Keys Writings 2013, Part 1

This entry is part 1 of 25 in the series 2013

Jan 1, 2013

Celebrities For Gun Control

Check out the celebrities who are for gun control HERE

 

Jan 3, 2013

Are We Crazy?

Ruth gave an interesting link to a study that gives evidence that people like us are more unstable than most. And who are people like us?

They are those who are not a part of an organized religion yet claim to be “spiritual”

Read over the article and then answer some questions: (LINK)

(1) Does this study reflect the truth?

(2) If so why are those who seem to have taken a higher path having mental problems? (3) Or have some or all not taken a higher path?

 

Jan 4, 2013

 More on Sandy Hook

I got sidetracked tonight watching videos about the inconsistencies of the Sandy Hook shooting. There are an increasing number of things that just do not add up. Take a look at these videos.

LINK 1

LINK 2

LINK 3

LINK 4

LINK 5

 

Jan 5, 2013

Mysteries of Sandy Hook

LWK Have you ever seen an event like this (mass school shootings, theater shootings, Murray Bldg., World Trade Center, etc., etc.) where there were not apparently huge conflicts between initial reports and later reports?

The media almost always reports initially with whatever gossip, second or third hand reports – anything or anyone they can stand in front of a camera – at the beginning? They don’t give a damn about truth initially, they just want to have breathless reporters reporting on something.

What would be really surprising, and I mean _REALLY_ surprising, would be an event where initial reporting was found to be even remotely accurate. 🙂

JJ In other incidents like this and major events I often find the media distorts the news to fit their agenda, but with few exceptions the actual facts are usually fairly accurate. For instance, NBC edited George Zimmerman’s statement to make it sound like he was a racist when the unedited version presents a different story.

In reporting the Aurora shooting they speculated there could be an accomplice but didn’t put it forth as fact.

With Sandy Hook the media put forth a lot of things as fact and then retracted and changed the story or just acted like the original reporting did not exist.

For instance, the original reports had Adam using handguns with his rifle in the car. This was changed to him killing the kids with a Bushmaster AR-15 rifle and maybe a shotgun in the car.

I haven’t seriously considered a conspiracy since the JFK era but this one has my attention. I haven’t concluded some insiders planned and executed the whole thing but it does appear we do not have the whole story and there is some type of cover-up going on.

Here are just a few of the problems involved.

(1) The Medical examiner who was supposed to be a sharp intelligent guy sounds like he can’t articulate a sentence that makes sense. LINK

(2) Reports of multiple shooters from witnesses now ignored. LINK

(3) Victoria Soto’s RIP Facebook Page created 4 days before shooting, has recently been taken down. Numerous other pages claiming inconsistencies have disappeared. LINK

(4) Sandy Hook Principle Gives Interview After Being Reported Dead. LINK

(5) Sandy Hook father, Robby Parker, appears to be acting for the cameras. How can he be smiling and taking pictures after his daughter was gunned down? LINK

(6) Facebook is Deleting accounts that don’t jive with the official story. LINK

(7) Sandy Hook Children Practicing Evacuation Drills Before Shooting LINK

(8) Adam Lanza’s Hard Drive was destroyed and his mother was killed making it difficult to discover many details.

(9) Why was he wearing body armor if he planned to commit suicide?

(10) How did Lanza manage to carry 90 magazines which was needed for all the shooting?

(11) Connecticut police spokesman threatens to arrest independent journalists and whistleblowers LINK

(11) No footage of the shooting has been released even though it must exist.

(12) Emily Parker appears to show up after she is dead. LINK

(13) It is odd that Emily Parker’s donation website designed and developed and rolled out the same day as the shooting. LINK

(14) Why is there no record of Adam Lanza’s existence for the past three years?

(15) How could he have his brother’s I.D. when his brother hadn’t seen him for two years?

(16) Why are all the families given a “minder” and none but Robbie Parker (who may be an actor) are allowed or willing to talk to the media?

We could probably add to this list. If anyone thinks of something let us know.

 

Jan 5, 2013

 Re: Mysteries of Sandy Hook

lwk: After the Oklahoma City Bombing there were very quickly reports of middle eastern men seen near the building (and later reports they were seen with McVeigh). Those reports quickly stopped and were later ignored.

JJ This is another event I have wondered about. In this case I doubt that a government conspiracy engineered the catastrophe but think there have been some mid eastern contribution that was covered up or not investigated.

As far as Sandy Hook goes, all your explanations are possibly true, but because of the number of things that have to be explained away the whole thing smells fishy. I doubt that there was a major conspiracy but my best guess so far is this.

The Feds who arrived on the scene represent a mindset against the Second Amendment and are pro Obama. The first thing they look for is ammunition to use against conservatives. If Adam did the killing with handguns when a so-called assault rifle was available then this was not a situation for their maximum advantage. They caused the story to be recast so the main weapon was the Bushmaster.

There could have been an accomplice who a quick check turned out to be an Occupy Wall Street character so the FBI sequestered him and he was never heard of again. The case against guns would be much better if the gun owner seemed like a right winger as Nancy Lanza seemed to be.

Actually, it has not yet been reported which political party any of the Lanzas belonged to. Nancy appears to be a right wing gun owner and that’s what the media wants, but it is entirely possible she was a Democrat, being from such a liberal state.

All this is mere speculation, but this story does have enough mysterious elements that I am pretty sure some important facts are missing.

 

Jan 6, 2013

Re: Are We Crazy?

We’ve had several good comments on this question but you hit the nail on the head Larry. This answer is very close to what I had in mind. The story of Hercules going insane for a while illustrates this problem.

The only thing I might add is there are some who are just drifting and not on any path who have not achieved soul contact who rebel for the sake of rebellion or are disconnected merely because they are lazy.

 

Jan 8, 2013

Heaven On Earth if You Ask Me...

Blayne:

Thought some here might be interested in this. He is the JJ of Self sufficiency and farming IMO. This is the future!

Check out this guy’s farm in the Austrian Alps. Simply Amazing in high altitude what they grow and do with his own brand of permaculture and makes a good living too with no subsidies no fertilizers or chemicals etc… It’s heaven on earth if you ask me!

Wow this guy uses rocks to heat his fish ponds with the sun this guy is amazing what he is doing we can all learn from him. He is even growing citrus at 4000 feet altitude with no greenhouse… It doesn’t give details on the citrus so I have to find out how he is doing it. But he says terracing and rocks and raised beds (not like what we do) create micro climates and more heat etc…

Amazing stuff and the place is just beautiful around a hundred acres or so. LINK

More Sepp Holzer wisdom! Raised bed gardens and orchards with no irrigation needed. This is Awesome! LINK

This can be done in your backyard too. Imagine a garden you don’t have to water or weed? Wow! JJ Good find Blayne. I watched all three videos. If the guy can have that much success at 4000+ feet imagine how much easier it would be at 2-3000 feet. I am amazed he can raise lemons there and never saw a good explanation as to why he could do that. His system is really quite complex for a plain spoken farmer and I would think one would have to put in some serious study to duplicate it. I’ve always envisioned the Cities of Light to have sustainable farming something like this.

I have an idea for you. If you ere interested you could probably make a good living giving lectures and classes on this type of farming. You’d have to get a sound knowledge of it though. I did a search on Amazon for the words “Temperate Permaculture” and quite a few things came up. I ordered one from my library.

 

Jan 8, 2013

Principles & Matter

John Crane asks: One question I always meant to ask JJ is what is the true principle and the false principle behind the creation of the etheric physical plane and the dense physical plane. What ARE those principles? And, what is the difference between a TRUE principle and a FALSE principle? If a principle is false, is it really a principle?

JJ Good question, John.

First, this teaching came from DK and he never explained why physical matter is not created on a principle but etheric matter is. He merely stated it as a fact several times in his writings.

Concerning DK’s views on principles it is interesting that he never uses the term “false principle” or talks about such a thing. It appears that his view is that either a principle is in play or it is not.

He most likely believes that physical matter is not based on a principle because it is merely a lower reflection of etheric matter. The etheric is created first and the physical follows. Therefore, the principle that creates physical matter lies in the source of creation of etheric matter.

That principle of which I have extensively written about, is the interplay of positive/negative male/female energies.

 

Jan 9, 2013

Alex Jones Interview

I decided to write another letter to my local paper on the attack on Alex Jones. Here it is:

The Alex Jones-Piers Morgan confrontation was great entertainment and the left would certainly like to portray Jones as the spokesman representing Second Amendment advocates but such is not the case. Most Second amendment advocates I know think he is somewhat of a nutcase and is far removed from their idea of presenting a case.

On the other hand, Piers was not to be outdone in the craziness department. The next day he had a panel of anti gun advocates and Buzz Bissinger of the Daily Beast suggested that Piers take Alex up on his boxing match challenge and show up with an automatic weapon and shoot him.

To this Abby Huntsman (Huffington Post) responded: “I’d love to see that” [laughter] in uniform.”

Then Piers Morgan showed approval stating: “I’ll borrow my brothers uniform.”

Alex Jones was just overly aggressive in presenting his case but the Piers Morgan peace group talking of killing Jones was beyond the pale.

Piers argued with Jones that the super strict gun control measures in Britain led to fewer gun killings. True, but North Korea has virtually zero domestic gun deaths. Is that where we want to go? He overlooked the unintended consequence that England and Wales lead the Western world’s crime league, with nearly 55 crimes per 100 people and your chances of being mugged in London is six times higher than New York. References:  LINK 1  LINK 2  LINK 3

 

Jan 9, 2013

Gun Warning from Russia

You’ve got to read this:

 

Jan 10, 2013

The Point of Tension

Blayne JJ seems to think the millions of innocents killed in the middle east to combat the dark forces is acceptable collateral damage.

JJ First, let me point out that millions of innocents were not killed in the War in Iraq. According to Wikileaks revealing of classified information there were 66,081 civilian deaths.

On the other hand, if there is a reasonable chance of preserving freedom it is worth most any cost, even the lives of millions as happened in World War II.

Then too there is a time to fight physically and a time to strategize and fight on the emotional and mental planes.

General Washington realized that it was not wise to stand and fight to the last man against overwhelming odds. If he had done this just once we would not have a USA. Instead, he attacked sparingly, retreated liberally and waited for his moment which finally came on Christmas Eve when he crossed the Potomac.

Even though Washington and his rag tag army fought against great odds they had a huge advantage over gun supporters today who want to take on the government. They had an organization with about a third of the population solidly behind them.

In our recent past any group who has stood up to the government has been small and when the firing began no one came to their aid.

This tells us that it would take a big event to cause gun supporters to unite enough to become a major threat. It would take something like Obama issuing an executive order to confiscate all guns.

He’s smart enough to not do that so he will proceed one step at a time.

The question now before us is what his next step will be. He has indicated he will make one and Joe Biden has suggested that he will bypass Congress and issue an executive order.

My guess is this. He will seek to ban all semi automatic weapons. Then he will wait until the next disaster and seek more control with the goal of reaching a complete ban by 2016.

Now is the time to attempt to influence public opinion, not by firepower but by our words, feelings and thought.

Unfortunately the greatest power of persuasion here at the end of the Piscean influence is through the emotions and the killings at Sandy Hook have pressed powerful emotional buttons. It doesn’t matter that mental plane logic tells us that more people are murdered with hammers and bare hands than rifles. Therefore, we need to put the Sandy Hook killings in context. Context does not enter in to the emotional plane. Those 20 kids are dead and by George we need to do something so it never happens again.

The NRA does a good job of making mental arguments but they need to fire back on the emotional plane. They need to run ads giving emotional testimony from people who have been saved by guns.

We are at an awkward point now. The next step is to wait and see how big of a move Obama will make and then seek to influence Congress and public opinion in the opposite direction. A point of tension will most likely come but it has not yet arrived.

 

Jan 10, 2013

Re: The Point of Tension

Dan: Just to clear ANY ambiguity, by “firepower” you are talking about some kind of armed revolt/uprising against the govt, you are NOT talking about arming/protecting one’s self/family normally as one should see fit such as with a handgun or etc. Is that correct?

JJ Correct. Any group right now that is seen by the government as organizing an armed revolt will be in danger the next four years. The best thing Second Amendment advocates can do is link up through the net so they can band together should a point of tension come. Without that point of tension they will loose.

 

Jan 10, 2013

Re: Alex Jones Interview

A agree. Jones did not turn up for a debate but to filibuster and dominate. He threw out a few good facts but didn’t tie anything together and wouldn’t answer Piers’ question. He could have easily defeated Piers if he had answered his questions when he asked them and gave a couple intelligent ones back but as I said people judge mostly by their feelings and most had the feeling that he was a crazy man so that negated any good facts he presented. To prove my point consider this question.

What are people discussing: The context of Jones’ dialog or the way it was presented? So far the answer is 99% the latter.

 

Jan 10, 2013

Re: Alex Jones Interview

JJ What are people discussing: The context of Jones’ dialog or the way it was presented? So far the answer is 99% the latter.

Dean I don’t agree only those that are infantile are discussing that.

JJ Everyone here including you must be infantile then because we have not been discussing the words he said but only the way he said them. Can you supply any source where people are quoting his actual words in support of the Second Amendment or to show he won the argument? They may exist, but I have not seen them.

 

Jan 11, 2013

Piers Met His Match

You have to watch this debate between Piers Morgan and Ben Shapiro. Shapiro dominated him and was a 1000 times more effective than Alex Jones. LINK

 

Jan 11, 2013

The Future of Gun Control, Part 1

My last post had a massive typo in the headline. I deleted it and am replacing it with this one.

There are two approaches Obama can take with his gun control measures.

(1) The “boil the frog slowly” method so he gradually gets his way.

(2) Take bold measures and deal with the awakened frogs.

The Left normally uses method #1. They proceed step by step until the frog (the people) is sufficiently neutralized and then they will proceed boldly.

If the Left sticks with method one, disarming the people will take much longer than Obama’s next four years but it could go something like this.

2013 Banning the sales of so-called assault rifles and large capacity magazines but stopping short of confiscating the ones already in the people’s possession.

2015 Because of additional shootings with “assault rifles” already in circulation the word is that this type of possession is too dangerous for our kids. A program is initiated to buy them back from citizens willing to turn them in.

2016 The buy back program was only mildly successful but crazy people still surface with assault weapons killing people. The media goes crazy with the stories and Democrats clamor for more action.

Finally, a law is passed making assault weapon illegal to own. People are told to turn them in or suffer prosecution. They are smart enough to not go on a door-to-door search at this time as they deem it too dangerous.

About 40% of the illegal guns are turned in.

After this there are regular stories about gun owners arrested here and there that are caught with the illegal guns. This tends to cause many owners to fear and a trickle of guns continue to get turned in.

2018?? There are still incidents of crazy people murdering with assault weapons and the Left demands more action to save our children. Those who still possess the illegal guns are told to turn them in or they will be taken by force. If they have to be taken by force then the offender will face jail time.

After this warning all but the strongest willed turn in their guns.

The authorities then go after the owners a little at a time and avoid any mass door-to-door searches. They go through their list and begin issuing warrants for their arrest. If they turn themselves in their penalty will be light. If not then the results will be dire. When a person turns himself in the authorities then go to his home when he is away and search his premises and take his guns.

Those who do not turn themselves in are considered dangerous so they stake them out and when they are out of the house or at work they approach them and arrest them. Later they search their homes and take their guns.

2020-2040 There are still shootings, many with regular handguns. The confiscation of handguns follows the same process as with assault weapons, leaving only hunting rifles and eventually the process repeats itself with those until the United States is declared to be a “gun free zone.”

Blayne: When California banned assault rifles only about 10% complied. So I think your 40% number is a bit high.

JJ I don’t think California went after the owners or threatened prison time just for possessing arms they acquired legally.

On the other hand, if there was a serious threat of prison for those who were to continue to possess certain types of firearms after a ban with a command to turn them in then I would still guess that about 40% would comply.

 

Jan 12, 2013

The Future of Gun Control, Part 2

The Bold Approach.

2013-2016 Obama uses an executive order to ban the sales of so-called assault rifles and large capacity magazines and makes the very possession of them illegal. All owners must turn them in or suffer the threat of jail.

Most of the blue states cooperate but some of the governors of the red states announce that they will not enforce this decree because it is unconstitutional.

Gun advocates organize in all states and soon there is talk of a new civil war between the states. Many gun owners in blue states move to the red states.

Congress tries to step in and bring order but Obama is stubborn and insists his decree be followed. He calls on the military to take over the capital of one of the rebel states to set an example. Some of the soldiers go AWL to protest but most obey. They are met with resistance and the new civil war begins.

It’s not a prophecy. I presented two different paths that the Left could take and the probable outcomes if such steps were taken. Obama isn’t likely to take the bold step I referenced – at least not as a first step.

 

Jan 12, 2013

A Story to Convince the Left

The Left may not think it is necessary to have guns to protect your family, but protecting your dog may be another matter.

Here’s a story about a guy who shot a burglar who was attacking his dog. When the bad guys start choking your dog that may be too much for even a leftie and just may convince him to support the Second Amendment.

 

Jan 15, 2013

Best Sandy Hook Video Yet

Sharón sent me this and I don’t know how anyone can watch it and not question the orthodox version.

LINK

 

Jan 16, 2013

Re: Best Sandy Hook Video Yet

I’ve spent most of the night doing additional research on the Sandy Hook shooting so I don’t have much time left to write a post.

I’ve read quite a few that claim to debunk the conspiracy. Most of the debunkers do a very poor job and instead of refuting with facts they paint anyone who questions the official version as crazy people who are truthers and racists who believe every conspiracy out there. I despise these people who use name-calling as their main weapon of argument.

In addition to name-calling they mischaracterize and distort the beliefs of most skeptics. They paint with a broad brush stating that we believe no one was killed, the people interviewed were actors and the Jews did it.

True, there are a handful with black and white beliefs who have reached some wild conclusions, but I find most skeptics are like me who are open to explanations but have not received satisfactory ones from some of the mysteries.

For instance, who was the handcuffed “suspect” they had in the police cruiser described by an eye witness on the scene? Who was the “suspect” they had in the woods behind the school, as seen by the helicopter?

Some say this was Chris Manfredonia, the father of one of the students who was looking for his kid.

Manfredonia is the athletic coach for the school. The man in the woods is not likely Manfredonia. The man in the woods is tall and slender, while Manfredonia is stocky. Also why would an athletic coach be wearing camouflage pants to school as the mystery man was wearing?

It is very questionable how many guns were used and which ones did the killing.

Unlike other shootings not one witness have come forth to describe the incident.

Usually in an incident like this twenty or so are wounded but in this case all involved were killed but one and we have not heard from the one.

It is unlikely a nerd like Adam would have been a good enough shot to have killed all 20 small kids in such a short time leaving no survivors.

I’m not big on conspiracies but it appears that we do not have all the truth on this. I hope this eventually gets thoroughly investigated.

 

Jan 17, 2013

Re: Best Sandy Hook Video Yet

JJ: I despise these people who use name-calling as their main weapon of argument.

Ruth: That word seems a bit harsh coming from you.

Do you mean that you despise their personalities?

JJ The answer should be obvious. Do you think I despise their souls? Of course not.

Ruth: Personally, who cares if people use name calling. It is just part of the programming humans instill and use against each other, but it doesn’t need to be taken as a personal insult and it doesn’t even need to affect our emotions. You teach that.

JJ No I don’t teach that. What I do teach is that the emotional bodies of all of us are affected in both positive and negative ways and it is important that we recognize both reactions and not deny or suppress them. If we do we are headed for ill health on a number of levels. The important thing in dealing with negativity from others is not to ignore or pretend the negativity does not exist or that it has no effect on your emotional body but to make decisions based on looking at the soul.

Yes, my personality despises name callers, probably similar to the way the personality or Jesus despised the money changers at the temple before he chased them out. I have no problem with that. On the other hand, because I attempt to decide from the viewpoint of the soul I do not reply in kind by calling them names back but attempt to influence them by other means.

Yes, I see their souls from my soul, but I see their personalities from my personality and will allow my personality to honestly feel whatever it wants to feel. The personality though is not the decider. It can influence, but the decisions are made on a higher level.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

Check out JJ’s Political Blog HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Join JJ’s Study class HERE

 

 

 

Series NavigationKeys Writings 2013, Part 2

Speak Your Mind

*

Blue Captcha Image
Refresh

*