Bush (even though he doesn’t drink), Carl Rove, Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, Tony Blair and a handful of others whose names escape me.

As for politicians that I would like to hang out with just because I would enjoy their company the names would be few – maybe JFK and Carl Rove – but you never know until you actually hang out with someone for a while.

My close friends in life have been few but they have not been boring but have all been thinkers in one way or another. On the other hand, thinkers are boring to non thinkers and visa versa.


June 9, 2012

Re: Boring or Not

Eke If I’m not mistaken, you did mention that you can hang out/have a beer with Obama back in 2009. You even mentioned about his charm and nice guy personality which Larry K did not find funny. I guess you must have backtracked from these opinions of him

JJ Having a beer with Obama would be fine but he’s not the type of guy I would voluntarily hang out with.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE


Keys Posts 2012, Part 12

This entry is part 25 of 40 in the series 2012A

May 26, 2012

Great Mystery to New Member

Brian I’ve seen the terms evidence confused with ‘proof’. Evidence is anything USED to demonstrate the truth of an assertion. Evidence is NOT proof of the truth of the assertion unless it is SUFFICIENT in accordance with an accepted quantitative standard.

JJ Welcome to the group Brian.

Technically one could say there is only proof of one thing and that is Descartes’ statement, “I think, therefore, I Am.” You could even be dreaming that you are at the computer reading this. Maybe you are really a green-eyed monster dreaming about living as a human on planet earth.

Generally, we accept something as proof if there is a very high probability that it is true. For instance, funding an iPad in a forest presents such strong evidence that the device was not created by elements of the forest, but designed and left by some intelligence. One would accept such a premise as proof, not worth even debating.

DNA is more complex than the IPad and it is amazing that this is not considered proof of design, but even more amazing is that some do not even consider it evidence, let alone, reasonable evidence.

It will be fun, when we pass over, to watch atheists after they die and discover themselves still alive in an astral body in the spirit world. Then they will encounter spiritual scientists that work on stimulating our evolution and it will become obvious that the complexity of life didn’t happen by chance but the improvement through greater complexity happens by design just as an improvement in Microsoft Word has to happen by design.

When they see how things are put together through intelligent design they will feel like whacking themselves on the side of the head and saying, “Why couldn’t I have seen this when I was on earth?” He will indeed be amazed by his previous ignorance. He’ll feel like the guy that finds an iPad in a Forest who thought the forest made it and then discovers the obvious truth.

I might point out that my blog on The Majority Speaks is for the general public and not meant to bring much enlightenment to this group – except to give them tools in dealing with others.

This group takes a number of items for granted as a foundation for what is discussed. Among them are:

(1) There is a God or Higher Intelligence. (2) There are higher lives with higher intelligence than generally acknowledged by humans. (3) Death is not the end, neither is it the beginning to our existence. (4) Our consciousness can contact soul energy which is the bridge between spirit and matter and access true principles. (5) The spirit/soul within us can recognize truth and if we tune into it we will experience the ultimate proof/evidence.

Concepts that fall within these five categories are generally discussed, not as to whether or not they are true, but in the direction of seeking greater understanding on them. On the other hand, nothing is off limits if it is of interest to the group.

Brian Some have argued that only an intelligent creator could create intelligent beings. Again, what definition of intelligent are we accepting for this analysis?

JJ I would say intelligence is that which is capable of creating complex order that is not random.

Brian: All but abstract thought can be explained by evolution.

JJ But the question is not based on evolution or no evolution, but whether evolution takes place because it is guided by higher intelligence – just as computer programs evolve because they are improved through intelligent effort.

Brian I think the strongest evidence of the existence of a God or intelligent creator is what I believe to be the innate moral compass. Quoting Sam Harris (The Moral Landscape): “… people who draw their worldview from religion generally believe that moral truth exists, but only because God has woven it into the very fabric of reality; while those who lack such faith tend to think that notions of “good” and “evil” must be the product of evolutionary pressure and cultural intervention.”

JJ I wouldn’t consider a moral compass to be powerful evidence that there is a God or Higher Intelligence. Any sense of morality you want could be programmed into a computer program using current technology. I would say that a living cell and the DNA is many times more powerful evidence.

In addition to this the basic morality of the atheist and believer is very similar. Both generally believe we should not murder, steal, lie, rape, plunder etc.

Brian: While all of these factors, admittedly, influence human values there is empirical evidence that that the brain has an innate ability to recognize right from wrong and trigger responses to the body. If a human was isolated from the above influences and kept in a sterile environment for years, receiving nutritional sustenance, his response to a posed moral dilemma would mirror most of civilized society. Science has identified hormones known as vasopressin and oxytocin, considered to be stress regulators. The brain signals the body to produce levels appropriate to respond to the impulse presented to the body.

JJ Everything manifesting in the physical body are the result of designs first made in the world of Spirit.

If one says Microsoft Word has a spell checker and explains how words get spelled correctly he would be far from the full explanation. The much fuller explanation is that the spell corrector was intelligently designed and added to Word. This is the real reason spelling is corrected by the program.

Brian: Guilt isn’t something learned (although one often hears about it). Guilt is an emotion from within!

JJ I have written a lot about guilt and illusions around it. If you do a Google search in the archives on the word you’ll find a plethora of material.

Guilt is learned and can be unleared. All the guilt I have felt in my life was learned and I unlearned it and have not had a twinge of guilt in decades. If I make a mistake I now just see it as a mistake that needs corrected. If I hurt someone I will feel bad about it but not guilty. Guilt has no reason behind it. One can be made to feel guilty about eating peas or drinking coffee – as in the Mormon church.

Brian; I’ve also seen some discussion here about the ‘special’ status of humans in the mind of God. (I’m paraphrasing)Well let me try to look at that another way: What if this (meaning this human life) is the reward for prior existence or prior deeds?

JJ Just about all members here believe in reincarnation and believe that the situation we are in now was influenced by past lives. Brian: What if the senses are the ultimate gift?

JJ Our senses are indeed important. The inner connection with Spirit is perhaps even more important.

Again, welcome to the group and hope you have a good time here.


May 26, 2012


Dan: What is the defining difference between “feeling bad” and “feeling guilty” in this context?

JJ Sin comes from a Greek word meaning “to miss the mark.” When the ancient Greeks shot an arrow at a target and missed they said they sinned. When they missed the target they felt bad but they didn’t feel guilty and unworthy to try again.

Unlike the original meaning, when the religious person “sins’ he not only feels bad he missed the mark but adds the dimension of guilt where he feels unworthy to try again until a period of self loathing has passed and the feeling of guilt has lowered in intensity.

He who is without guilt can make a mistake and get right back in the game without the drawback of the self loathing feeling holding him back. Without guilt your feelings are governed by the reasoning mind.


May 28, 2012

The Body of God

Brian: I think the modern man also has greater faith in the intuitive realm. What I have difficulty with is ‘the order’ of things JJ mentions. For example, an intelligent God, “beyond time and space” is completely inconsistent with my concept of order. When humans reference the universe I think most of us mean ‘everything, everywhere’. (including God if one believes). So, how could there be something that is NOT EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE? If there’s something that’s external to EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE then, at the very least universe means something else.

JJ Your thinking is correct here. I have never said that God was not everywhere. Since the universe is created from the mind of God then God has to be present in it. The Life of God incarnates into the universe itself. The physical body of God is the universe.

However when the universe folds up then the body of the universe decays just as our dead physical bodies do. When matter as we know it no longer exists then there are no physical bodies for God or man to incarnate into.

When the universe is in existence then God incarnates into time and space. When the Universe folds up then God along with you and me live in formlessness apart from time and space. There is no time and space because time and space are not measured during pralaya. Time and space can only exist when there is measurement. However, time and space still exists as an idea. This idea is like an eternal seed that grows again and a new universe is born.

In the higher planes such as the atmic and beyond time and space exists as an idea but is not measured as happens here. Even so, the physical world, which is incarnated in time and space, exists along side the atmic plane. The Life of God exists in all the planes and is present through the entire universe. It is not separate from the universe.

Brian: The energy changes matter, within this universe, but NEVER changes the mass of this universe. JJ Mass does change. When energy is released a small amount of matter is changed to pure energy. For instance, the bomb at Hiroshima converted a couple grams of matter into pure energy that had no measureable mass.

Brian Ultimately, it is that “feeling” that “intuition” of which you speak, that allows me to KNOW there is something greater, HERE, NOW, part of EVERYTHING, EVERYWHERE!

JJ Right on.


May 29, 2012

Examining the Great Mystery

JJ Quote: “But the question is not based on evolution or no evolution, but whether evolution takes place because it is guided by higher intelligence – just as computer programs evolve because they are improved through intelligent effort”

Johann You seem to think that there was no beginning or end to evolution, of either ourselves or God and God has to improve upon his own intelligence through becoming in and through form. There has to be a starting point of that evolution just as there was a starting point to the evolution of computers or when you are building a city or a house.

JJ There is a starting point to any individual creation and every cycle but there was never a starting point to creation itself or to cycles, neither was thee a starting point for the process of evolution. There is a starting point for each round of evolution.

As you say, there is a starting point for building a house but there is no starting point for life, which is eternal, in building or creating all kinds of things.

Johann: You state that there is no end or beginning to beginnings and endings. So you begin and finish putting in the windows before the walls are up. Or in other words, God was always super intelligent.

JJ Putting in the windows before the walls are up has nothing to do with anything I have taught. I have never advised anyone to work in this direction neither have I said God does.

This creation which God (of which we are a part) is in is just one of many from the past. This universe is a different challenge from any which was created before it and, no, He doesn’t yet consider Himself super intelligent in dealing with it. He is learning how to bring it to perfection. In creations of the past He evolved to what we consider super intelligence in dealing with his creations, but in this one He is learning and becoming.

Johann He must at some point been much dumber than your average rock and had to work himself up to the point he is now.

JJ It took a lot of intelligence on the part of God to create the first rock and there is tremendous intelligence built into it.

When this universe began, all of us along with God started as newly incarnated babes to learn from trial and error. As we learned a lot in past lives and bring with us earned intelligence from them even so the Life of God learned from past creations and brings His native intelligence to this one.

Johann But not according to your model for there is no beginning or end to the creator or to concrete beginnings and endings. Do I have to spell it out any further? This makes no sense at all. As I said, a proposition that does not make any sense and neither does the alternative, that there was a beginning or end to it.

JJ You say that no beginning and end makes no sense and neither does a beginning and an end. The trouble is you have to pick one because they both cannot be true. Either a thing is endless or it is not.

Everything that has form has a beginning and an end to that form. On the other hand, there is no beginning and end to the creation of form and here is why.

Let us suppose there was a beginning to the creative process. This would mean there was a beginning to cause and effect which is behind all creation. If there was a beginning to cause and effect this means that before the beginning there was no cause and effect.

As long as there exists anything at all in the universe there is cause and effect.

If there was at one time no cause and effect then nothing would have existed – no life or intelligence or matter – nothing.

If nothing existed and there was no cause and effect then this universe could have never been. We would not be here.

But… We are here.

Therefore, there was no beginning to cause and effect and creation. – though each creation has a beginning and an end to its form.

This universe is just one of an unlimited number of possibilities. It is built on a foundation of seven rays. The Life of God can create future universes on all kinds of different numbers and forms and go on forever without creating the same thing twice.

You are asking me to explain the greatest mystery there is, and it indeed boggles the mind to contemplate it but we can get a handle on some, but not all things.

Hope this helps.


May 30, 2012

Conspiracy Theory

Some conspiracy theories are quite credible. Check this out.


Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

Keys Posts 2012, Part 11

This entry is part 24 of 40 in the series 2012A

May 24, 2012

The Greatest Mystery

There seems to be some questions about my statement that there is no such thing as a first cause. Let me say a few words and then if there are additional questions feel free to ask.

First let me again state that I do not expect anyone to believe what I write just because I say it. Do not accept anything unless it feels right to your own soul and mind.

The beginning or no beginning to existence is perhaps the greatest mystery there is but logic and intuition can take us to certain realizations.

Some say there was a first cause. Let us go with this and see where it takes us.

If there was a first cause this means that before the first cause happened there was no cause. If there was no cause then there was no effect either. If there was no cause and no effect anywhere then there was nothing everywhere for something has to exist where there is cause and effect. Without cause and effect nothing exists.

If nothing exists and there is no cause then there can be no effect of creation for creation demands a cause.

If there ever was a time that there was no cause and effect and no creation then it would be impossible for us to be here today. Nothing cannot create something.

Because of the very fact that we are here we can deduce that cause and effect have always been.

All that which has form has a beginning and an end to that form. Someday the universe will fold up and return to its essence but it will not return to nothingness or a state of no cause. Cause and effect will still exist and will create another universe after a period of pralaya.

Johann wants to know how something can exist beyond time and space.

An idea exists beyond time and space. An idea never had a beginning nor will it have an end nor does its essence occupy space or have a form. An idea incarnates into form. You are an idea in the mind of God.

The fifth plane up is the atmic, the plane where ideas are accessed. It has no time and space as we understand them. Time and space co-exist with this plane but are not a part of it. When an idea is not in physical form then it dwells apart from time but when it manifests in form it is subject to time and space.

Dennis asks: Is it then possible to say that “We” all humans are that God who started the whole creation? Therefore, the universe will never fold up again and have to start over????

JJ We are a part of the body of God that created all things but where there is a beginning there will be an end. There is no end to beginnings and endings, however.

Kelly asks: Does God retrieve lessons, does he seek further wisdom? How to do better next time? This cycle around, which lesson or what point of evolution does God seek to attain? I imagine every level has a theme.

JJ Yes, God seeks to progress. The best way to get hints as to what God wants to accomplish is to look within ourselves at what we want to accomplish – for we are in the image of God.

I would say that one of the main goals for God and man is the enhancement of the quality of relationships of one life toward another. God, the whole, wants to get closer to the parts, you and me.

There’s more of course, but this is food for thought.


May 25, 2012

Hints on Creation

Concerning that which gives rise to existence there are some good hints in the Immortal books. I’ll repeat them here.

John sipped his coffee, “My time is short so we need to get on with our lesson. Have you discovered who or what you are yet?”

“I think I have either found the truth or am close to it,” I said, leaning toward John. “When scientists examine matter they say that they cannot find proof that solid particles exist. All they can seem to find on the smallest level is wavelengths in motion. If all these wavelengths were to be stilled, the universe would virtually disappear. If the motion of the wavelengths that make me would be stilled, then I would probably cease to exist. Therefore, the real me has to be motion or action of some kind.”

“That’s very good,” said John. “Coming to this point is a milestone, but you are not there yet. Answer me this: What is it that is in motion and what is the force creating the motion?”

I thought a moment. “If there is no such thing as solid matter then nothing is in motion, if that is possible. I guess the force propelling the wavelengths is pure energy.”

“But,” said John, “if there is no solid matter, then nothing is in motion, as you say. Therefore, does it not stand to reason that energy is not required for motion since nothing is really in motion?”

“Maybe I was right after all,” Elizabeth chuckled. “I said half joking that we were nothing and perhaps I was right.”

“As far as the material plane goes, you are correct,” said John. “But from the greater reality you are a great something. That something which creates all motion in the universe is the great mystery. Energy is not the answer because in reality there is really nothing solid in motion.

“Now I will give you two major hints. First, in my hand I have a pen. Now I will take this pen and throw it on that sofa over there.”

John threw the pen on the sofa.

“Now, what made that pen fly over to the sofa?”

“Obviously you did,” I said

“And who or what am I? And don’t say John.”

“So the real you threw that pen?”

“Yes. That which is the real me made the pen move. This is the first major hint. The second one is a parable.

(Then in Book Two we have ban account of a dialog with Wayne on decision.)

“OK,” I said. “Let’s shift gears and talk of more pleasant things. I think I finally have the answer to WHO OR WHAT AM I?”

“So, you think you’ve come up with something better than all the great philosophers including Descartes?” I was amazed to see Wayne’s countenance change from agitation to one of calmness almost instantly. He loves to talk about philosophy or anything that requires thought and analysis, and seems to go into a different mode whenever he is engaged. Whenever he enters what I call his “thoughtful mode,” he appears to be much more wise than he seems to be in his general, everyday life. I would venture to guess that many of his own family are unaware of this thoughtful mode I had come to appreciate.

“At the risk of sounding like a giant ego, I do think I may have something that has eluded the philosophers of the past,” I replied, wishing I could tell Wayne about John. I made a mental note to ask John if the time was right to tell others besides my wife about him.

“Well, I’ve known a lot of big egos that I don’t think you could compete with,” he said.

“Thanks for the vote of confidence,” I said. “Descartes reduced our essence down to thought, but we already concluded that our minds are really just vehicles that are used by our real essence. Then we concluded that consciousness was above thought and finally that motion or action may be behind consciousness. But the key to it all is that which produces action. There is a power in us that is behind all motion that we initiate. What would you say that is?”

“I would say thought, but we’ve already covered that ground so I would guess you have something else for me,” Wayne said dryly.

“Some actions follow a thinking process, but many others do not. We have numerous, thoughtless actions, but all motion is the result of one great inner power we have. Here … I’ll demonstrate it to you.” I picked up a glass of water and moved it several inches. Now, what made this glass move?”

“I think it was you,” Wayne smiled.

“Of course, it was me,” I said, “but what was it within me that caused the glass to move?”

“I don’t know,” he said. “You just decided to move the glass for some reason.”

“That’s it!” I said. “I can’t believe you just got it off the cuff like that.”

“What’s it?” asked Wayne. “All I said was that you decided to move the glass. I wouldn’t say that that is a profound statement.”

“But it is profound,” I insisted. “You just said the key word.”

“Key word … What key word?”

“‘Decide!’ ‘Decision’ is the key word as to what we are. We are decision. Every action that takes place is preceded by a deciding intelligence of some kind. I am an intelligence who just moved the glass because I decided to. A decider may use thought and emotion, but thought and emotion alone do not create motion. Thought and feeling with no decision is powerless.”

“That’s all well and good,” said Wayne. “I can see we are the results of our decisions, but to say we are decision would not be technically correct.”

“But somehow it is, Wayne. In some way, the very power within us that makes decisions is what we are. Let’s say you are deciding between bacon and eggs or pancakes when you have an equal desire for the two. Let your power of decision fluctuate between the two and you can feel that which is the real you, the power of decision at work.”

“It won’t work for me, I’d choose bacon and eggs over pancakes any day,” Wayne quipped.

“Very funny. But you know what I mean. You have two things of equal desire and let your attention shift back and forth — you can feel the inner power, the power that actually puts things in motion.”

“Where are you getting this stuff?” Wayne asked, looking at me with deliberation. “Where’s the old Joe who just wanted to know simple things like when time began or where God came from?”

“I’m the same guy. Just had a little change of direction.”

“O-kay…” He reflected a moment leaning on his elbow. “I have a feeling you want to use my incredible mind-power to delve further here. Let’s see what you’ve got here.”

“You’re right. I thought maybe by putting our brains together, we could take this a step further. Humor me a moment and assume that we are more than the results of our decisions, but somehow we are decision or the power of decision itself. If you knew this was a true statement, what would it mean to you?”

“Hmmm,” reflected Wayne. “I’ve thought of myself as being thought, feeling, love, consciousness and even a part of God, but this is a new one. I am decision,” Wayne mumbled to himself. He closed his eyes. “I am decision … I am decision,” he repeated. “I like it,” he said, opening his eyes widely. “It feels good. Isn’t that close to what you said was the Hebrew reading of what God said to Moses? Didn’t He tell Moses he was deciding, or something like that?”

When Wayne said that, a light turned on in my head. “Wayne, you’re a genius, I tell you. A genius!”

“Why, of course I am,” he smiled, flattered. “Now tell me why so I can brag about it.”

“What God said to Moses was a major hint. Moses asked God what His name was, and back in those days the name of a person revealed what was supposed to be their essence or true nature. So Moses was probably expecting something that described the typical human version of God. He probably would have been satisfied if God had told him that His name was THE HIGH AND MIGHTY ONE or THE ONE WHO HAS ALL KNOWLEDGE AND WISDOM or something like that. The interesting thing is that God did not give Moses any regular name. Instead He basically said ‘I AM BECOMING THAT WHICH I DECIDE TO BECOME.’ He was telling Moses He was decision, and that He couldn’t give him any regular name because, as decision, He could decide to be different tomorrow than He is today. Because God makes different decisions about how He will manifest, He cannot give any name that will apply in all time periods, except for something like THE ETERNAL, which is what Moses finally decided to call Him.”

“Very interesting. Glad I could help,” said Wayne, looking pleased with himself.

“That’s not all,” I said, leaning closer. “Look at how God has manifested through the ages. In ancient times there were supposed to be many gods. Then in the days of Moses there was just one powerful god of vengeance. Later, in the days of Jesus, God was called Love.”

“And that’s just the Christian God,” Wayne added. “Suppose all the major religions are part of the plan of God. If this theory of yours is correct, then God has decided to manifest a little differently through each one. Perhaps He has many different identities in different places and ages.”

“And that would make sense,” I said, “because each different civilization or body of people might have to be presented with an interpretation of God which is comfortable with their belief system before they could accept any new and different teachings. The funny thing is, it may be the same God manifesting as He decides to manifest, and this decision would be according to the circumstances of the people.”

“Looks like we have the whole mystery of existence thing sewed up here,” said Wayne. “The only trouble is, what are we going to tackle next?”

“There is a step further we can go here,” I ventured. “Remember when we talked about the idea that we may be gods?”


“We have just discovered a similarity between the description of the God of Moses and us mere mortals. Somehow we are both decision, or decision is somehow our highest essence.”

“So, do you think this is the end of your strange quest to discover who or what we are?” asked Wayne.

“I’m not sure,” I shrugged. “This talk with you has been very helpful, that’s for sure, but I think there may be more to understand.”

“I can think of things already,” said Wayne. “Like, what was the first decision? Was there a time when decision did not exist? If there was such a time, then there was a time you did not exist or maybe God did not exist … A guy could go crazy thinking of these things. Maybe we ought to switch to politics for a while.”

With that statement Wayne changed the course of the conversation to more mundane topics, but my mind was only partially present. I couldn’t help but reflect constantly on the idea that God becomes who He decides to become, and perhaps so do I. Do we obtain the power of God by magnifying our power of decision? I wondered to myself. Somehow, I sensed that mankind had only a primitive understanding of what decision is and how it can be used.


May 25, 2012


Looks like the Dark Brothers realize that the seas are one of the last hopes for the Lights to create new free societies and are doing their darnedest to stop such enterprises through control and regulation. The Law of the Sea Treaty is alive and well. Click Here


Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE



Keys Posts 2012, Part 10

This entry is part 23 of 40 in the series 2012A

May 14, 2012

More on Monads

JJ Quote: A monad is a point of life in the Divine Space which is the One Great life. Each monad has within it all the knowledge and programming (from a past creation) necessary to fulfill its potential creative end. There are human monads, deva monads and animal monads and they are as different as the seeds of a tree, a flower and a watermelon. Normally one will say that a flower grew from a seed but you do not normally say that a petal from the flower grew from a seed. Similarly a tree grows from a seed but one does not associate a leaf growing from one.

Even so the elemental lives are always part of a greater life that grew from a seed which is a monad.

Each piece from the vegetable and mineral kingdom did not come from a unique monad though lives that did develop from monads work with these kingdoms.

Adam: Can you define what you mean by “‘piece’ from the vegetable and mineral kingdom”?

JJ Every creation that develops from a seed or monad is made from parts when it is developed. An acorn tree comes from a single acorn. But the seed creates the whole tree. It doesn’t just create leaves of branches or even other acorns. Instead, it has within it the elements of the whole tree. The parts do not develop from the seed as parts but as a part of the whole creation.

Even so, all living creation has various monads for the development of the whole rather than the parts.

Humans and devas have individual monads for each entity but when you get lower than human a monad may be over the development of groups of lives rather than a single life such as a fly or a blade of grass.

Various parts that create life may not have a monad but be influenced by one. On the other hand, each atom would have its individual monad for it is a contained creation developed from design rather than a naturally created combination or pattern.

Adam: Are there no thoughts of God/monads behind the mineral and vegetable kingdoms? Doesn’t there have to be a thought of God/monad behind each “organic” manifestation?

JJ Yes, but each thought creates a whole made of numerous parts that belong to that whole.

Adam Or….does there only have to be a thought of God/monad behind each idea of creation?

JJ When DaVinci created the Mona Lisa he had one thought of how the finished product would appear and in creating this he brought together numerous parts and colors and combinations. The thought of the finished product is like the monad. The inks, the canvas, the combination of colors and strokes were all parts of the influence of the one seed but not the seed itself.

Adam Is it the case then that – Humans, animals, and devas require or are endowed with individual monads. But lower lives (vegetable and mineral) only require a monadic thought or principle, which then develops the lower kingdoms?

JJ Anytime creation goes beyond natural selection and becomes the product of intelligent design then a monad or a seed is developing somewhere.

Adam; The human molecule of 24 and other combinations will attract “higher lives” waiting to “incarnate” through the molecular unit, creating opportunity for humans to identify with higher consciousness. These “higher lives” also have a monadic source, correct? This monad is of a higher order than the human/god monad, correct?

JJ You are correct.

Adam There are also planetary, solar, and galactic monads that then manifest as the indwelling Logoi of those respective vehicles?

JJ Yes, there would be monads behind entire planets, solar systems etc.

Adam I’m assuming monads have some role in helping manifest the lives of the sixth, fifth, fourth… Universes? Are you able to elaborate on the nature of monad relationship to these lower Universes?

JJ You must be staying awake nights with these heavy thoughts. Yes, there would be monads in the lower universes. As I said, each atom has a monad but the universes within each atom would have numerous monads within them. These monads are fully developed though and most have long since joined with many others so they can share the consciousness that exists within our universe.

May 15, 2012

Evolution of the Universe

Larry said he was not clear about the Universe of Eleven that was the foundation building block of the atom. The Grand Tour from Eternal Words has a lot of meat in it and you might have to read it several times to absorb it all.

In a nutshell here is the teaching.

In our far past we have advanced as high as the Universe of Eleven. When this reached relative perfection this universe then became the foundation for new universes that would evolve from a point clear up to the Universe of Twelve. Presently the advancement toward this goal has reached near the midway point in the present Universe of Seven. This Universe of Seven is built entirely on tiny particles much smaller than the atom patterned after the Universe of Eleven.

Our present goal is to perfect the current Universe of Seven, but this will not happen at the end of the current universe. When the current universe folds up and goes back to the singularity it will still be far from perfect. It will have to incarnate many more times before relative perfection can be achieved. Then after many more incarnations have passed this universe along with a mind-boggling number of other universes will gather together and create the Universe of Eight. This process will repeat itself until the Universe of Twelve is perfected. When this is complete then another great decision will be made.

Here is some of the dialog from my book which should be helpful.


The Great Secret

I felt humbled and honored to be given permission to proceed. Even though this space we were entering was infinitesimally small, I had the sensation of entering a vast universe as we proceeded through the barrier. I also felt that the intelligence residing there was overwhelming, beyond words. This was a great mystery to me, as I thought that as we descended to smaller and smaller particles and life forms, the intelligence would decrease, not increase.

Another odd thing I noticed was the great silence. The reason I call it odd is it seemed as if I had been in great silence for some time. The only thing I heard since entering the microcosm were the thoughts of my companion and this was soundless by normal standards. It never occurred to me, until entering this unusual space, that there are degrees of silence, just as there are degrees of sound or noise. This space we just entered indeed had a silence unlike anything I have ever felt or imagined. It was so awe-inspiring that it took me a while to get used to it.

“This silence, it is amazing. What is the cause of it?” I asked.

The Ancient of Days ignored my question and responded, “I must step aside for now. You must commune with the intelligence here to pass your test.”

“Okay,” I thought with some delight. Apparently we had reached the smallest particle with which I was supposed to commune. I then directed the question toward this tiny life, which also seemed like a great life.

I waited and the response came. Again, it was not in the form of distinct words, but of high impression that I am now putting into words. “You are correct in surmising that there are degrees of silence, just as there are degrees of sound, “it said. “But from another angle – that which you normally call silence, is not silence. True sound is produced by vibration within the fabric of space. In all the universes and worlds you have visited, there has been such a vibration even though you do not register it in your consciousness. Only where space is not disturbed will you find true silence. When you went through the barrier you entered such space – space that is not disturbed with vibration, space wherein true silence dwells. In meditation deep, the master on your world can catch a glimpse of this silence, but many waves of silence must he cross to arrive at this great silence beyond silence.”

“Is this the peace that passes all understanding?” I asked.

“It does pass all understanding of the inhabitants of your universe; indeed, just a portion of the peace here is beyond their understanding.”

“I would think so,” I said. “My consciousness is here and I cannot take it all in. It is like a great magnetic force, and I can only take so much of it out of concern I could never leave. Knowing this peace will make regular silence seem like noise.”

“You will adjust upon your return,” he said.

As pleasant as the peace was, I found I had to ignore it to a degree to continue my quest. “Is this a part of the universe of three or could it be two or even one?”

“This is the foundation of all greater universes,” was the reply. “It is built upon three, two and the one. The one is the point in the center, the three is the barrier you crossed and the two is the holy space in between.”

“I was told to commune with the smallest particle, that which is our beginning. Is this our true beginning?”

“There is only a beginning to beginnings, but no true beginning,” was the reply. “This is the place you seek.”

“Is the point in the center just a point or does it contain something?”

“You may approach far enough to answer your question, but no further.”

Again, I concentrated on moving, and eventually the point increased in size until it became about as large as a beach ball before me. It appeared white and luminous, giving off rainbows of colors. I counted the colors and they were eleven in number. Four of them were colors I had never seen before, neither can I describe them outside of saying they were very bright. These four colors were not like a mixture of primary colors, but I got a sense they were primary colors unknown to the greater universe. “I seem to be able to go no further,” I said.

“This is as far as you or any other being from your universe is allowed to proceed. Even the Master who is with you can go no further.”

“Why would that be?” I asked, shocked

“Unravel the great mystery and you will know,” he replied.

“There’s not much to go on.”

“Yet you see eleven colors before you, four unknown to your universe. What does that tell you?”

I reflected and replied, “I came from a universe built upon the number seven and descended through the universe of six to five to four to three, and, finally to this foundation Trinity of Three-in-One. Now I see this ball before me having eleven colors. The number eleven seems like an odd encounter at this point and quite a gap from the other foundation numbers.”

“Think back to your teacher’s words. What follows the universe of seven?”

I was amazed that this tiny entity knew of John’s teachings. Perhaps it could read my mind, I thought as I replied, “He told me that after the universe of seven was perfected, we would create a universe founded upon the number eight, then nine, and finishing with twelve in untold ages hence.”

“Yes, and after the universe of twelve is perfected, what would happen then?”

I thought back and it came to me, “John said that at that point, another great decision would be made.”

“And when do you suppose was the previous great decision?”

“Would it have something to do with the number eleven and this orb I see before me?”

“Would it? Merge with Divine Thought and behold the mystery,” my small teacher encouraged

I stared at the orb and did my best to merge with the life I felt around me. As I looked at the orb I also concentrated on picking up something from it. Suddenly, enlightenment came. It was as if I had knowledge poured into my brain or soul. I knew the mystery and knew that I knew.

“Wow! I have it! This knowledge is fantastic, but I must say it completely boggles the mind. Everyone assumes the Creator is great, but they have no idea of the depth of our past or future.”

“And you know more than you did before and still it is as nothing,” said the entity. “Yet I cannot give you more, for your consciousness cannot handle it.”

“You are right,” I said. “My cup is full, and I could not contain any more at this time.”

“Tell your associate of your revelation. Tell it as you will later record it.”

I concentrated until I felt the presence of the Ancient of Days and said, “Let me tell you what I received, for I do wish to hear your comments. A key hint was given by the entity when he said; There is only a beginning to beginnings, but no beginning. This orb we see before us is the beginning and the end, the Alpha and Omega. It is the end of a great round of creation and the beginning point for all the greater universes. What we are looking at here is a universe of universes. This universe is much greater than our own, and yet, a part. If we were to slow time even more and enter this universe, we would find new galaxies and worlds all built upon the number eleven. Then, if we were to go smaller, we would find a universe of ten, then nine – clear down to another alpha and omega point like this one.”

“And how many colors would you see in that point when you approach it?” he asked.

I reflected and exclaimed, “Ten! There would be ten colors. This is fantastic to think about. Then, if we went smaller, we would go through a universe of ten, then to a universe of nine, to eight, seven, then down to another Alpha and Omega point.”

“And the number of creative colors of that point?” the Ancient One asked.

“That would be nine,” I said. “But then, if we repeated the process we would reach another Alpha and Omega particle of eight, then seven and so on, until we get to the true Alpha particle.”

“And would that be the beginning of creation or the beginning of beginnings?” he asked.

“The beginning of beginnings, I suppose. But,” I pondered aloud, “what could be in this beginning point from which a universe of universes are made?”

“I don’t know,” was the Ancient of Days reply.

“I never thought I could ask you a question to which you did not know the answer. What do you mean you don’t know?” I asked somewhat exasperated.

“There are Great Ones whose knowledge is unfathomable when compared to average humanity. Even so, there are many things kept from all lives in our universe, from the greatest to the smallest. We can use the Law of Correspondences and deduce what we would find if we descended into these micro universes. Even though we have not been there, we have assurance of the foundation numbers to the beginning Alpha. What is in that, we can only speculate. We know there are many universes there, but, upon what foundations they are built, we do not know. Some think the beginning Alpha has a foundation of twenty-four, while others think the foundation is something other than a number.”

“What could be without a number?”

“We know God is one,” he said. “Perhaps the early universes were built out of an essence with no separation, hence no numbers. We can only speculate now, but I will tell you this all will be known when the universe of twelve is perfected. That is so distant in the future; however, that it even puts strain upon me to think about it.”

I stared again at the orb in wonderment at how tiny it was in relation to the toothpick it was a part of; yet, at how vast it was, containing trillions of universes. “It looks like a perfect circle, yet the knowledge that was implanted in me tells me it is not. I sense there is something significant here. Can you explain?” I asked, hoping he could answer

“Part of the goal of the Great Decision was to create the perfect circle. The universe of eleven came very close, but is ever so slightly off. The perfect circle will manifest at the end of the Universe of Twelve. The Grand universe manifesting as the perfect circle will bring perfect understanding and recollection. We will then understand all things back to the first Alpha of numbers.”

“In the revelation, I was given knowledge so strange that I cannot comprehend it even though I have it within me. I saw that when the Universe of Eleven was finished, it was alone. There was only one of them, yet each molecule, atom and cell has untold billions of these points within them. How did the Universe of Eleven get from being one to a number so vast that all things are created from it?”

To this my guide replied, “When the Universe of Eleven was finished, its complexity and vastness far exceeded anything that is in our current universe. Yet, if you put enough space between you and a great universe, that universe, vast as it is, becomes only a tiny point. In the beginning, the Universe of Eleven manifested as the mind of God. At this time this was all there was in form existence. Think of the contrast. This tiny point was at one time all there was, but all there was formed a vast universe of universes. This mind of God within this past universe put distance between Itself and the universe, creating a ripple or wavelength in space that caused a wavelength and points to manifest in the fabric of space. Each of these points was an exact duplicate of the Universe of Eleven, caused by an explosive expansion of the mind of God. The numbers of these points were great, so great in number that it is beyond imagination. These created all there was in the greater universe, through gathering together and intelligently organizing.”

“This is amazing,” I said. “You mean to say at the end of the Universe of Eleven, there was only one of these tiny points floating in space until they multiplied and created all there is including our universe?”

“That’s correct, but it did not seem like a tiny point at that time, but a vast universe.”

So this must have been the beginning of the Big Bang?

“Correct. The Universe of eleven is the mysterious singularity of scientific theory.”


Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here


Keys Posts 2012, Part 9

This entry is part 22 of 40 in the series 2012A

April 28, 2012

Principles of Unification

Thought it would be a good idea to post these again. In these days of discord it is a good idea to be reminded that most agree on many important points. Click HERE


April 29, 2012

Reptile Interview

Keith asked me to check out the Interview with a Reptilian. I finally got around to reading it and it was quite interesting.

Basically the article is about a claimed interview with a female member of the reptilian species who goes by the name of Lacerta. She claims the reptilian race never went extinct but have gone under the earth and many of them live in great caverns that house underground cities.

Lacerta says they have the power to mask their true form so when they appear among humans they are seen as regular humans. On the other hand, they cannot mask themselves from photos which will reveal their true form. Here is a description of the way they look when unmasked.

As I’m female I have also two breasts (despite our reptile origin, we have started to give milk to our babies during the evolution process – this happened around 30 million years ago – because this is the best thing to keep the young alive. Evolution had done this for your species already in the dinosaur age and a little bit later also for ours. That means not that we are now real mammals) but the breasts of us are not as large as those of human woman and the size of them is generally equal for every female of my kind. The external reproduction organs are for both sexes smaller then those of humans, but they are visible and they have the same function as yours (another gift of evolution to our species).

My skin is mainly of a green-beige color – more pale green – and we have some patterns of brown irregular dots (each dot of the size of 1-2 centimetres) on our skin and in our face (the patterns are different for both sexes but females have more, especially in the lower body and in the face). You can see them in my case as two lines over the eyebrows crossing my forehead, at my cheek and at my chin.

My eyes are a little bit larger then human eyes (for this reason, we can see better in the darkness) and usually dominated from the large black pupils, which are surrounded from a small bright-green iris (males have a dark-green iris). The pupil is slit and can change its size from a small black line to a wide-open egg-shaped oval, because our retina is very light sensitive and the pupil must compare this. We have external round ears but they are smaller and not so curved as yours, but we can hear better because our ears are more sensitive for sonic (we can also hear a wider range of sonic). There’s a muscle or “lid” over the ears which can completely close them (for example under water).

Our nose is more pointed and there is a V-shaped curving between the nostrils, which enabled the ancestors to “see” temperature. We have lost most of this ability, but we can still feel temperature much better with this “organ”. Our lips are shaped like yours (those of females a little bit larger then those of males) but of a pale brown color and our teeth are very white and strong and a little bit longer and sharper then your soft mammal teeth. We have no different hair colors like you (but there is a tradition to color the hairs in different ages) and the original color is, like mine, a greenish brown. Our hairs are thicker and stronger then yours and they grow very slow. In addition, the head is the only part of our body where we have hairs.

Our body, arms and legs are similar in shape and size to yours, but the color is different (green-beige, like the face) and there are scale-like structures on the upper legs (over the knee) and upper arms (over the elbow). Our five fingers are a little bit longer and thinner then human fingers and our skin on the palm is plain, so we have no lines like you but again a combination of a scale-like skin structure and of the brown dots (both sexes have the dots on the palm) and we have no fingerprints like you. If you touch my skin, you will feel that it is smoother then your hairy skin. There are small sharp horns on the upside of both middle fingers. The fingernails are grey and generally longer then yours. You see that my nails are not so long and round at the top. This is because I’m female. Males have sharp pointed nails with a length of sometimes 5 or 6 of your centimetres.

The following feature is very different from your body and part of our reptilian origin: if you touch the backside of my upper body you will feel a hard bony line through my clothing. This is not my spine but a very difficult shaped external plate-strucure of skin and tissue following exactly our spine from the head to the hip. There is an extremly high number of nerves and large blood vessels in this structure and in the plates (which are around two or three centimetres long and very touch sensitive, this is the reason why we have always problems to sit in chairs with a back like this chair.) The main task of these small plates (beside a role in our sexuality) is simply the regulation of our body temperature and if we sit in natural or artificial sunlight, these plates become more bloodfilled and the vessels become wider and the sun is able to heat up our reptilioid blood (which circulates through the body and through the plates) for many degrees and that gives us a great pleasure. Oh, we have no navel, because we were born in a different way to your mammal birth. (End Quote) She gives an interesting take on the history of the planet I have not heard before. She says that 65 million years ago the dinosaurs were not killed by a meteor but by two species of aliens fighting over earth so they could mine its copper. One of them was humanoid and the other was reptilian. The war ended with the reptilian species detonating a fusion bomb that was more potent than expected and almost destroyed all life on earth.

I do not think this person interviewed a real reptile. Most likely it was a work of fiction. I do think that some of the things revealed in this treatise is true. For instance, I think it is correct that the earth is not hollow with a central sun but there are hollow parts. I think this is good material to read over and run by your soul for stimulation.

One thing did find irritating was the commentary by Michael & Stephanie Relfe. They kept telling me what to think of what Lacerta was saying and commented from a fundamentalist point of view.

You can read the interview here:


May 8, 2012

The Basic God

Thanks for writing this Rob. You bring up an interesting idea I have not thought of before. You say:

“What could mankind do in 100-1000 years by observing survival knowledge born in organisms and then applying it in humans through DNA manipulation?”

When one contemplates the Law of Correspondences he can see that doing this is indeed a possibility.

A human is born in a very helpless condition and needs a caretaker to do everything for him if he is to survive.

When an animal is born it is pretty much ready to go. After a calf or horse is born it will be running around within minutes and seems almost as smart as its mother. The animals have built in programming to assist them that we lack. Why is this?

Part of the reason may be that the animal kingdom has had a longer time to program themselves for survival.

It is true that we depend more on mind than instinct for our survival and perhaps as we progress we will program many things into our nature that does not exist within the animals. It is interesting to speculate what that may be but by using correspondences we can get an idea.

Since the animals are born with built in programming that makes then ready to go at birth then it is most likely human babies will wind up being born with greater and greater abilities as times goes on until a human may have the consciousness of an adult by the age of eight rather than 21 as it is now.

It is indeed food for thought.


May 8, 2012

Re: The Basic God

RJ wrote:

Arthur C Clarke seemed quite the visionary and initiate of his time…. “In a taped interview with the Australian Broadcasting Corporation in 1974, Clark is questioned by the interviewer as to how he believes the computer will change the future for the everyday person and what life will be like around the year 2001. Clarke accurately predicts many things which have become a reality, among them online banking, online shopping and other commonplace things. In responding to the interviewer’s question about how his (the interviewer’s) son’s life will be different, Clark responds: “[H]e will have, in his own house, not a computer as big as this, [points to nearby computer], but at least, a console through which he can talk, through his local computer and get all the information he needs, for his everyday life, like his bank statements, his theater reservations, all the information you need in the course of living in our complex modern society, this will be in a compact form in his own house … and he will take it as much for granted as we take the telephone.” Source of Quote

JJ This was one of the most accurate predictions I have ever read. On the other hand, space travel has not progressed anything like he wrote about in 2001. His writings show what could have been if we had continued with the space program.


May 9, 2012

The Atheist

Rob wrote:

I don’t get get your logic here JJ. So, because the human body is inconceivably complex and can reproduce itself it therefore had an intelligent designer?

I don’t understand everything about the moon, nor do I know how it came into existence. But According to your above logic it was also intelligently designed. I’m not saying I’m an Atheist, nor am I saying God can’t be logically proven, only that I don’t see how the ladder of logic flows from your premises to their conclusion.

What am missing?

JJ The Difference between the moon and the human cell is like the difference between a snowflake and an iPad7. One is an accumulation of natural patterns, the other an accumulation of design that had to come from some source.

May 10, 2012

Re: The Atheist

Adam: Yet the indwelling entity/monad of the moon is of a much higher order than the indwelling entity/monad of the human cell, or even the indwelling entity/monad of a human individual? So the moon’s monad only requires a vehicle which is an accumulation of natural patterns in order to eventually manifest full intelligence/glory while the cell is glorified through incredibly complex design and its own evolution?

And the correspondence would seem lacking from the standpoint that the snowflake’s monad is nothing compared to the monad of the iPad7?

Am I missing something?

JJ You are missing the fact that the moon is a dead decaying body and the monad, the logos and the intelligent lives that once lived on it are long gone. Now the moon has little evidence left of design but still has its natural patterns of creation.

On the other hand, the earth is a living planet composed of lots of things that give evidence of intelligent design, not the least of which are humans such as you and me. It also has a monad and logos incarnated into its body which is lacking on the moon.

A computer shows evidence of intelligent design though it doesn’t have an incarnated monad or logos – though it does have elemental lives involved.


May 11, 2012

Immortal Books

Dean I’m not usually one to be surprised or go on about something but something is seriously up with your book. What did you tap into and how you do all that?

It’s like some of it didn’t really come from you. Cause I been reading your posts for ages and it seems different.

more i consider it something different between the books, and the list. Or something strange that don’t add up. You must have an unusual talent for writing or something.

Don’t get it. Where did all the character development come from? The more i think of it the more i think the whole structure of that book is amazing.

These should really be, a best seller. I don’t get why they aren’t more popular. I read books that are way more popular than this but not half as good.

And i even read it years ago, but its not like i read it.

How did you learn to write like that?

I am wondering if i am seeing things in it that are just not there or things that you never intended for there to be there.

JJ Glad you were impressed. The series has not been a big seller and is entirely self published but those who read it generally think it is among the best books they have read and can’t understand why it doesn’t outsell books like the Celestine Prophecy and Conversations with God. I think they still have potential to be big sellers when I finally hit on something that draws the attention of mainstream people. I am hoping my Fixing America book will do that. Sorry this has taken so long to publish but my wife insisted on one more edit. We are getting close to publishing it now.

As to my writing talent or style.. It takes a different mindset to write The Immortal books than it does a regular post. I just write it the best that I am capable. Have you read Eternal Words yet? About the same time I publish Fixing America I will be publishing The Unveiling. Something will eventually hit the mark.


May 11, 2012


Adam And do elemental lives have monads? If not, what is behind their vibration? Did they have an initial reflection, as monads.

JJ A monad is a point of life in the Divine Space which is the One Great life. Each monad has within it all the knowledge and programming (from a past creation) necessary to fulfill its potential creative end. There are human monads, deva monads and animal monads and they are as different as the seeds of a tree, a flower and a watermelon. Normally one will say that a flower grew from a seed but you do not normally say that a petal from the flower grew from a seed. Similarly a tree grows from a seed but one does not associate a leaf growing from one.

Even so the elemental lives are always part of a greater life that grew from a seed which is a monad.

Each piece from the vegetable and mineral kingdom did not come from a unique monad though lives that did develop from monads work with these kingdoms.


May 14, 2012

Easter Island

I’ve been out of town away from computers for a few days so haven’t been able to post. Meanwhile here is something interesting.


Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here