Akiane – Freeread

Keys Posts 2012, Part 7

May 30, 2012May 30, 2012 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 20 of 40 in the series 2012A

April 7, 2012

Question About Art, Thomas Kinkade & Akiane

Tom: R.I.P Thomas Kinkade a wonderful painter. Kinkade died on Fri. For some reason he is one of the most successful artist ever becoming a mufti-millionaire selling his paintings, yet at the same time is he one of the most criticized artist ever. I read nothing but negative comments about his artwork with the exception of a few nice comments.

JJ, explain why most people seem to dislike the beautiful paintings that Thomas did? Others may disagree.

As an artist, myself, I also get a lot of negative feedback from people, but does that make me an awful artist?

If an artist can be an intinitives like Akiane…in what ways do artist help society?

JJ I’m not a big follower of the art world but do appreciate talent when I see it. I’ve read neither the praise nor the criticism of his art but after looking at some samples I believe I can answer your question.

The quality of his art is very good and distinctive but it reflects conservative values like Norman Rockwell and the Left has a knee jerk reaction to conservative values these days. In their minds it has no value. They see nothing good in the traditional 1950s type of values and will attack anyone who has anything good to say or project of them.

On top of this many become critics of the various arts because of a feeling of superiority and will attack things of value just to illustrate their supposed higher powers of discrimination.

Art helps people to tune into the possibilities of the inner world and renew their spirits.

April 11, 2012

Ron Paul and Defense

I’ve written quite a bit about Ron Paul but see the discussion is intensifying around him again so I’ll make a few more comments.

The first thing I want to clarify is that it is fine if members here disagree with me. I have no desire to be seen as infallible. I’ll always respect your opinion as long as the discussion remains civil.

Dean says: First comparing Ron Paul back to the days of when Churchill was around and saying he would not have assisted Churchill, to me is really ridiculous. There was different circumstances back then to consider and a different world. He would assist anything that helps with the security of the people. Ron Paul is not totally passive when it comes to defense, and has a rather strong defense plan.

JJ The evidence tells us otherwise. The only time Ron Paul wants to use military force is if an enemy attacks us on U.S. soil and even then he hesitates. After we were attacked on our soil he was opposed to even going after the terrorists in Afghanistan (after 911) until a revolt by his staff changed his vote at the last minute:

Journalist Jeffrey Shapiro posted a 2009 interview he held with Paul, in which he clearly states that if it were up to him at the time, saving the Jews from annihilation in Europe would not have been a moral imperative.

“I asked Congressman Paul: If he were president of the United States during World War II would he have sent American troops to Nazi Germany to save the Jews? And the Congressman answered: No, I wouldn’t”

“I wouldn’t risk American lives to do that. If someone wants to do that on their own because they want to do that, well, that’s fine, but I wouldn’t do that,” Shapiro wrote.

(Like someone on their own was going to make war with Hitler)

Here’s another quote, this time from a former member of Ron Paul’s staff, Eric Dondero:

“Ron Paul is most assuredly an isolationist. He denies this charge vociferously. But I can tell you straight out, I had countless arguments/discussions with him over his personal views. For example, he strenuously does not believe the United States had any business getting involved in fighting Hitler in WWII. He expressed to me countless times, that saving the Jews, was absolutely none of our business. When pressed, he often times brings up conspiracy theories like FDR knew about the attacks of Pearl Harbor weeks before hand, or that WWII was just blowback, for Woodrow Wilson’s foreign policy errors, and such.

“I would challenge him, like for example, what about the instances of German U-boats attacking U.S. ships, or even landing on the coast of North Carolina or Long Island, NY. He’d finally concede that that and only that was reason enough to counter-attack against the Nazis, not any humanitarian causes like preventing the Holocaust.

“There is much more information I could give you on the sheer lunacy of his foreign policy views.”

I can’t support a guy who declares that he would not have lifted a finger to prevent the extermination of an entire race of people. That is taking a black and white position on defense to an extreme – a great extreme.

Presently, the Jews face a similar problem. Iran is attempting to create a nuclear weapons system that will wipe Israel of the face of the map and all Paul has to say about it is that they have a right to nuclear weapons without us interfering.

Yes, we must look to our own self-interests but there are times the Second Key of Judgment must be used and one has to do what he can to save others.

If you come across a bully who is twice your size beating up someone then you may be justified in not interfering because not only will the victim get a beating but you will too.

On the other hand, if you come across a bully smaller and weaker then yourself you have no excuse for not interfering and attempting to stop him.

Iran is smaller and much weaker than ourselves and wants to destroy Israel. We should do what we can to prevent a second holocaust.

Dean quotes me: “He is very secretive and unlike others we have analyzed he is consistently secretive and has thoughts he has never shared with anyone, even close associates. He will deceive when it is necessary to protect objectives he does not want made public. When he seems to be giving starkly open answer he is usually holding back.”

Dean: “Wow lol. Where does this claim of being secretive come from, and how can you make a judgment about him being a deciever when it’s really not based on anything. To me this is slander when you say something about someone that is like an attack when it has no basis. It’s not fair to say when someone seems to be really honest, that it means they’re holding back.”

JJ That was from an analysis of his handwriting and there is quite a bit of evidence that what I said was correct. He has a large number of views that he keeps to himself while running for president. If they were better known his support would be diminished.

He sees Abraham Lincoln as a tyrant and thinks he fought the Civil War to increase the power of government and the civil war was unnecessary. He would not have fought to free the slaves. He thinks the were close to being freed naturally. This is very naive thinking as the South was seeking to expand slavery in all directions in and out of the United States and were not about to let the slaves go free or support any legislation that would allow this.”

I stated in an earlier post that if it ever looked like he was gaining traction that the media would dig into his old newsletters which would reveal some quite controversial views that he has kept secret. This is exactly what happened a few months ago when his popularity was on the rise.

When some apparently racists quotes from the newsletters appeared in the media Paul not only said that he didn’t write them but also said he didn’t even know what was in them because “I never read that stuff,” he said

So are we to believe that he never wrote for or even read the “RON PAUL” Newsletter that spanned the decades of the eighties and nineties?

If this doesn’t verify secretiveness on his part I do not know what does.

On the other hand I agree with many of Paul’s views on personal liberty and creating a responsible budget. However, I think that it would spell disaster to go on the gold standard as he advocates. I do think it is a good idea to buy gold as a hedge, however. I have already thoroughly covered my views on this in an entire treatise that will be included in my soon to be published book. You can read it here:

April 11, 2012

Secret Society

Rob: What? Is Obama too black to be a secret society member?

JJ Yeah, it’s kind of funny that Obama doesn’t seem to be a member of any secretive organization demonized by conspiracy buffs but he is doing more to destroy the foundations of freedom than any person in a long time.

This is because he is a member of the true conspiracy that operates from an invisible spiritual center and moves its focus around with each rising generation.

April 11, 2012

Re: Ron Paul and Defense

Keith: Millions of Jews and others died in concentration camps. I do not remember the allies going to war to save the Jewish race. Millions of Russian citizens died in Gulags. I do not remember the allies going to war to prevent Stalin’s genocide. Millions of Armenians were slaughtered by the Turks. I do not remember Britain, France or America coming to their aid. Saving races from genocide has never been an imperative for the west. To hold Ron Paul to such a high standard is ridiculous.

JJ No one said we went to war to save the Jewish race. The atrocities against the Jews were not clear at the time and what was reported was met with skepticism. Few really believed that Hitler could have been so evil as to systematically go about to destroy an entire race of people, especially the people who wrote most of the Bible.

The question was asked through using the benefit of hindsight. We basically fought against Hitler because he posed a great threat to the freedom of Western civilization but once the knowledge became available that Hitler exterminated six million Jews and had a goal to eliminate the whole race throughout the entire world once he conquered it then most people felt that alone would have been reason to act in some way. After all, we have Jews in the United states that Hitler would have had to eventually take out to insure the Arian race remains pure. Then most likely the blacks were next on his list as the Nazi philosophy calls then the “mud people” that are not to pollute the Arians through breeding.

It is well known tat Ron Paul only wants to respond militarily if we are directly attacked on our soil and, as quoted, the Ron Paul staffer said he would not have gone to war against Hitler. Thus the journalist presented to him what we know in hindsight – knowing what we know now – not in 1941. Would you have sent troops “to save the Jews.”

To this question we discover that he would have not gone to war with Hitler because of the threat he posed on the free world and on top of that he wouldn’t have gone to war to save the Jews from annihilation.

From his tone when speaking of things like this I would bet he wouldn’t even have supported economic sanctions, blockades or any moves to hamper Hitler because he believes strongly in non interference.

If Ron Paul was president during world War II he wouldn’t have assisted England in 1939 and Hitler would have won the Battle of Britain and gone on to develop the atomic bomb while Paul would have seen no need for it.

It would not have been long before Hitler would have attacked us with atomic bombs and conquered us and the entire world including Japan. There’s a lot I think FDR did wrong but I’m glad that he was in office instead of Paul during World War II.

Keith Shapiro is just one reporter with an opinion. Is his reporting accurate? Does he have an axe to grind with Ron Paul? Who knows? I am not impressed with hearsay from one reporter and one ex-staffer.

JJ I am inclined to believe that he is telling the truth for several reasons.

(1) His dialog with Paul sounds very similar to other dialog from him that I have read. (2) Paul has issued no statement refuting Shapiro. Most people in Paul’s shoes would defend themselves if incorrectly quoted on such an important subject. If in doubt one could just email Paul and ask him if Shapiro is lying? (3) Paul has never said he would have gone to war to defeat Hitler. (4) Paul was drafted during WWII and did not go voluntarily.

Keith: The newsletters have always sounded like a deliberate hatchet job to me. If the man says he never wrote the ones with racist comments – why don’t we take him at his word?

JJ I do take him at his word on this. No one is saying that he wrote the quoted material. I am saying that it is extreme negligence to say that you have no idea what was in a newsletter named RON PAUL when your name is RON PAUL and you are the publisher of the newsletter. It is also very strange that he says he never even read the statement.

Let us suppose Paul became present and managed the country as he managed his newsletter – we might see something like this:

Reporter: Sir, your Secretary of State threatened the life of the Russian president because he wouldn’t let him carry a gun in the Kremlin. What do you have to say?

Paul: That’s the first I have heard about it. What the secretary does is his business and has nothing to do with me. Next question.

Keith: I do believe he does not disown all of the newsletters.

JJ I am sure you are right but it is very negligent to not know or even agree with what is published under your name with your apparent approval. These articles were not attributed to some staff member but published under Paul’s name giving the impression he wrote them. I’ll tell you this that if I published a J J Dewey Newsletter and allowed someone to write articles as if it were me speaking I would damn well read them and make sure it was in harmony with my thinking. To not do this would be insane.

I would go farther than that. Anything written in the J J Newsletter would actually be my words unless otherwise noted.

Keith: If, Iran gets the bomb they will do what every country does who gets the bomb. Absolutely nothing.

JJ Do you feel comfortable enough in this belief to move to Israel? There is a big difference between Iran and the leaders of the Old Soviet Union, China and others. The Soviet leaders wanted to continue living. Many of the leaders in Iran would be happy to give their lives to destroy Israel and secure a place in heaven. Even North Korea couldn’t find 19 hijackers to give their lives for the cause but it was an easy thing for Islamic fundamentalists to do.

Mahmoud Ahmadinejad assisted in the taking of U.S. hostages at the risk of an attack from us that could have taken them out and probably would have if we had any other president but Carter. The leaders there are loose cannons and we have to do what we can to neutralize them.

It’s too bad Obama didn’t lend his support to the rebels in Iran a while back as he did toward the so-called Arab Spring. It is quite possible that the leadership would have been overthrown and we would have much less to worry about. But I think Ron Paul would have taken the same non-action on this as Obama did.

Easy Access to all the Writings

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

Keys Writings, Part 20

January 8, 2012January 8, 2012 Joseph Dewey

This entry is part 34 of 34 in the series 2011C

Dec 2, 2011

Sample signatures of Apple founders for handwriting analysis

John C I found this document with signatures of Steve Jobs, Steve Wozniak, and Ronald Wayne, the three men who founded Apple. Wayne later dropped out.

JJ might find these early signatures from 1976, and if there more recent signatures, it might be interesting to compare them.

Signatures

JJ Thanks for digging this up. Since Steve’s signature is from 1976 I did some digging and found several more recent ones. Unfortunately, I cannot find any of his regular handwriting which would reveal more.

Several things are what I would expect and several were not.

Because he had cancer I would suspect that he had problems with suppression but there is virtually no suppression in his signature. It is strange he died of cancer when he seemed to be on a very good diet and was expressive emotionally. There is one thing I noticed that could cause emotional problems linked to cancer and that is he would yield to others, sometime against his better judgment. This is surprising since he is portrayed as being fairly unyielding. I think this yielding characteristic shows up in the book where time and time again others would share their ideas and views and he would reject them but then the next day he would be totally accepting of them and sometimes act like they were his own. His handwriting would indicate he changed his mind largely because he did a lot of thinking of how to accommodate others even though this did not seem to be true.

Even though he does not suppress emotion he did suppress his thoughts and was quite secretive.

Another thing that is somewhat surprising is he was quite insecure and he was very nervous about taking chances. What compensated for this though was his personal gutsiness and courage. These would override his fears.

One more thing that may surprise some is that he wasn’t concerned about getting a lot of personal recognition. If his products were appreciated then he was happy and that was the main thing.

His writing, especially his later writing shows that he really thought outside the box and was unconventional in many ways. He was very unconventional in almost every way and even though some portray him as a difficult personality the writing reveals that he had powerful personal magnetism and charm. I can see why many were very devoted to him.

He was a very balanced thinker and interested in all phases of life, the spiritual, social and material.

He was intuitive, creative and often compared his work to art which is interesting because he could have been an artist if he had put his attention in that direction.

The interesting thing about Wozniak’s writing is that he writes more like a schoolteacher than an engineer or computer genius. He’s a lot more of a people person and not as intelligent as I expected.

John: This isn’t yielding, this is stealing. But, he, himself, admitted that the best ideas are stolen.

JJ It was both. Stealing ideas does not negate the yielding. I think stealing is a harsh way of putting it when he was running the company and already owned whatever anyone produced. Also both Jobs and the employee involved knew where the ideas came from. Jobs was very sparse with his praise making such very valuable. I think that he felt that just using an employees idea was enough to give them recognition.

Everyone thinks a little differently and one has to put himself in the guy’s shoes to understand. I think that those who worked close with him did understand and that is why most really liked working for him and supported him despite his quirky ways.

Dec 3, 2011

Larry’s Questions

Larry W writes: Dinosaurs and men. What about lizard men? I admit I know little about Atlantis. But didn’t the great final confrontation occur between lizard men and homosapiens in Atlantis times? Was that just 10,000 years ago? Was it before Adam (the latest one who appeared about 6,000 years ago)?

JJ The Atlantis mentioned by Plato as existing around 10,000 years ago was just a small remnant of the civilization. HPB taught that Atlantis reached its greatest quality of civilization hundreds of thousands of years before this. The reptile people were most likely of great antiquity.

There have been many strange human-like skeletons found, some even with horns. Some pictures are presented in the video I referenced a couple days ago. Here is an interesting article about some unorthodox discoveries.

Discoveries

In addition to any physical evidence there are many stories and legends passed down about the reptile race. Here are some: Male

Boreas (Aquilon to the Romans): the Greek god of the cold north wind, described by Pausanias as a winged man with serpents instead of legs. Cecrops I: the mythical first King of Athens was half man, half snake Dragon Kings: creatures from Chinese mythology sometimes depicted as reptilian humanoids Fu Xi: serpentine founding figure from Chinese mythology Glycon: a snake god who had the head of a man. Ningizzida, Lord of the Tree of Life, mentioned in the Epic of Gilgamesh and linked to the water serpent constellation Hydra. Quetzalcoatl or the “feathered serpent”, the creator god and sky god of the Aztecs; variously depicted as a man, a serpent, or a reptilian humanoid. Sobek: Ancient Egyptian crocodile-headed god Shenlong: a Chinese dragon thunder god, depicted with a human head and a dragon’s body Typhon, the “father of all monsters” in Greek mythology, was a man from the waist up, and a mass of seething vipers from the waist down. Zahhak, a figure from Zoroastrian mythology who, in Ferdowsi’s epic Shahnameh, grows a serpent on either shoulder

Female Cihuacoatl, literally “Snake Woman”, an Aztec goddess Echidna, the wife of Typhon in Greek mythology, was half woman, half snake. Moura Encantada from Portuguese and Galician folklore. The Gorgons: Sisters in Greek mythology who had serpents for hair. The Lamia: a child-devouring female demon from Greek mythology depicted as half woman, half serpent. N�wa: serpentine founding figure from Chinese mythology Wadjet pre-dynastic snake goddess of Lower Egypt – sometimes depicted as half snake, half woman The White Snake: a figure from Chinese folklore

Either Some djinn in Islamic mythology are described as alternating between human and serpentine forms. Nāga (Devanagari: reptilian beings from Hindu mythology said to live underground and interact with human beings on the surface. The Serpent: a character from the Genesis creation narrative occasionally depicted with legs, and sometimes identified with Satan, though its representations have been both male and female.

Larry: But were the lizard men a uniform humanoid race or several different types of reptiles?

JJ You can use the Law of Correspondences to discover this. Look at all the varieties of the human race. This would indicate there was also a variety of reptiles.

Larry Does this relate directly to the snake story in the Garden of Eden?

JJ Yes, the idea of an intelligent serpent goes back to ancient times.

Larry Also, I always wonder what happens to those planets where the lizards kill off all the humans. Are they totally incapable of ever progressing further?

JJ Even steps backward are steps forward in the total scheme of things. If you take a wrong turn and find out it was a mistake and get back on the right road then the wrong turn was necessary to discover the right direction. There is a limit to the progression a soul can make in any form and sooner or later one must move on.

Larry Do those planets eventually get destroyed?

JJ All life forms fulfill a necessary function and do not get destroyed just because they are dominated by reptile life. Some planets and even star systems get destroyed for a variety of reasons.

Larry Will we fly there someday on a seeding mission and blow them away with far advanced tech and spiritual skills and re-seed the planet with humans? This might be a lot like ordinary seeding missions except with extermination at the beginning.

JJ The common sense thing will be to leave their evolution to themselves.

Larry We’ve been told Sanat is an innovator, not doing things precisely the same way as before but shortening up the process by introducing a lot more pain. Did I state this idea accurate?

JJ The enhancement came from stimulating the minds of humans more than pain. There was already plenty of pain to go around.

Larry So were many of us formerly lizard men? Now we/they use human bodies – ourselves, our families, our friends? Half and half? Or some other ratio?

JJ Either in this system or some other most (or perhaps all) of us have been in the serpent kingdom.

Larry: So would lizard men naturally think more like a hunter/killer?

JJ Think Kinglons from Star Trek.

Larry: Would they only eat one meal every other day – all meat?

JJ Your guess is as good as mine.

Larry Another issue that often reveals my ignorance is that of “root races”. I would love to see an outline showing root races one through now and beyond with a few paragraphs under each detailing similarities and differences and maybe something about origins.

JJ The root races are pretty simple; it’s the sub rootraces that are difficult to follow. The first two were in etheric matter so there is no remnant of them. The third, the Lemurian, has a residual in the Australian Aborigines but were more animal like in the beginning.

The Orientals are a residual of the fourth, the Atlantean and the fifth is the Aryan.

Larry: JJ says to look for sixth root race bodies to begin appearing even now. He says the design will pay far more attention to beauty where previous innovations were more utilitarian. So who do you nominate as an example of a sixth root race cutie?

JJ The sixth root race will not be a totally different looking people but a synthesis and refinement of all the races we have now. When it is fully in dominance the average person will be somewhat tan and very refined in features. Some of the best looking people of all races foreshadow the race to come.

John C And, I like some books that nobody here has read nor will read, but which I firmly believe and know are inspired from God. Rhetorical question: Does that me not an Initiate? Does that many any of you not Initiates? I don’t think so.

JJ I’d be interested in inspired books you have read that you think those here would not read. Maybe members would give them a look.

The books we read do not make us initiates, though solid knowledge helps propel us along the path. I have encountered quite a few who have read AAB who show few of the signs of the initiate.

Dec 15, 2011

Who’s the Father?

Here’s some dialog I’ve been having with Mark who has an LDS background.

Mark: When you bring up Sanat Kumara, the first Adam, the Ancient of Days, I think of Brigham Young’s Adam God theory. Is this what Brigham Young was referring to? The other question I have: If what you are saying is true, then Sanat Kumara does not appear to be the Father of our spirits. If not, then who is the Father our spirits? Who is our Heavenly Father, the one Jesus Christ referred when he said, “I go to your God and my God”? Reply

JJ Brigham had a rough idea about Adam God but did not know the details.

Our spirits were not created through heavenly parents having physical sex as taught in m Mormonism. We are eternal beings and have always been. Our essence has been stimulated by other beings and we basically create ourselves with the help of others who have progressed far beyond us. The form you have now was designed by you in conjunction with higher lives and was different in past lives. After each live you participate in designing a more perfect body.

Mark: Romans 8:16 “The Spirit itself beareth witness with our spirit, that we are the children of God: 17 And if children, then heirs; heirs of God, and joint-heirs with Christ; if so be that we suffer with him, that we may be also glorified together.

Psalms: 82:6 “I have said, Ye are gods; and all of you are children of the most High.”

Ephesians 1:3 “Blessed be the God and Father of our Lord Jesus Christ, who hath blessed us with all spiritual blessings in heavenly places in Christ:”

Matthew 18:35 “So likewise shall my heavenly Father do also unto you, if ye from your hearts forgive not every one his brother their trespasses.”

Are we not to take the words “children” and “Father” literally here, but figuratively?

Also, when Jesus speaks of his heavenly Father, is he referring to Sanat Kumara?

JJ Notice that Joseph Smith in the King Follett Discourse did not teach the idea of heavenly parents giving birth to our spirits.

We say that God himself is a self-existent being. Who told you so? It is correct enough; but how did it get into you heads? Who told you that man did not exist in like manner upon the same principles? Man does exist upon the same principles. God made a tabernacle and put a spirit into it, and it became a living soul. (Refers to the old Bible.) How does it read in the Hebrew? It does not say in the Hebrew that God created the spirit of man. It says “God made man out of the earth and put into him Adam’s spirit, and so became a living body.” The mind or the intelligence which man possesses is co-equal with God himself.

Intelligence is eternal and exists upon a self-existent principle. It is a spirit from age to age, and there is no creation about it. All the minds and spirits that God ever sent into the world are susceptible of enlargement. End Quote

There is no outside creation to our spirit essence. The form we have now had a beginning at our physical birth and changes from age to age or life to life. There are those who assist and have assisted in our progress and in a sense they are fathers and mothers to us.

Our highest spiritual essence is our eternal father in heaven but higher lives are also referred to as our fathers. Melchizedek overshadowed Jesus and Jesus referred to him as Father.

Mark: Yes, Mormonism has always believed in the above Joseph Smith quote that we have always co-existed (in some form & essence) with God. Notwithstanding, what about the following principle- Matthew 6:10 “Thy kingdom come. Thy will be done in earth, as it is in heaven.” The Zohar adds more to this principle: Observe that God has made the earthly kingdom after the pattern of the heavenly kingdom, and whatever is done on earth has been preceded by its prototype in heaven. -Soncino Zohar, Bereshith, Section 1, Page 197a How could something as foundational as marriage, sexual intimacy, children ” the very heart of our earthly sociality ” not even exist in heaven? Yet, the language of the scriptures are filled with family references ” The Father, The Son, Children of God, Sons, Daughters, etc. How could this be?

JJ You are right that all things that exist on earth first existed in heaven, or higher spheres. There are seven planes altogether. The next level up from us is the astral composed of emotional energy. This is what Mormons generally refer to as the spirit world. The next up is the mental plane composed of mental matter and is directed by the energy of mind. These three are the worlds of form, the mental being the highest is similar to the LDS celestial kingdom.

Above the mental is the buddhic plane from which true intuition originates. This intuition links the worlds of form to the next plane, the atmic. This plane governs the universe of ideas. On this plane originates all creation that eventually materializes here on the earth. An idea there is carried through the intuitive plane to the mind, then to emotional matter in the spirit world until it materializes here on the earth. The concept of the form of your body originated in the atmic plane and descended as a seed until it reached the physical plane and developed as a physical vehicle for you.

The idea that our archetypes were created previously is true, but just somewhat different than orthodox Mormonism believes. Mark: You even referenced family language in your last post stating, “Our highest spiritual essence is our eternal father in heaven but higher lives are also referred to as our fathers.” Why use the term “father”? What definition of father are you using?

JJ The word father is used a number of different ways in the scriptures and other writings. It doesn’t always mean a literal father of a body. Even on this plane an adopted child calls his caretaker his father.

Consider the word in reference to a prophesy of Christ:

“For unto us a child is born, unto us a son is given: and the government shall be upon his shoulder: and his name shall be called Wonderful, Counsellor, The mighty God, The everlasting Father, The Prince of Peace.” Isa 9:6

Notice that Isaiah called prophesied Messiah “the everlasting Father.

The Book of Mormon does something similar:

“I would that ye should understand that God himself shall come down among the children of men, and shall redeem his people. And because he dwelleth in flesh he shall be called the Son of God, and having subjected the flesh to the will of the Father, being the Father and the Son �” The Father, because he was conceived by the power of God; and the Son, because of the flesh; thus becoming the Father and Son. And THEY ARE ONE God, yea, the very Eternal Father of heaven and earth. and thus the flesh (Jesus) becoming subject to the Spirit (Christ), or the Son to the Father…” Mosiah 15:1-5.

One reason the Messiah is called Father is that he initiated the fathering of many sons of God. Any creator is a father to his creations.

Mark: Finally, curious to your response to this thought too- John 20:17 “Jesus saith unto her, Touch me not; for I am not yet ascended to my Father: but go to my brethren, and say unto them, I ascend unto my Father, and your Father; and to my God, and your God.” Why would Jesus tell Mary Magdalene this if he was referring to Melchizedek? Was Melchizedek Mary Magdalene’s Father too?

JJ Melchizedek, who overshadowed Jesus is responsible for the creation of the sons of God here on the earth. He is therefore the father of all who aspire to be such including Mary Magdalene.

Above him is Sanat Kumara who is responsible for the creation of all human life of earth making him our Father also.

In addition to this if we were able (as did Christ) to ascend to the sixth plane we would arrive at the plane of the monad where the seed of our existence and intelligence resides. This dwells as a point of light in divine space something like a star dwells in physical space. This divine space is the mind of God and there is only one space which is the ultimate Father of us all.

Dec 22, 2011 Taking Advice I received this from a fellow Keys member.

I’m passing this on because it worked for me today…Dr Oz on TV said that to reach inner peace we should always finish things we start, and we all could use more calm in our lives during the hectic Holiday season. I looked around my house to find things I’d started and hadn’t finished, so I finished off a bottle of CROWN, a bottle of Chardonnay, a bodle of Baileys, a butle of wum, tha mainder of Valiuminun scriptins, an a box a chocletz. Yu haf no idr how fablus I feel rite now. Sned this to all who need inner piss. And telum u luvum.

Dec 23, 2011

SNL Skit

If yo haven’t seen it yet check this out.

Skit

Dec 23, 2011

Mysterious Iron Ball Falls from Space

Also check out the comments – very entertaining and creative.

Dec 26, 2011

New on Atlas Shrugged

Here’s some sad news about the Atlas Shrugged sequel from a blog:

This train ain’t coming, folks.

Let’s take an end-of-the-year assessment, shall we?

John Aglialoro, who funded it [Part I] using money he made as CEO of Cybex International, said that he wasn’t going to sink more of his own money into producing Part II, and that making that movie would depend on either the profitability of Part I or finding outside funding.

Part I was a flop in the movie theaters, making less than $5M in a five-week release. It was done in by Aglialoro’s cheaping out on advertising, and the fact that the movie was one of the worst-reviewed of the year — a 28 Metacritic score, which, though definitely terrible, was not by any means the worst of the 2011.

“Oh, but wait until the international release!”

The international release right now consists of a single screen at a single theater in Halifax. It looks like the entire international release will not reach even a dozen screens.

“Oh, but wait for DVD and BluRay!”

The DVD and BluRay releases are now very comfortably out of the top hundred on Amazon. A quick logarithmic estimate — based on the facts that the #1 DVD sold 1M units this week, that #30 sold 100K, and “Atlas” is below #150, is that about a thousand “Atlas” DVDs are being sold a week. BluRays are doing far, far worse, below #600.

“Oh, but wait for VOD!”

Thirty-three days after its release on video-on-demand, the movie rental is at #100 on iTunes. Both the home purchase and rental market, in other words, faded even faster than the disastrous theatrical release.

So, add it all up, and what do you have? Everyone now knows quite clearly that “Atlas Shrugged: Part I” will not recoup its investment this year, next year, and possibly ever.

What’s more, John Algialoro couldn’t deep-pocket Part II into existence even if he wanted to, because his main source of wealth shares in Cybex have dramatically tumbled. In June 2010, when shooting for Part I began, Cybex was trading at $1.30; it’s last close was $0.48, and it seems certain that NASDAQ will delist it in January for not meeting certain minimum requirements for business size and share price, further knocking the share price down.

So now it’s down to Magic Money Raining from the Sky. Aglialoro has two reasons not to underwrite Part II: he lost his shirt the first time, and he has no shirt left to lose. Are the studios going to step up and make a sequel to a flop, something which was demonstrated to deflate and go belly-up as soon as it hit the screens? Nope.

So where is part II?

Nowheresville. That’s why no cast has been announced, no director, no date for principal shooting, nothing.

This train ain’t coming.

JJ Comment:

I think this is really strange that the movie did so badly when Ayn Rand has such a large following and in my opinion the movie was very well done. I think its failure has more to do with the fact that when a point of light is trying to pierce the darkness that it is just overwhelmed until the darkness loses some power.

For instance, all readers who have compared The Immortal with the Celestine Prophesy think the Immortal is much better yet The Celestine Prophesy has sold overwhelmingly more copies. I certainly have great respect for all those lights who persevere in the face of seemingly unending darkness. Faith in the power of the dominating good is always a source of power and strength.

Dec 27, 2011

Natural Selection

JJ wrote [awhile back]: “… there can be no “natural selection,” or choice unless there is intelligence at work. Without intelligence there can only be ‘random selection.'” – https://freeread.com/archives/4607.html

JJ wrote [in a follow-on post]: “The conundrum comes in when you consider that natural selection as defined by the evolutionists takes place with no apparent intelligence or conscious choice involved. […] In the process of evolution the more appropriate forms survive and the one ill equipped fade away, but both forms were created by intelligent choice.” – https://freeread.com/archives/4609.html

Dan: What do you call it when “the more appropriate form survives and the one ill equipped fades away”?

This surviving/fading away process is what evolutionary theorists refer to as “natural selection”, whether the various forms that are “selected” from are themselves the result of intelligence isn’t addressed in the term “natural selection”, just the fact that one survives and the other fades away without influence (other than which survives/produces more offspring).

The “selection” is “made” by whether the thing lives/reproduces more or does not/dies out, that’s why they refer to it as “natural” rather than “directed” or “intelligent”.

Are you saying some one/thing actually makes an conscious, intelligent “choice” as to which should/will go on (is more suitable in/for a particular environment) and which shouldn’t?

Even if life itself is (the FORMS are) the result of INHERENT intelligence, it would be quite a stretch to use that as a basis for saying: which form survives/prospers and which doesn’t in any particular environment – the “selection” process – is itself intelligent!

JJ Response: After I made those comments my inner self tugged at me telling me that I had painted an incomplete picture but never got around to expanding on the subject. I notice that if I say anything inaccurate or leave anything undone someone here almost always catches it. You guys certainly keep me on my toes.

You quote me saying this: “… there can be no “natural selection,” or choice unless there is intelligence at work.”

The problem I have is with the term “natural selection.” The difficulty caused in using the word “selection” is that the word itself implies an intelligent choice and a choice, as I said, involves intelligence, or intelligently weighing two alternatives and then picking one.

Technically what they call natural selection is really natural default. A default can happen with no intelligence involved but a selection implies an intelligent discriminating mind at work.

Let’s look at a few elementary situations caused by the application of natural selection.

1. If it rains for days on end then we will have muddy streets.

No one really selected or chose the appearance of muddy streets. Instead it is a default situation due to changing circumstances.

Now because of the mud some intelligence may decide to build a sidewalk, but this does not appear by default but through intelligent choice and design and is not a part of what they call natural selection.

2. If it is cold then sooner or later it will snow.

The appearance of snow is what they would call a natural selection of nature, but no one selected the snow. It occurred by default. It always occurs in winter by default due to the arising cold conditions.

Now the cold may force me to wear a coat but my wearing a coat involves a choice and therefore does not fit in the definition of natural selection.

Millions of years can pass ands each year when it gets cold there will be snow but each year this occurs by default with no choice involved. Those applying intelligence to the situation will go beyond nature’s default and not only make coats but created heated homes, cars and thermal underwear. All these materialize through intelligent design, not natural selection.

Now orthodox Darwinists tell us that all life evolved through nature’s defaults with no intelligent selection involved – even though they call it natural selection.

For instance, if the climate changed and became much colder wild animals without a good coat of fur would freeze and those having a thick coat would survive and breed other animals with thick fur causing them to evolve into much furrier animals than before. This they say is the explanation of how evolution moves forward with no intelligence involved.

The problem with this explanation is that their examples of natural selection involves life forms that are already much more complex than our most sophisticated computers. After all, the DNA of a simple plant has most of its ingredients and functions in common with animal and human DNA.

The programming for creating thicker fur was already built into the animal and no one can demonstrate how nature’s default system (natural selection) could have created the complex programming. They can only demonstrate that life can adapt to situations because of programming that already exists, but cannot demonstrate how the programming came to be with no intelligence choice.

To prove the theory of natural selection one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA. If they could then observe inorganic matter coming together on its own to produce a cell then they would have something.

Scientists are hard at work attempting to create life in the laboratory. They say that if they do this it will prove evolution and that there is no God or Intelligent Designer.

To this I give a bug Duh and a dunce hat.

If scientists create life then how did that life appear? Intelligent designers (scientists) created it. This would only prove that a vehicle for life could only manifest through extremely difficult applied intelligent effort.

I know that religious people say that science will never create life, but they are wrong. The beginning of a new life form has already taken place. It is the silicon based embryo life called the computer. This will eventually evolve into a recognized life form. Eventually we will see beings like Data from the Star Trek series.

And Data would be the first to admit that he was not created through a default system of natural selection. He knows he has a creator.

Dec 27, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: To prove the theory of natural selection one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA.

Dan: I think you mean “to prove the theory of evolutionary improvement …”, not the “theory of natural selection”.

JJ To be technically correct I should have written:

To prove the theory that natural selection can create life one would have to start with materials that are not living that lack the already highly sophisticated DNA.

Dec 28, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

LWK Have to wonder what “life” really is and if it is every created? Maybe it is not created but has always existed and always will exist. Perhaps only the physical “vehicle” gets created through which eternally existing life expresses itself?

Really don’t know, but then it occurred to me that I don’t even know what life really is (so how can I know if it was ever created?)? JJ Here’s my definition of life

An energy which exhibits power to create and organize as well as destroy. Evidence of intelligence is manifested through its movement.

Dec 29, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Darwin himself never even discussed the origin/creation of life nor how the variations of form came about that are selected amongst. The most he said about creation was this:

JJ Many scientists who are atheists believe that life itself evolved through the process of natural selection. They only follow Darwin to the extent that he supports their mindset.

Dec 29, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Natural Selection could be the default mechanism/system for evolving physical experience and does not eliminate the possibility of intelligent action by either a pervasive, inherent intelligence or influence by intelligent entities at various points such as Sanat Kumara.

The thing to remember is that the “selection” in (basic) natural selection just means: what works continues, what doesn’t fades away – no DIRECT intelligent choice required. The atheists are right on that point.

JJ Atheists do not believe life evolved through a natural selection involving intelligent selection through trial and error but that random events created the right circumstances for life to just take off with no intelligence involved at all – a much different thing than Edison and the light bulb. It as a natural selection for Edison to pick the bulb that worked but without intelligence involved a bulb would have never been created that lit up.

Dec 30, 2011 When to Initiate Kelly writes: With regards to these initiates that are mentioned (Lincoln, jesus, Washington, Buddha, etc), I understand that it was in their book of life to come here on earth and initiate. Hence, it must be part of a person’s destiny to initiate, part of their soul plan that is and consequently not just some random happening. Is that correct or can someone initiate something…accidentally?

JJ No work done by an initiate is accidental but some of it is unplanned.

In between lives we do plan our next life. The higher the initiate the more accurate the plan and the greater will be the work. But things do not always go according to plan. Sometimes the work is frustrated and other times it comes out different or even better than expected.

Once the initiate is on the earth and sees his vision and sets his goals the move forward doesn’t happen by accident but through great intelligent effort.

Kelly: And when someone does initiate, is there a time frame like a specific age or Saturn stage or something that connotes this? I know there is the age 21 when a person integrates his soul wisdom and gets to the point where he was at his last life. Then 28 at the first Saturn cycle where a person begins his life work. Then what?

JJ A person can initiate a work at any age where he has developed communication skills. Check out this child who began her initiating work at the age of four: http://www.artakiane.com/

After the age of 21 and after each Saturn cycle we have an opportunity to move forward our personal development which may or may not have something to do with initiating a project or work.

When you have the skills to initiate then you can begin a work if you are so inclined no matter what your age.

Kelly: Something tells me this initiate thing must be key to having a longer life. You somehow keep your brain cells alive.

JJ Some initiates may die young – such as Steve Jobs, but they will eventually learn the secrets of long life and extended life.

Dec 30, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: The reason I brought this topic up yet again is because even though the word “selection”, taken literally, implies intelligently weighing two alternatives and then picking one, the term “natural selection” does not.

The word selection in this case was intended METAPHORICALLY by the originator of the term Charles Darwin because he could find no better term. He himself defines it and addresses this literal/metaphorical issue SPECIFICALLY in “The Origin of Species”, saying he uses it in the same way that chemists refer to “affinity” between atoms.

If you bear the true meaning in mind next time you “discuss” evolution with an atheist (as you were in the post I originally quoted), you might have more luck bringing them around – assuming that is your intent.

It just undermines your credibility to insist “Duh, of COURSE natural selection requires intelligence, how can something be selected without someone to select it”. It doesn’t because the metaphorical “selection” that takes place is simply the NATURAL process of “the more appropriate form survives and the one ill equipped fades away”.

JJ I already admitted that my wording needed to be corrected and that you did a good job of pointing out that I was technically incorrect. Why do you keep bring this up when the point has been covered several times? Are you looking for a pound of flesh?

I don’t think we disagree here yet you write as if I am fighting you on this.

We both agree that intelligence in matter causes the natural selection process to work, but atheists do not believe in intelligence in matter and that is the difference.

Also I am writing to believers in intelligent design here. When I talk with atheists I do attempt to speak their language, but it doesn’t do much good as they think that intelligence in matter is crazy talk.

Dan: The natural selection that took place with Edison and the lightbulb had NOTHING to do with him selecting the right materials, the natural selection came in when he turned on the juice and either light came out (it worked) or no light came out (it didn’t work).

Edison selecting/creating each form and then trying them is the intelligence in the system, NOT whether each works or not – whether a form works or not is non-intelligent and up to universal natural law to “determine”.

JJ But if a light bulb turned on in a uninhabited dessert with no intelligence to do any selecting, then it would not be long before the bulb would go out and not seen again for there would be no intelligence to select it. Of course, it is a natural selection to choose a light bulb over a candle but without an intelligence involved the improved selection does not get made.

Entropy is the natural law of the universe unless intelligence comes along and reverses it.

Dec 31, 2011 Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: Are you looking for a pound of flesh?

Dan: I don’t know what you are talking about here. A pound of flesh would seem to require a vicious attack which seems a pretty harsh accusation given that I haven’t felt adversarial – until perhaps now 😐 Please point out where I have attacked you or cease the name-calling.

JJ I do not call people names and this was certainly not an attempt at it.

You brought this subject up and I thought I clarified my thoughts. Then you brought it up again as if no clarification had been made and I clarified again. Then the scenario repeated one more time and I thought. What in the world does Dan want – a pound of flesh?

In other words, it seemed you wanted me to cry uncle or something of the sort. I didn’t mean to insult you but to express exasperation with what it is I am supposed to be communicating to you so you will be satisfied.

It appears to me that natural selection in the various conversations falls into two categories and this seems to cause the confusion.

Category One.

(1) Natural selection with no intelligence involved.

Examples: Gravity selects a rock to roll down a hill Rocks that roll the furthest have the jagged edges knocked off and are smoother than stationary ricks.

Heavy elements tend to sink lower in the earth and lighter stay near the surface.

(2) Natural selection with intelligence involved.

This happens when a process, product or innovation occurs that is intelligently judged to be superior to that used in the past. When this happens it is just natural for an intelligent entity to pick the superior item.

For instance a sailboat owner will pick a wind going in the direction he desires and adjust his sails.

Humanity selected Edison’s light bulb because it was better than candlelight.

Humanity selected the automobile over the horse and buggy because of the advantages.

In this second category of natural selection intelligent choice was involved but in the first category it was not.

The second category can cause the development of complex forms, such as the computer chip or DNA and first cannot.

Many atheists disagree. They think the first category can cause complex forms such as DNA to evolve. Believers in intelligent design do not accept this but believe that either the second category applies to creation of life or a personal being called God designed and created all things.

I’d be surprised if we are not on the same page on this because category two runs through my teachings from the beginning and the process is elaborated on in Eternal Words as noted by Adam.

Hope this helps.

Dec 31, 2011

Re: When to Initiate–Akiane and my own art success. Re: Akiane

Ruth: I would assume that if she can fold her physical body up and unfold it again, then she could/would be a Master.

JJ Someone did this for her which is much different than having power to do this according to your own will. Because she was worked with as a child when the spirit is pure she will find it easier to adjust higher energies.

She is definitely a disciple incarnated but doubt she is a master. When we examone her conscious thinking that is not channeled when she is 21 then we can get an idea of her real evolution.

Dec 31, 2011

Re: Natural Selection

Dan: Yes, natural selection is definitely the subject 🙂 Firstly I disagree that it falls into two categories.

JJ That’s because you’re only looking at category one which is only one of the two categories.

Dan: The word “selection” literally requires intelligent choice between options.

In the phrase/term “natural selection”, the word selection is only meant metaphorically – no intelligent choice between options is required, only the operation of natural, universal law.

JJ I realize the take on this but the gravitation of intelligence to natural selection is as predictable as gravity. People will pick staying warm over freezing to death. That is as natural of a selection as a ball rolling down a hill because of gravity.

There are definitely the two categories I mentioned around natural, or default selection.

Dan Natural Selection by intelligence is a nonsensical, self-contradictory use of the term.

JJ I don’t think so.

Dan: Secondly, I disagree that atheists believe that natural selection produces intelligence but rather they, generally speaking, believe that natural selection selecting from amongst random processes of combination/mutation of non-intelligent matter does.

JJ It sounds like you are saying that natural selection does not produce intelligence but then it does.

It is obvious that they believe that natural selection is the prime cause of intelligence. There can be no random processes without natural selection being involved.

Dan Thirdly, I personally do not think that intelligent selection is required to produce intelligence as you seem to think I think 🙂

JJ I do not recall giving my view on this.

Dan: but what I do think is that NATURAL (non-intelligent) selection operating upon inherently intelligent matter will cause it to evolve without any further input of intelligence being necessary.

JJ I think we agree here. Book 4 elaborates on this.

Dan: I could go for “default selection” but it sounds like you are quibbling over proper use of words rather than the concept BEHIND the words as you have admonished others against over the years.

JJ I commented on the meaning of the words because you brought the subject up and it was necessary we speak the same language.

Dec 31. 2011

Re: Natural Selection

JJ wrote: People will pick staying warm over freezing to death.

That is as natural of a selection as a ball rolling down a hill because of gravity.

Dan: Yep, the first is an example of (intelligent) selection but is not what the biologist (ahteist or not) is referring to when he uses the term “natural selection”.

JJ I know. When natural selection is used in connection with atheistic evolution then they claim no intelligence is involved. But as far as the basic principle of natural selection is involved there are the two categories. Not all scientists who believe in evolution are atheists and many believe that intelligence is involved.

Dan And yep, the second is an example of the type of non-intelligent process that biologists refer to by the term “natural selection” – it happens without any intelligence choice involved. Universal law (specifically gravity) takes care of rolling the ball down to the bottom of the hill.

JJ Agreed. We’ve covered this.

Dan And yes, I agree with you that BOTH are natural to our universe, but ONLY the second is what evolutionary biologists refer to by the term/call “natural selection” they call the other type “artificial selection”.

JJ Many scientists who believe in God believe that intelligence is involved in evolution.

JJ replied: It sounds like you are saying that natural selection does not produce intelligence but then it does.

Dan: Atheists appear to think that atoms will bump against each other by what they nebulously (and variously) refer to as “random processes” and then the action of universal law causes some atoms to stick together and some not (which process they call natural selection) and this will eventually lead to intelligence (us).

JJ Again it sounds like you agree that atheists scientists believe that natural selection creates intelligence.

Dan: Let me say it again a different way:

Atheists do not believe that natural selection ALONE leads to intelligence, they think various vaguely defined “random processes” under the ADDITIONAL impulse of what they call “natural selection” will eventually lead to intelligence.

JJ Still sounds like you are saying the same thing. Natural selection selects from random events and creates intelligence. The selection from events is what created intelligence just as I have been saying the atheists believe.

We are usually on the same page 95% of the time. I think we are here but the semantics sometimes gets in the way.

Whatever the case, sorry for my part in the confusion and Happy New Year.

Easy Access to all the Writings

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here