- Keys Writings 2013, Part 1
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 2
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 3
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 4
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 5
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 6
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 7
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 8
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 9
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 10
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 11
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 12
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 13
- The Parable of Decision
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 14
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 15
- The Eyes Have it
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 16
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 17
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 18
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 19
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 20
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 21
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 22
- Keys Writings 2013, Part 23
Feb 3, 2013
If you want a good laugh check this out.
By the way Obama holds his gun it looks like he has not shot much if any.
Feb 4, 2013
Here’s another letter I am sending to my local paper. I am limited to 200 words so I had to be concise.
The arguments to ban assault rifles are based on raw emotion and totally lacks the use of logic and common sense. In 2011 only 323 people were killed with rifles and only a portion of these are the so-called assault rifles. On the other hand, 496 people were killed with hammers and clubs. Anyone who takes a breath and thinks can see that banning semi-automatic rifles makes about as much sense as banning hammers. If you really want to save lives then it makes more sense to ban cars, which kill over 30,000 people a year.
Actually, banning bicycles should make a lot of sense to the gun-banning mindset. In 2010 there were 618 deaths from cyclists who crashed into cars and over 50,000 injuries reported on top of the many thousands not reported. Should we really be teaching our kids to ride such a dangerous instrument?
In 2010 there were 3615 deaths from motorcycle accidents. Motorcyclists are 35 times more likely to die in a crash than a passenger in a car.
There are all kinds of things more logical to ban than semi-automatic weapons, but banning weapons appeals to those who are governed by emotion.
Feb 6, 2013
I’ve recently read an interesting book called “Aftershock.” The authors thinking about the economy is very much in alignment with my own.
They predicted the collapse of 2008 and see bigger one coming in the near future. They cannot pinpoint the date but think it will happen sometime between this year and 2016. After the next collapse they see an unemployment rate of up to 50% and a strong devaluation of the dollar.
He recommends investing in physical gold or stock related to necessities. He also says coal stocks are good because in a collapse demand will remain high.
Here’s a review from Amazon from one called ClubLevel that gives a good overview of the book.
This review is from: Aftershock: Protect Yourself and Profit in the Next Global Financial Meltdown (Hardcover) “Aftershock: Protect Yourself and Profit in the Next Global Financial Meltdown,” by David Wiedemer, Robert A. Wiedemer, and Cindy S. Spitzer, is written for the layman, and thus is an easy-to-understand viewpoint — though a startling one. It’s important to note the authors’ wrote this book as a means to promote a financial service they provide; caveat emptor.
Following are 3 examples (my numbering and bracketed comments) of explanations of underpinnings of the authors’ economic opinions:
(1) “Income Growth versus Housing Price Growth 2001-2006. Contrary to what some experts say, the earlier rapid growth of housing prices was not driven by rising wage and salary income. In fact, from 2001 to 2006, housing price growth (Housing Price Up 80%) far exceeded income growth (Income Up 2%).” [A graph of this data suggests, “bubble.”]
(2) “Despite massive growth in the U.S. economy between 1928 and 1981, the Dow rose only about 300 percent. But after 1981 it rose an astonishing 1400 percent.” [A graph of this data suggests, “bubble.”]
(3) “Most people, even most “experts,” find it much easier to recognize a bubble (like the Internet bubble of the 1990s) after it pops. It is a lot harder to see a bubble before it bursts, and much harder still to see an entire multiple-bubble economy before it bursts.”
The authors see our current economy as a linked, multiple-bubble economy. The 6 bubbles (co-linked):
1) The real estate bubble (housing): Popped in 2007-2008
2) The stock market bubble (stocks): Popped in 2009 (Currently being bolstered by the dollar bubble)
3) The private debt bubble (credit): Popped in 2008-2009
4) The discretionary spending bubble (consumer spending): Popped in 2008-2009
5) The dollar bubble (inflation is caused by increasing the money supply beyond what is needed to keep up with economic growth. “Inflation is always and everywhere a monetary phenomenon.” – Milton Friedman, Nobel Prize-winning expert on monetary theory). Pops when? “…our best guess (as of the Spring of 2011) is that significant inflation will begin in the 2013-2015 range.”
6) The government debt bubble (government spending): Pops when? “In the short term, massive money printing by the Fed will likely continue to boost the stock market and help temporarily stimulate the economy. However, in the long term (likely in the 2013-2015 range), a heavy price for this temporary stimulus will have to be paid.”
In 2006, the authors described the popping of the first 4 bubbles as the “Bubblequake,” and accurately predicted the timing of their occurence — hence, their credibility today. However, they also expected the final 2 bubbles to pop as well, this occurrence being described as the “Aftershock” — an event that will be felt worldwide, and one that will be a lot more disruptive than the popping of the stock market and housing bubbles. They learned the U.S. government can forestall popping of these bubbles by printing dollars to pay debts, while simultaneously borrowing money — in part — to pay for debt financing. Hence this “second edition” of their first book, which takes a closer look at the dollar bubble and the government debt bubble.
By 2015, given the popping of the six bubbles, life in the U.S. (and around the world) will go on (albeit bleakly); the U.S. will have a poor credit rating, and will not be able to borrow money as it is doing on a massive scale today (Countries such as China and Japan will choose to stop lending at some point in the future; at that time, the U.S. will have to figure out how to pay its debts (Tax Revenue: $2 Trillion per Year; Current Debt: $15 Trillion). The answer may be to continue to print dollars without supporting revenue (the Fed’s Quantitative Easing or QE initiatives), which theoretically could make the country debt-free, though with resulting inflation, high unemployment and low-performing markets.
What to do about this bursting bubble scenario on a personal level? If one agrees with this premise, then the authors of the book hope you will try their newsletter (1st two issues are free), and visit their website for further financial advice (simply search for their website using the search terms, “Aftershock website” and “Wiedemer”).
Finally: Author Adam Haslett has an interesting perspective as to how we as citizens will all come to terms with our new economic reality in the following Salon article (simply search for this article using the search phrases, “Adam Haslett” and “This Is Our New Normal”)
Here is the link:
Feb 8, 2013
Change Through Crisis
I came across an intriguing quote. Here it is:
“People only accept change in necessity and see necessity only in crisis.” Jean Monnet
This points out a profound truth in human nature but to see it we must go beyond the black and white. The black and white interpreter may argue and say, “I’d be happy to accept the change of being a big lottery winner.”
Obviously, the author was not talking about this kind of change. He’s talking about those changes that take effort that calls us to take the path less traveled by.
This particularly applies to the dire situations that our nation finds itself in. Our government is presently borrowing 47 cents of each dollar that we spend. This can only go on for a finite time period or we will suffer disaster. But are we making any changes to create a safer direction? No. None at all. The amount we borrow continues to go up despite some nebulous claims of cutting back.
Unfortunately, a large number of people like the idea of Uncle Sam playing Santa Claus and do not want any changes that affects them. They are like the shopaholic who loves to shop and uses the credit card over and over just because he or she wants more stuff. The addict only makes a change when there is a crisis.
Addiction, particularly applies to drugs. The person enjoys the high and often does not consider quitting until he has a crisis. Maybe he almost kills himself or someone else. Maybe he loses the love of his life. Necessity drives change and crisis creates the necessity.
The money spent on social programs is a sacred cow for those on the receiving end but we must take a look at them. The most important program to keep intact is Social Security because so many depend on this just to survive. Even so, we could raise the retirement age of those who are not under it yet by a couple years and that would ease the burden somewhat.
Medicare and Medicaid is a financial nightmare for us. In 1958 we paid $8 a day (about $80 in today’s money) for a hospital room after my accident. A couple weeks ago we took Artie’s mom to the emergency room for about three hours and they billed Medicare $5,500. Something is wrong here. Before Medicare was created our medical costs were reasonable so you didn’t even need insurance, but not any more.
The do-gooders in the government created our medical nightmare and now they are in charge of fixing it. With Obamacare, instead of fixing it they made it worse.
On top of the outlandish fees charged by Medicare there is tremendous fraud. Last I heard it was $60 million a year and going up.
Unfortunately we cannot even talk about raising the age for Medicare because through Obamacare Medicare is basically extended to all citizens after it is fully implemented.
There are lots of other places we could cut but we refuse to even look at them because some voters will scream and protest.
Things will be different when the next crisis comes. Cuts will be forced upon us just as they were during the Great Depression. There was so little money during some of this period that some schools closed their doors and many teachers were laid off. Some kids didn’t have a school to go to.
Our government could have been responsible with our money but they have been crazy people instead and are bringing us to a point of crisis. When that crisis appears then reality will stare us in the face and many things will be automatically cut, either because of lack of money or worthless money.
It is sad indeed that even the dumbest of people know that they cannot live of borrowed money forever and must tighten their belts when there is not enough money to pay their bills.
The smartest of those in Congress and the executive are not as bright as the worst among us with our personal finances. Does entering elected office create brain damage? I wonder.
Feb 9, 2013
Alex asked if God gives out tests to people. I have written quite a bit on this subject in the past. Here is a compilation of some of my comments.
Questioning God, Part 1
Jesus offering himself as a willing sacrifice is one thing. Abraham sacrificing his son is entirely another. Jesus was the victim of a Jewish culture who rejected his (mostly) peaceful teachings. Abraham was victimizing his son. Those are diametrically opposite acts.
Bottom line: Never should an act that is supposedly “commanded” by God, go contrary to conscience. Conscience should trump all, always, no exceptions.
That is the check that prevents atrocities in the name of God.
This is an important subject to bring up Sterling – one that I have been meaning to elaborate on for a while.
It is certainly true that there have been many atrocities committed in the name of God or religion. In fact, it seems that whenever you see or hear of a person doing something extremely unreasonable that religion is somehow involved. An exception may be the female astronaut who drove 900 miles in diapers to kill her boyfriend’s new girlfriend but even here a religious element wouldn’t surprise me.
The problems with communications thought to be from God or a higher source is they come from three sources:
The Beast or outer authorities who are accepted as speaking for God. The inner emotional nature. Real higher intelligence.
Now if a person rejects the idea that there is such a thing as real contact with higher intelligence then he is wise to just reject all commands inner and outer that do not make sense or seem harmful.
If the person believes there is such a thing as contact with intelligence higher than his own self then it is logical that this higher vision and seeing will go against many of his preconceived notions.
The problem we encounter is that those in categories (1) and (2) above will think they are in contact with higher intelligence either directly or indirectly and may receive destructive intelligence. How is one to tell that he may not be dealing with category three?
For one thing, category one is easy to eliminate. If the seeker is receiving commandments from God through a man and not his inner self then he should not trust any outer advice that does not make sense.
This is easier said than done as all the suicide bombers in the middle east (for example) are recruited by individuals who claim to speak for God and command the unsuspecting souls to go sacrifice themselves and kill the innocent.
Don’t think that they are the only ones who will follow odd commands. Just ask the faithful Mormons what they would do if the Prophet told then to sell all they have tomorrow and immediately move to Missouri and see what they say. Almost all of them would do it without question.
If they would do this without question then they would do much more – perhaps unthinkable things.
The world is just fortunate that a prophet has not come along who is deranged. Fortunately, most religious leaders at least conform to the morals of the day. There are exceptions. A notable one was Jim Jones who commanded his people to drink poison Kool Aide. Hundreds did without question.
The question then arises – what about true communication with higher intelligence? How should we handle this?
The first step in dealing with it is to learn to differentiate between something received from the lower self and that of higher benevolent intelligence.
The problem for those who have not yet made higher contact is their highest reception comes from their own emotional nature. If they associate an aspect of their emotional nature with God (as many do) then they have a problem. Any knowledge or commands they may receive could lead them most anywhere and create significant harm.
There is a strange difference between those who receive a command from the emotional nature and those who receive one from benevolent higher intelligence and it is this. Those who receive from their emotional nature will usually follow without question and those who receive from higher intelligence will be very questioning and doubting – at first.
Many would assume the truth would be the other way around, but it is not for this reason.
Those commands from the emotional nature are placed there by the thinking and feeling of the person himself. Because the direction (however odd) comes from himself he is likely to instantly and without question accept it. It usually fits within his belief system even if it is something crazy like drinking poison Kool Aide.
Now the person who receives higher intelligence must do so through the soul whether it comes from his Higher Self or a Master. When he reaches the point where he makes his first solid soul contact he has already passed beyond the stage where he is deceived by his lower emotions. When making his first soul contact he realizes the vibration and intelligence behind it is different than an emotional communication. Even though he realizes this he is reluctant to believe the communication is from God or higher intelligence or that it is reliable. He usually rejects it the first several times it is received.
But some time after the rejection he comes to realize that he made a great error in ignoring the communication – that he would have been much better off if he had followed the advice.
After several times of seeing the higher intelligence was better than his own he decides to give it a try the next time it comes. Then when it does come the information is difficult to accept. If he does accept it he later finds that the guidance saved him much grief and over a period of time he finds that this contact through the soul is the closest thing there is to infallibility. The only thing that can cause problems with it is if his own memory and feeling nature distort that which was received, but if the disciple is true to himself this will be reduced to a minimum.
Part 2 Let us comment on Socioheresy’s post. He says:
Trusting only what the Spirit of God tells you is great in theory. The trouble is, in my experience this so-called Spirit of God tells everyone something different.
Everyone I know well who has claimed that “The Spirit of God” was speaking to them has turned out to be either lying or badly mistaken.
JJ:Here’s what creates the problem. One communication through the soul does not contradict another communication through the soul, BUT over 90 percent of what people call soul communications, contacting the Holy Spirit, God, receiving revelations, Jesus, the Spirit etc. are merely contacts made with the emotional self. A thoughtform may be involved, but always there is emotional feeling that makes the person positive he communed with the divine in some way.
An emotional contact disguised as a divine communication brings information that is peculiar to the person’s own thinking and feeling nature which is different than any other person. Thus an emotional revelation will not be in harmony with either reality or other people’s emotional revelations – unless they are tapping into the same mass thoughtform.
On the other hand, soul contact brings contact with an essence that vibrates at the registration of true principles. The contact of one person will not contradict the contact of another. Neither will contact at one period of time contradict contact at another time in an individual’s life.
There is a principle that helps here. The lower cannot understand the higher, but the higher can understand the lower. The person who makes emotional contact cannot understand or relate to he who has soul contact. He who has soul contact can understand emotional contact as well as soul contact and differentiate between the two.
Visualize the path to liberation as an actual path ten miles long through a diverse landscape. True soul contact begins the journey at the zero point.
Many people without soul contact have been taught about this path and what it will be like. Some concentrate so much on it that they have dreams, visions, strong feelings and imaginings of what will be found upon the path.
The problem for them is that almost all the details they reveal about the path are not only wrong but do not even agree with each other.
On the other hand, those who have actually entered the path and traveled upon it do know what will be found at the various markers of 1, 2, and 3 miles until they get to ten.
Let us say there is a beautiful lake at the three-mile point and the traveler meets two others who claim to have knowledge of the path. The person who has not traveled the path but imagines that he knows will not describe the lake or know anything about it. But if the pilgrim meets a fellow traveler he will indeed know about the lake at the three-mile point and the two can share communion.
Now let us take a traveler who has gone to the seven-mile point who meets another who has gone only to the three-mile point. They both will have knowledge of the path up to the lake and will give the same non-conflicting revelations about it. But the seeker at the three mile point will have no certain knowledge of what lies between the three and seven mile point.
He who is farther along on the path will understand all that has transpired behind him and his knowledge will encompass all that the second traveler has, plus four extra miles. The second traveler can understand up to the three-mile point, but he cannot completely understand the first traveler’s knowledge until he also arrives at the seven-mile point.
Even though two who are upon the path will not contradict each other their descriptions may differ just as do our descriptions in physical reality differ.
For instance, visualize two seekers arriving at the three-mile point. One looks to the right and concentrates on taking in the beautiful lake. The second sees the lake also but is captivated by the beautiful mountains on the left.
When teaching one may talk about the mountains and the other concentrate on the lake, but both will be aware that both the mountains and the lake were there. There may be a difference in their description, but no contradiction.
SH: If I start following some inner voice that I labeled “The Spirit of God”, why in the world should I expect to be the exception? Am I so special that my Spirit of God would be the true one?
JJ: You will not be the exception. Eventually everyone finds soul contact, but we all find many illusionary paths before finding the right one.
The worst thing we can do is nothing like the two guys paralyzed in the parable of Decision. If we follow the highest we know and move ahead to the best of our ability we will indeed make many mistakes, but the pure in heart will discover their mistakes and correct them. It is only a matter of time before the true seeker enters the path as a knower.
SH: JJ still has my attention, but not because I believe anything divine is in communication with him. He has it because his ideas are original and interesting to me. I don’t care where he gets ’em from, but the less divine contact he outright claims the more likely I am to listen. I probably would not have read The Immortal if it had been published as non-fiction.
“Always follow the highest you know” is a much more useful teaching in my opinion. That is sheer brilliance. It’s a megathought, a singularity of pure truth, six words that can change a planet – Screwy Dewey at his finest. Those are indeed immortal words because they work for everyone no matter where they are (hello), and I don’t care if he got them off the back of a cereal box.
JJ: How’d you know I got that off a cereal box?
Seriously, I’m glad you realize the significance of that phrase. It is indeed something we can all do without worrying if we are high or low on the ladder. It matters not that the highest one knows may be different than the highest seen by another. If we follow the highest we know, and correct our mistakes as we go, then the path of liberation lies ahead. Not only this, but all who do this receive an inner peace and stability even though outside forces may be aligned against their progress.
Part 3 Here are the questions I asked the group to ponder:
Is it possible to receive harmful information or direction when it comes to you through the soul?
If you do receive something that can create more harm than good then should this be an indication to you that you are not receiving through the soul.
Is it possible that the disciple can receive some extremely difficult direction through the soul – that may seem dangerous and contrary to all that he has believed in the past?
Sterling was concerned (and rightfully so) about those who receive harmful revelations in the name of God or supposed higher intelligence. Unfortunately, there have been many who have created great harm and even killed the innocent, even their own children – all feeling they are directed by God.
Does this mean that we should just play it safe and outright reject all communication that comes to us that is above our ability to understand?
For the person who has not established soul contact this would be a good course, for all harmful acts in the name of God do not involve soul contact. Unfortunately the religious ones without true contact are the most eager to do anything in the name of God to get their big toes in heaven.
The key to harmlessness is not to resist all higher intelligence but to learn to recognize the soul. Safety lies in following those communications that come through the soul and using your common sense to make all other decisions not directly related to soul communications.
So how can one be sure he is getting something through the soul and even when sure how do we know that something crazy and wild-eyed will not be commanded that will be harmful?
The answer is two-fold.
First, the seeker must learn to recognize the vibration of the soul.
Secondly, he must test its accuracy over and over like a spiritual scientist. If time and time again the communications are accurate then this gives sure evidence that true soul communion has been achieved.
I have tested communications through my own soul many times. It seemed each time I did that more difficult to believe communications came. But I tested them and they proved to be accurate and beneficial. Then after much testing and gaining faith in the inner voice I received several whoppers that tested every fiber of my being. But even here the soul led me in the most harmless direction and one with great reward.
Overall I have found my soul communications to have been 100 percent reliable as far as I have been able to test them.
Visualize that ten mile path again. Let us suppose there are several pitfalls that are extremely helpful for the seeker to know. A brother has already traveled the whole thing and is observing you on your journey. He realized two things that may give you a major problem. There is a fork at the four mile point and a trap at the six mile point. He gives you a warning to not take the left fork and then another to avoid the trap. If you knew for sure that this brother has traveled the path and loves you would it not make sense to listen and heed his advice? After all, there is no way you can gain his knowledge through reason and common sense alone.
Even so, if a master or high intelligence speaks to you through the soul you will know the communications are sent through the love of the soul and it is to be trusted above the seekers own intelligence.
The tricky part is to establish true soul contact and learn to differentiate between emotional contact with the desire body and that of the soul energy.
Feb 10, 2013
The guy admits he is deceptive one moment and claims he is a prophet the next. Here’s a quote from him in a newspaper interview:
“My whole purpose, though, was to write the sealed portion. Get the sealed portion done. Sell it to the church. My whole idea was to sell it to the LDS church. I was going to sell it to them, because all the Mormons are looking for the sealed portion to come back. I thought I had a good talent for writing. I was going to write it up and sell it to them. They could do with it what they wanted. They probably would have kept it off the market.” Link
Since the church didn’t want to buy his Sealed portion he apparently decided to present himself as a divine messenger with whom immortals are competing to talk to on a regular basis.
Of course some things he writes are true but a lot of his writings are very deceptive. On the sealed portion site I have pointed out many illusions in his teachings. For this he has condemned me as a servant of Satan and calls me his enemy.
Here’s a site ran by a guy who was once a true believer like Christine but also lost money and a lot of time to Chris authoritarian dictates.
Feb 11, 2013
You’ve probably heard about the alleged cop killer named Christopher Dorner.
Here is a recent update:
He felt he was unfairly fired back in 2008 and now he is seeking revenge by killing fellow cops and their families until his name is cleared. If the LAPD will just admit that they are corrupt and he is innocent of wrong doing then he will stop the killing.
It turns out that Dorner is a big lefty who wants gun control and thinks Piers Morgan is a great guy and loves Obama, Feinstein and leftists in general.
He funny thing is that many on the Left are coming forward supporting the guy and comparing him to Rambo.
Question: Is the guy a hero like Rambo? Does he really have a case?
You can read his manifesto here:
Feb 12, 2013
Nathan writes: I want to know, what point do you find in referring to this thing called “the Left.” It seems to me to be very vague to have any meaning…
JJ I think what is identified with the Left and the Right in this country is pretty well understood by most people.
The Left is generally identified with beliefs in big centralized government, big spending, lots of controls and regulations, higher taxes and fewer freedoms for the individual as they are acquiesced to the State.
The Right is generally identified with smaller government, lower taxes, less spending on social programs, fewer controls and regulations, attempts to balance the budget and maximum freedom for the individual.
Nathan …and as far as I can tell the way you refer to it doesn’t make it seem like some ideological perspective you’re denigrating as much as it does just some stigma…
JJ I’m definitely talking about an ideological perspective. I come from a libertarian perspective where the central theme of maximum freedom is the rule of thumb. The Left from this perspective is anything that takes us away from maximum freedom and the Right takes us toward it. Dorners ramblings tell us that he supports more government controls which will lead to less freedom.
Nathan: Many of your posts go something like “Look at this current event, see how outrageous some of the reaction is, they are from the Left, the Left is out to destroy us.”
JJ I do not believe I have said the political left is out to destroy us. They have good intentions but many of them are full of illusion and I point them out. My dialog with the thinker and true believer attempts this.
Nathan; Sound like an us versus them mentality, yet who the “us” and “them” are isn’t really known. What’s the point? Who are “the Left,” if they are anyone specific at all? If so, is it really fair to lump them all into the same characterization?
JJ Who the Left and Right are in any situation should be crystal clear. It is not clear why you should think otherwise.
For instance, the Left supports fewer freedoms to own and use guns as specified in the Second Amendment whereas the Right wants a very liberal freedom to own and use them. There is nothing nebulous or unknown when you go through the various beliefs one by one. Things get pretty specific.
As far as the us verses them mentality the criticism of this is often voiced by the New Age community. It sounds good to them that this should be avoided yet it cannot be. Why? Because we live in a world of duality and even the most con confrontational will have an “us verses them mentality” pop up when presented with a belief he does not like. Many like to see themselves as living beyond this type of thinking yet none do. I have never met such a person myself.
Jesus had an us verses them mentality most of his life as, he time and time again, argued with the Jewish leaders and presented his case as opposed to their delusional thinking.
Gandhi had an “us verses them mentality” when seeking to overthrow the English rule.
I think the phrase can refer to a positive direction and that is one should avoid seeing the opposition as evil that needs to be destroyed. We need to recognize that we are all brothers and the “them” out there who are opposed to ourselves should be changed with enlightenment rather than destroyed with steamroller tactics.
Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE
Join JJ’s Study class HERE