Keys Writings 2015, Part 10

This entry is part 11 of 13 in the series 2015B

2015B

April 25, 2015

JJ in the Sky

Clay:

I don’t hate it JJ, I just don’t ignore history and pretend that we are the greatest country to ever exist and our shit does not stink.

Well, you sure had me fooled because you sound like you loath this country and everything it stands for. You say that I should moved merely because I think the taxes are to high, but you have nothing good to say about this country so it leaves me wondering as to why you would stay and which nations you see as more desirable. You obviously would never move to Germany. To hell with the idea of what they are now, but their past with Hitler and Bismarck are much worse then ours and with your mindset they must ever be seen as evil. You wouldn’t dare want to look at the progress they have made.

You couldn’t move to Australia because they mistreated the aborigines similar to how we did with the Native Americans.

You couldn’t move to England because by comparison they were a greater evil than us that we had to fight against to free ourselves.

You say you do not ignore history. Well, you do not ignore any history of the United States that is written with a jaundice eye putting everything in the worst possible light. You are ignoring the good half of our history that has established a beacon of freedom that until now the oppressed people of the world are willing to risk their lives to come to.

So if we are so bad why do you not leave? I answered your question on this so how about answering in return?

Whereas you ignore the good in America I have examined the good and evil and seek to assist in more manifestation of that which is good rather than dwelling on past mistakes which are no longer applicable..

Sure we have made mistakes, slavery of blacks being a big one, but what good does it do to mope around hanging our heads in shame when we have moved beyond it? You seem to want us to spend out time wringing our hands weeping over our past sins that we have moved beyond. What does that accomplish?

Nothing.

Clay

Sarah also warned me that Mormons, ex or currently practicing where hyper conservative and very anti-government and very pro-business, so I guess I should not be surprised by any of this.

If you see this as a Mormon site then you are seeing incorrectly. Maybe a quarter of the members have some type of Mormon background, but many here do not such as Ruth, Dan, LWK, Alex and others. Most of the members with a Mormon background are like your wife and have moved on to higher things.

Clay:

Man she is not wrong about anything. Look If I could give you all Wyoming or some state like that and all you libertarians could go there and create your Galt’s Gulch I would be all for it.

The only way to know if an alternative plan would work would be to test it. Unfortunately, with having all nations and territories tightly controlled the testing of new systems is next to impossible. That is what made America such a land of opportunity. It provided the means to test new forms of government,

That would be great if we had all of Wyoming to carry out experiments and then go with what works and drop what doesn’t. If led by those with an understanding of freedom and brotherhood it would be the envy of the world within two generations.

Clay:

I would like nothing more to be rid of this nonsense about theft, slavery and how unfair life is from privileged middle and upper class white people I would be thrilled.

You used he most insulting wording possible. What we would like to do is prove that life in an environment of maximum personal and group freedom is much more successful than one in a tightly controlled environment with way too many laws, overspending, borrowing and regulations.

Clay

Ruth would be SOL

You seem to be obsessed with worrying about Ruth. Maybe you ought to help her out to assuage your conscience.

Clay:

JJ the entire problem with your entire solution is the problem of human selfishness and free-riders. … Your entire system, just like Marx, totally ignores human nature and is therefore totally and completely unworkable. You totally do not or have not considered the problem of free riders, and they are what makes involuntary taxation absolutely necessary.

You need to quit arguing with some crazy JJ in the sky and talk to me. All my solutions deal with human selfishness and factor it into the equation.

Where have I not done this? As usual you will probably refer to some teaching that I do not promote rather than referencing something I actually say or teach.

When you first came on board here you seemed to be pretty fair in responding to what I actually was saying, but now you seem to only respond to some illusionary JJ conjured up in your imagination. What’s going on with you? How about taking a breath and coming back to reality. I don’t mind a good argument, but that JJ in the Sky is getting in the way here.

Clay:

You simply can not have a modern civilization without taxation.

If you read my book, Fixing America you’ll not be able to find anywhere there where I advocate doing away with taxes.

Clay

I hate the gas tax, I hate all tax and would not pay a dime in taxes if I was not compelled to.

Well we differ there. I love the gas tax as long as it goes to our road and highway system. I would voluntarily pay that tax.

Clay:

you are demonstrating this very tendency in humans by wanting to eliminate all involuntary taxation. JJ, your ideal community would not last a decade.

I would not eliminate all taxes. Again you’re arguing with your imaginary JJ.

Clay:

So what type of taxation do you support JJ?

Ahh. Finally after many false assumptions you at least now are asking what my real views are.

I would support any tax system that is approved by the majority of those who actually pay the taxes. That doesn’t necessarily mean I would agree with it but I realize hat I will not always get my way.

Clay

So I do question the spiritual aptitude of people who seek extremes as opposed to balance.

You sound liked one with a lot more extreme positions than I have. I think it is extreme to see nothing of value in Rand’s teachings. I find something of value in most everything I read from both sides of the equation. I have even written a book on balancing the extremes – The Lost Key of the Buddha.

Clay

I never subscribe to either side, ideology is a shortcut to critical thinking. Always look for balance

This does not appear to be the case. You seem to side with an extreme black and white approach on the pacifist side. You also seem to side with the socialist big government view, but you haven’t given out many details. I haven’t seen any balance in factoring in the good that comes from free enterprise and capitalism.

***

Clay… You keep comparing my views to that of Ayn Rand when I rarely use her writings as a reference for anything. Our basic point of agreement is on the principle of freedom and if freedom of the human spirit is a problem to you then you indeed have a burden that may follow and plague you for lifetimes to come.

I just emailed you a copy of my book Fixing America so you can actually see what my views are and respond to what I think rather than what I do not think.

You seem to think that my views do not differ from Rand’s. Take a look at this parable I have written and ask yourself if it is something Ayn would have come up with.

Parable of Abundance

LINK

***

Positive and Negative Liberty

There is no such thing as positive and negative liberty. All you represent there is a creative play on words. The positive and negative poles are liberty and enslavement or restriction.

If I am free to move my arm to take a drink and no one will stop me you call that a negative liberty. That is not negative put positive.

If I acquire the means to buy food and go about doing it you call that a positive liberty, but it is no different. They are both liberties of the same kind – a liberty that exists because of no restriction.

Perhaps you want to go to further extreme and say a positive liberty is when you steal a dollar from Jim and give it to Kate. Now Kate has the freedom to spend the dollar. Well she already had freedom to spend whatever comes into her hands, she just never had the dollar and Jim lost any positive freedom so there was no gain in freedom any way you look at it.

Kate already has the freedom to spend whatever dollars comes into her hands. Giving her a dollar just adds a dollar to her account. It has nothing to do with free will. It only gives her this extra choice to make: “How does she spend the dollar?”

Now if you start telling her what she has to do with that dollar then you are dealing with real freedom.

***

Clay:

You are awfully presumptuous to believe that you are on “the side of light” aren’t you. How do you know that you are not on the side of darkness wrongly believing it to be the side of light? That is why I don’t play sides,

LOLROTFWL@#$%^

Wow. You play sides as much as anyone I have met. We have never had such a side player come on this forum. Your side is the ultra left and the ultra left only. Then, as all do from the left, you will backstep now and then and claim to look at both sides and be in the middle.

For instance, you will completely condemn Ayn Rand but then backstep and claim that you embrace some of her teachings on free enterprise and capitalism.

So far, except when you respond to socialist accusations, you only lean to the extreme left, much farther than I go Right.

Clay:

I don’t know what is best, so I seek to balance the two opposing sides.

If you do not know what is best then why do you keep telling us what is best for us? Does not compute. You obviously think you know what is best and not best about Rand’s teachings.

Clay:

Both sides have excellent points

You keep saying this but then only preaching leftist doctrine and condemning anything from the Right or the middle (libertarianism).

Clay

and it has nothing to do with serving “darkness” or the “light”. This is the entire problem with all faith systems from the Abrahamic traditions, they separate humanity into a “god’s people” which always happens to be the side you are on, and “”the people of darkness” which always happens to be the side you disagree with.

That assessment is crazy talk and does not apply here. We are not some fundamentalist black and white group. You seem to be making a huge effort here to paint Keys members in the worst possible light – creating a great distortion in your mind.

Clay:

If this forum really separates out people based upon serving light or darkness guess who you serve, it is most definitely not who you think it is.

Every decision advances one in one direction or the other. To say discernment makes no difference is plain silly. Even though we recognize this is the case and there is truth and error out there, most of us are pretty tolerant of other views and do not condemn anyone as evil just because they think differently than us.

I don’t think anyone here thinks of you as evil. Just somewhat mislead, but sincere in your beliefs. I knew you did not agree with me on numerous things when I invited you here. Would I do that if I thought you were some dark guy on the evil side?

Clay

I can not stand this type of we are righteous servants of God and our opponents are servants of darkness nonsense. Both sides have good points

Then why do you put yourself out as the one who is right and Rand is so wrong you would fight her with your life’s blood? You are doing the separating thing much more than I am. And what good points did Rand have then?

Clay:

and just because you disagree with someones politics does not make them a servant of darkness, or the political aims they value, values of darkness.

You need to look in the mirror here because you are the one who is showing the greatest resistance to opposing views. I have never met a person who hates Rand so much and talks about her like she is some dark lord.

Clay: I thought this was a spiritual sight, not an apocalyptic end of times, Children of Light versus the Sons of Bilal nonsense.

It sounds like you would fit right in such a site as you have a condemning attitude much more than most here. In fact you were originally attracted to Allan’s site which does have apocalyptic views. We do not and think the world will end but will continue for millions of years.

***

Clay:

Well JJ according to every political philosophy department in the world, you are wrong. If you want to be taken seriously as a philosopher and a thinker, you need to know these things. JJ, even libertarians acknowledge that there are two forms of liberty. I am done here JJ. Now you are just being obtuse because these ideas conflict with yours. There are two types of Liberty JJ.

With some creative thinking i could give you seven different types of liberty but such diversion would just obscure the truth. Instead of just unthinkingly going along with what some authority says we need to look at the underlying principles involved. True freedom merely involves making a choice and then moving forward to carry out that choice avoiding if possible unwanted limiting obstacles forced upon you by your fellow human beings. Thus a citizen in North Korea faces a true challenge to freedom for he indeed has great obstacles placed in his path by other designing humans.

Remove human tyranny from any group of good will inhabitants and you will soon have a productive society even if they start with nothing – none of your positive freedom would be needed.

***

You keep calling me an extremist but the only thing extreme you can come up with is a distortion of my views. I challenge you to find one quote from my actual words that is an example of political extremism.

I can find several from yours.

You are an extreme pacifist in that you would not take one life in a situation where you would with surety save 50. I’d say that less than 10% of the population would side with you on that one.

On the other hand, almost all my political writings, on a case by case basis, reflect majority opinion.

You complained that we as a spiritual group are talking politics, but you led us in this direction. I was posting on spiritual principles before this round and plan on returning soon.

April 27, 2015

Freedom and Judgment

The problem we have when dealing with accusations and confrontational dialog is that explanations given out are in bits and pieces and the reader often has difficulty in making heads or tails, not only about what is true, but about the real positions of the accused.

We have been portrayed here as black and white right wing extremists and such is not the case. Something to consider is that members here vary in their political thinking. Some are more to the right or to the left than others so in speaking of political views I speak for myself.

It is interesting to observe the distorted reaction of the left when I criticize big government, enforced socialism, high taxes, excess regulation or other problems with authoritarian government. A critic will often immediately assume I am against all government, all social programs, all taxes, all force, and all regulations. If one such as myself then speaks positively about any of these things they will often shout out “hypocrite!”

Why do they react this way?

The reason is because they are black and white in their thinking and see no middle way; and the funny thing is this is the way they see their brothers on the right. It is as if they are looking in a mirror and accusing themselves.

Many things to them has to be all good or all bad. Every ingredient in big government, despite its flaws is necessary and not to be eliminated. All taxes are to be kept in place. All social programs are desirable. All regulations are needed. If any changes are to be made it is to add more of these things, not take away.

Clay seemed to fall into this trap as when replying to me he seemed to make the erroneous assumption that I am against all force, all taxes, all socialism, all regulations etc.

This is far from the case but I have found that when you have a partial disagreement with most people (speaking in general here) that they immediately assume you are in total disagreement. They seem to want to classify others as either a total friend or foe and it’s difficult to see you as a foe if they see 80% agreement and 20% disagreement. The tendency then is to focus on the 20% disagreement as well as assuming disagreement status on the other 80%.

If two people can find points of agreement and work from there they can often wind up seeing eye to eye, but such is not desirable to one who wants to make his brother into a foe.

Even though I have written much about my views on government, freedom, taxes etc I will briefly state my approach again, an approach supported by many here who follow my teachings.

To understand my thinking on any subject that requires action it is essential to understand that I do not see the best course of action to be on the left, the right or exactly in the middle. Instead one must look at both sides and then make a judgment that will generally turn out to be in between the two extremes. Such a judgment will be different in each circumstance.

Most people do not want to weigh both sides and make a judgment because they are mentally lazy. Lazy people want things to be black and white so they can be all in or all out – no thinking required for individual circumstances.

Using this key of judgment then here is the short version of my views.

Freedom

I am a big believer on the principle of maximum freedom, but not freedom in all circumstances. When an act takes away more freedom than it gives then it violates the principle. For instance, if the thief steals your money it does give him some extra freedom, but in the process these is more loss than gain. The victim has not only lost his money, but the thief has lost part of his soul.

There should be no restrictions on actions that will create more good than harm.

Laws and Regulations

I think there are way too many of these and the problem is when any of them do not work the solution is always seen to create more laws and regulations instead of reducing them.

Even so, I do believe that a certain number is necessary. I believe that sensible and sound law will lay the foundation for the Age of Peace which has yet to come.

Jessie Ventura presented a good idea in handling the massive laws and regulations on the books. He thought that once every three or four legislative sessions lawmakers should focus on laws and regulations that need to be eliminated rather than added.

Taxes

Right now the average taxpayer pays more than 50% of his income in taxes when all of them are considered. I think that is way too much and most people agree with this when they become aware of all the taxes they do pay.

Our representatives seem to think it is their job to tax us and spend the money. We need to change their job description so they understand that it is their main job to actually represent us. I support taxes for essential services agreed to by the will of the people.

The problem today is that even though our government is called a representative one that taxpayers are not being represented. This needs to change and how to accomplish this is in my book Fixing America.

Force

Force is often seen as an ugly word, but it is sometimes needed. If there is a law then force is needed to back it up or it is useless. Because the use of force needs to be kept to a minimum then it follows that laws requiring force need to be the essential ones. Some laws are agreed upon by most such as those against murder, rape and theft. Other laws are quite controversial and can cause many problems for harmless citizens.

Socialism

Because I am a big advocate of freedom and free enterprise some will automatically assume I am against all things labeled socialism. This is not true. I have presented a number of social ideas I advocate in my writings.

I do not believe I have ever said that I am against socialism. Any time that I have ever spoken against it I have qualified my statement by stating that I am against socialism by force, or enforced socialism.

All social programs, loved or hated by the people, always emerge out of good intentions. What many do not realize is that an ideal which may be very good turns into a great evil when implemented by force.

All tyrants in history thought that they knew what was good for the people and used force to make people do what they thought was the righteous thing.

Big Government

I am not against government, but I am against big and wasteful government. Our bloated government has borrowed us into very dangerous territory that we will have great difficulty emerging from.

Overall, I support those things that give our civilization structure and security, but am critical of the lack of judgment of our approach. What is needed more than any other thing right now is for government to cease violating the will of the people and to accurately represent them. To this end I have made a number of proposals for reform that will work without any altering of the Constitution.

***

Ruth:

If this is the true story of humanity, then why doesn’t JJ teach us this, instead of what he has been teaching us?

So who is right? JJ or this guy who writes about God being a genetic engineer?

Why wouldn’t JJ just write it out plainly for all of us, like this guy does, if this is what is true?

Because if JJ doesn’t teach us the truth, then what are we learning?

And if your guy is telling the truth, then that makes JJ out to be a liar, and if JJ is a liar then how would any of us trust him ever to teach us the truth?

Therefore, I will stick to JJ’s teachings and the DK teachings, because they sound much more logical and true to me.

Let me make it clear that there are many truths that I have not taught, especially in relation to our history. I have placed my attention in this life in the discerning of true principles and how to apply them much more than attempting to read the Akashic records of the planet and its history. Therefore there are many things in history that I do not know. If someone teaches something that I have not yet taught this does not mean that they are incorrect. And even if they disagree with me does not mean they are wrong because I am not infallible. Each if us must always check with our souls.

There are a number of things that the Raeleans that Alex subscribes to with which I disagree but each of us needs to examine all teachings presented by me or anyone else in the light of their own souls and common sense.

***

Jim:

Poor JJ., ……….imagine how God must feel by now? But JJ said he isn’t God, a Guru, or doesn’t even claim to be a Deacon. Claiming to be a Teacher allows one to teach all teachings of others with out ever needing to defend any original invented concepts,

To describe me as “poor” does me a disservice. “Blessed” would be a more appropriate word.

I am happy and able to defend anything I teach and have done it and can do it through the use of historical truth, scientific truth, logic, reason and the Law of Correspondences. The final verification is through soul contact.

***

Extremism and Reality

Clay:

I am not the extremist in my thinking. My beliefs fall pretty much dead center politically. An extremist viewpoint on my part would be an adoption of Marxism/Leninism. That is the extremist position for those on the left of center.

I haven’t labeled you an extremist on all things. That would be impossible as I do not know the full extent of your belief system. I wouldn’t have noted any of your extremism at all except you drew first blood in the accusation so I figured you need to take the beam out of your eye so you can more clearly see the mote in mine.

Unlike your approach I supplied specifics of your extreme views on pacifism and negative emphasis on our mistakes many decades ago. On the conservative side you have revealed an extreme position on abortion equating anything after conception as murder.

In examining extremism one has to go issue by issue, for many like yourself may have a combination of extreme positions on both the political left and the right and a test may a reveal an average that doesn’t present a clear picture.

Clay:

Far Left extremist position – Total socialist control, no free market at all, total state control of all means of production.

That is the extremist position.

It is so far extreme that not one of our elected officials claims to support it. By your definition here then no elected official in the U.S. history has ever been an extremist on the left. I would guess you do not feel this way about the right.

Clay

The Far Right Free Market position is no centralized control, no involuntary taxation, no government regulation or oversight, total Laissez-farire capitalism. JJ, you hold an extremist libertarian position and you only support voluntary taxation, and believe that any taxation that you do not personally approve to be tyranny and slavery. That is an extremist position.

Yeah, that would be extreme if that were my views. I’ve corrected you several times on these things and it didn’t seem to sink in so I wrote a post yesterday clarifying them and you still distort my thinking to fit your mindset. Why are you doing this?

Blayne also called you on this. If you want to discuss or criticize my views then please use my views, not your JJ In The Sky myth.

If you continue to mischaracterize my views that I have clarified I will have to conclude you are just being mean spirited and attempting to deceive.

Clay:

You try to tone it down by stressing that people will be so enlightened in your ideal society all these good social programs will still remain, but you have zero, zero proof that this would be the case.

I do not recall saying anything about current social programs remaining but there is a lot of proof that if a thing is good and efficient that it will endure whereas that which is not good and efficient will be replaced.

Clay:

So my position for taxation and oversight by the government is not extreme in anyway shape or form.

I never said it was. You are fairly in line with the typical Democrat on this.

Clay:

People on the right have so dominated the discourse that any disagreement over the proper role of government, and any support of mandatory taxation, gets labeled as extreme.

Can you give me an example of this by any elected official? I cannot think of any.

Clay

It is not, I adopt a fairly balanced approach between the balance of positive and negative liberty. Your total rejection of the value of positive liberty also demonstrates your extreme belief structure.

I haven’t rejected the value of what you call positive liberty. I have merely said that what you call positive liberty is just as play on words. I could also creatively claim there is a positive and negative abortion, but you would disagree with that use of words.

Clay

Even Libertarian political theorist recognize the distinction, they just place more value on Negative liberty.

And the vast majority of people would prefer to have one bad guy taken out to save 50, but that majority view has no effect on you.

I understand what you mean by positive liberty, but just think it is a creative division that is not necessary and obscures what true liberty is.

Clay

Without the material support to exercise your freedom (such as moving away and starting your own society) you are not able to fully realize your freedom. That is exactly the point of Positive Liberty. Yes I may be totally free from government interferece in my life if I move to the wilderness, but what good is that freedom if I am starving to death and freezing due to a lack of material support. That is positive liberty JJ.

If I have liberty and am freezing to death in the wilderness then I just move back to civilization. Problem solved.

It sounds like if I had the positive liberty you speak of then the government would buy me my own island. If they are that stupid then I’ll go ahead and take it.

Clay

So again, I am by no means an extremist, I support capitalism when it comes to producing consumer goods, I am for socialism when it comes to providing for the public welfare.

You are distorting again. I did not call you an extremist here as about half the country thinks this way. I’d say that you have to be in the 10-20% range of thinking to be in the extreme.

The fact that I disagree with you does not mean I am calling you an extremist in the view under discussion.

Clay:

I do not place as high a value on Negative Liberty as JJ and other forum members do,

Unfortunately your positive liberty you desire requires citizens to lose the liberty of deciding what to do with their own money and fork it over to authorities for redistribution or go to jail. Like I said, the majority do not mind paying a fair tax, but most taxpayers have to pay for social programs beyond that which they are willing to support.

Here is just one example of many that the majority would oppose as taxpayer theft.

Illegal Immigration – The $113 Billion Dollar Drain on the American Taxpayer

LINK

http://www.illegalimmigrationstatistics.org/illegal-immigration-a-113-billion-a-year-drain-on-u-s-taxpayers/

***

Clay:

I don’t like the results so of course the test is biased. Please JJ, I posted three different test and one by the Pew research center. That is the problem with people like yourself, when you don’t like the results, you denigrate academics, you denigrate the testing and you denigrate the results.

What? Are you a mind reader now? Where do you get the idea I do not like the results? By orthodox thinking of what is right and left I am right of center and libertarian as the test indicates. I like that just fine. The result that I may take issue with is that it lumped me in with liberal pacifists.

I take issue with their selection of questions and the wording to get the results they want. The questions could have been worded better and so a persons true views could have been more accurately reflected. Then they could have provided an analysis of the person’s political thinking rather than just a number.

For instance, on the liberal side you are an extreme pacifist (which you now admit) and on the conservative side you are extreme on abortion views. The two extremes pretty much cancel each other out and put you in the middle. In reality the two views do not place you in the middle.

I only threw the extreme view back at you because you were in the attack mode accusing us of being extremists and I wanted you to realize that this unnecessary attack can go both ways. You finally admit you have extreme views so you should now realize you were the pot calling the kettle black.

Clay

You libertarian score definitely falls into the extremist range, so seems that I was right.

Where do you get that idea? I scored 4.98 out of 10 on the libertarian side. That places me as a moderate libertarian, not an extremist one. I would have thought I would have scored higher though for if there is one thing I may be extreme on is in defense of human liberty. I have a lot of company though because most everyone desires maximum liberty, but just have different ideas how to achieve it.

Clay:

I told you repeatedly that my beliefs were not extreme. Yours are.

You’ve already admitted you are an extreme pacifist. Tell me. Which actual view do I have that is extremist? To answer this do not quote your JJ In The Sky, but find some actual words that I have written that espouse a political view that would be accepted by less that 20% of the population. If you cannot do this then you should immediately cease with your accusations.

After all, who is called “the accuser if the brethren?” We wouldn’t be having these unproductive endless rounds of debates if you hadn’t changed from a contributing participant in the forum to an accuser.

Clay:

Also JJ, you are not Jesus,

I never said I was. Please respond to what I say, not to what I do not say.

Clay

I despise Rand, but I recognize her for the genius she is, she is much more intelligent than I am,

If she is really more intelligent than you then it is likely that she is more correct in her views than you.

If you really disagree with her or anyone else you are really telling the world that you are more intelligent than your opponent in that area of thought.

I hope you are about done attempting to prove that the group is a bunch of right wing mindless extremists so we can move on with exploring some new ground in spiritual principles. I hope you do not see your focus here as a monitor of right and wrongs that need to be set straight. No teacher can be productive with someone like that in the class.

I think you have a lot of good qualities that can be helpful here if you focus on moving forward rather than looking for areas to bring up accusations that require hours and hours of time wasting defense. And keep in mind that most of the wasted time on my end has been attempting to clarify my views that you have distorted. Defending my actual views can be productive, but being called upon to defend views I do not have is a waste of time.

***

Answer to Clay

Clay:

For example, I took your test and it is highly biased against Atheist and Agnostics, who in all things irregardless of religious belief, tend to be very open minded, but according to your test, they would score terrible because they do not believe in God.

The test was design to find those on the spiritual path who are synthetic. There are many good people who are atheists and agnostic, but they are not interested in the spiritual path as they do not even believe in the unseen spirit. The test wasn’t some unconscious biased against them, but just purposefully ignored them as a category. Why look for those on the spiritual path who do not want to be looked for?

Clay:

Please tell me who are your spiritual role models and do they endorse the use of deadly force, mine do not, so I think I should try to emulate my spiritual superiors.

Of Jesus it is written:

“and in righteousness he doth judge and make war.” Rev 19:11

The last I heard war involves the use of deadly force. There is a time and place for all things.

My spiritual role models are Jesus, Moses, Djwhal Khul, Abraham Lincoln, Winston Churchill, Nicola Tesla, Isaac Newton, Pythagoras, Thomas Jefferson, George Washington, Joseph Smith and a few others.

Clay:

Post you graph, I want to see it, my understanding is that you are 5 points below the mean which should place you down at the bottom of the chart for libertarian beliefs. Which test did you use and post your graph.

Don’t see a way to post a graphic here and the link to my score is long gone. On the libertarian side you can score from 0-10 and I was rated 4.98. You don’t need a graphic to see where 4.98 is in between 0-10. According to the test I would be a middle of the road libertarian.

Clay:

Well you seem to support all of Blayne’s very extremist positions – his wanting to do away with all licensing, opposition to federal income tax, and overall support of laissez-faire capitalism.

“Seem” is the key word here. Blayne and I disagree on a number of political ideas and we have had some heated discussions that has lasted hundreds of posts. Fortunately, we have emerged as friends with respect for each other. I would hope we will also.

There is diverse thinking here so you need to judge each person by what he says, not by what someone else says.

So far you have done more arguing with what I do not believe rather than what I do believe. Use my words, not someone else’s when responding to my thoughts.

Clay:

However, based upon what I have read, you fall far down the libertarian position, I could be wrong.

I am a strong libertarian, but also disagree with some thinking that is popular among those who call themselves libertarians.

JJ Quote

I never said I was (Jesus). Please respond to what I say, not to what I do not say.

Clay:

You implied you were.

Yeah, sure and I have a bridge to sell you cheap. And If I said Obama and I both eat carrots you would probably think I was claiming to be like him. Terrible logic you are using there.

Clay:

I also think Lenin and Mao were much more intelligent than me, Same with Rothbard and Von Mises, incredibly intelligent people disagree with each other all the time.

You underestimate your intelligence. I think you are smarter than Mao. You could accomplish what the other guys did if you were inclined in the same directions.

Keynes is more intelligent than you and you disagree with Keynes. Paul Krugman is much more intelligent than you, but you disagree with him. I disagree with Friedman and support Krugman’s viewpoint.

Keynes was intelligent in many ways and would probably be seen as a conservative in today’s world. It is an insult to be compared to Krugman who never saw a truth he could not distort an is not close to Keynes in intelligence. If you judge intelligence by the ability to perceive truth from error then most 5 year olds could best him.

You probably know I am a handwriting analyst. If you want to send me some of your handwriting I’ll take a look and see just how much intelligence is there. I’d also be happy to take a look at Sarah’s.

Clay:

You want to limit it to spiritual discussions, that is fine with me as well.

That’s what we were doing before you diverted us. Hopefully I do not have to respond to many more political clarifications so we can get back to discussing spiritual principles which is the subject of my next book.

Clay:

you only seem to want to correct and argue with my political viewpoints…

My main direction has been to clarify my views that you have distorted. If you argue with what I actually think we may be able to get somewhere.

Clay:

Why does it bother you that I possibly find your libertarianism extreme? I am perfectly comfortable admitting my pacifism is extreme. My brother who is an extreme leftist knows that his views are extreme.

That would be fine if you used my actual beliefs, but when you make things up (such as I do not believe in taxes) then you are just calling something I do not believe extreme.

I challenge you again. Give an actual quote from my actual words that present an extreme political view that would be accepted by fewer than 20% of the people.

April 30, 2015

Principle 60

The Principle of Hierarchy

Today, as never before, there is the idea advanced that the ideal is that there should be no leaders or followers, no teachers and students and no hierarchy at all. Everything should just work because people cooperate.

Reality seems to contradict this idea for every organization does have its hierarchy of management of some sort.

Let is take a closer look at this principle and consider these questions.

(1) Can a successful organization exist without hierarchy?

(2) What is the negative and positive use of hierarchy.

(3) Why do you suppose that some are so opposed to the idea of leaders, teachers, managers, etc.

(4) Does the implementation of hierarchy hinder the opportunity for cooperation or enhanced it?

(5) What is the best way for a hierarchy to be created and maintained? What is the worst?

***

JJ what exactly is the difference between “channeled” and telepathic communication. Because most the current crop of channeled material, the channel is completely conscious during the communication and claims direct communication, not where like Cayce and others went into trances. The Michael Teachings and the Cassiopeans both operate no differently than Bailey, they just call themselves Channeled material, but it is no different than the Course or Bailey at least from what you are telling me. Cassiopaea Lame Ass Neale Donald Walsh claims he talks and receives messages directly from God itself.

Both the Michael Teachings and Cassiopaea teachings were initiated with a Ouija board and carried on with direct voice through the trance state. That is not mental telepathy. Neale Donald Walsh received his material through automatic writing. That is not mental telepathy.

Mental telepathy does not receive material through a Ouija board, the trance state or direct voice. The person receiving through telepathy does not need another individual to write down the words but will usually write them down themselves as the words or thoughts come into the mind just as I may write down your thoughts should I pick them up. There is no possession by another entity.

DK could not possess Alice A. Bailey because he was in his own physical body at the time.

In the beginning Bailey received the teachings by telepathy but as time progressed she became more sensitive to DK’s mind and received through what is called, “The Science of Impression.”

I personally do not discount anything because of who receives it, how it was received or what the person’s reputation is. I judge each work by its content. If I didn’t have this attitude I would probably still be confined to Mormon Doctrine as my sole guide.

***

Clay:

There seems to be a new “telepathic” communication from aliens, angels, ancient gods, Jesus, what have you, ever other week, so I am not going to put too much of my faith in any particular source like this.

I try and check out all materials that claim to be enlightened and am not aware of this being true at all. Can you name something that has come out in the past year, for instance? The only writings of note that were given telepathically in recent times were A Course in Miracles and the Bailey writings. Trance channelers are coming out with something every other week, as you say, but not those who work with telepathy.

Now I am not saying that one should trust a teaching because it is delivered by telepathy or even by some being who is said to appear in person, but the masters rarely use trance channelers, but do use telepathy and to find someone who is in contact with them we should look for the use of higher forms of contact.

I have read quite a few trance channeled materials and if read through the light of the soul some good things can be found, but as far as use of time is concerned one page of DK through Bailey is equal to sifting through a channeled book.

***

Clay:

***

Clay:

May 1, 2015

Soul Oneness

Jim:

Does any Keyster subscribe to Allan’s hypothesis that males must become females by being married before they are able to become pure enough to contact their higher soul selves?

Allan is right to the extent that it is quite advantageous to have a mate that you can be one with. Of course there are two types of oneness. The first is that you just find yourself agreeing on important items or tuning into the same thoughtform and the second is that you have both achieved some degree of soul contact and share spiritual energy together.

Does this mean that you will be spiritually flatlined (to use Allan’s terminology) if you are not one with your mate?

Heavens no. My first marriage was a terrific struggle and my wife fought against every new spiritual discovery I made. Was my progression flatlined?

No. In many ways it was accelerated. Leaning to focus on inner peace where the outside world was in fiery conflict was a big help in advancing me forward. We often advance more in the midst of conflict than peace.

When I was young I often prayed for wisdom and spiritual progression, but in my older years, where I finally have a little outward peace and a great relationship with my current wife, I am much more careful what I pray for.

Becoming one with your soul does not depend in you finding a soul mate and becoming one with him or her. However, the next step after obtaining soul contact and spiritual oneness within yourself is to find oneness with others who have soul contact. This is very difficult but the reward is great. It is very advantageous if one can do this with a spouse, but if the spouse is not ready then you can focus on others, male or female, who are in tune with you.

Many seekers are lucky if they can find one other person in the world with who they can share deep soul energy and oneness. My goal is to find twelve males and twelve females who can do this and create a human molecule as described in my book The Molecular Relationship. A soul oneness achieved by 24 individuals will be a marvelous thing to participate in.

Forums such as this demonstrate how difficult it is to achieve oneness through the spirit. When two disagree they are reluctant to seek the same source of truth together, but concentrate on standing their ground based on their separate belief systems.

***

Clay:

What annoys me is when semi-talented people want to use the examples of Tesla, Einstein, and people like Matt, to compensate for their own lack of education.

And who is doing that? No one here. You seem to have the habit of manufacturing division so you can have a good argument. For instance, you recently said that I was equating myself with Jesus which was completely untrue. Saying that you are following the example of another person does not equate you as being on the same level as that person.

Clay:

That is like a decent basketball player saying he does not need to play college ball and he should go straight to the professional league because that is what LeBron James did. … I am just so fed up with this devaluation of formalized education where every man and woman thinks they are more knowledgeable than trained professionals who have spent countless hours in study and training to acquire this knowledge. But someone spends a few hours reading books or researching over the internet and suddenly they are on equal footing with a PHD who spent thousands of hours studying.

The use of the mind and intuition to obtain skill in the perception of truth is a much different thing than obtaining a skill at sports. A person with common sense and read one book and know more true principles on a subject than one with little horse sense can obtain with a lifetime of study. Sure the guy may have more data in his brain, but data in the brain does not make one see the truth.

You, for instance see that there is a Higher Intelligence in this universe but most scientists who have spent a lifetime studying evolution, cosmology and other sciences have concluded that all creation materialized with no higher intelligence involved.

Because you disagree with these educated scientists does this mean you think orthodox education is useless?

Of course not.

Psychologists have a higher than average suicide rate, educated ministers corrupt the truth, many lawyers abuse the law, politicians do not represent us, many doctors do not know how to stay healthy, financial experts are outdone by a monkey in stock picks, etc. To trust a professional just because he is brain educated is insane. One has to verify everything that comes across his path or his life will be a miserable one. Mine certainly would have been if I did not question authority.

May 2, 2015

Using Information

Clay:

I guess it comes from personal experience where I am inundated with client’s who think they are experts and qualified to tell me how to do my job. Time after time I have a client show up at my office with volumes of papers they have printed off the internet of totally irrelevant and inaccurate information which they believe is highly relevant. I can not tell you the number of times I get clients in prison telling me how to conduct their case based upon what their cell mate told them about the law. They draft these ridiculous motions that they want you to submit to the court that are completely inadmissible, and when you try to explain things to them, politely as possible, they get furious with you and accuse you of working with the prosecution and trying to rail road them. I like client’s to participate in their cases and I am more than happy to take the time and explain everything that we are doing and try to explain why we are doing it and if they have any good ideas that I might have missed I am always willing to take their feelings and desires into account in how we proceed. But you can not imagine the degree of outright hostility we run into with clients who know little or nothing about how the court systems, laws of evidence, jury selection, and other aspects of law function, getting furious and filing complaints simply because we won’t do everything they ask or conduct a defense the way they want. It is beyond frustrating and the internet has made this almost an epidemic. If I ran my practice the way my clients desired me to run it I would probably be disbarred in a coupe of months and lose every single case I take. So I apologize, this is a personal issue to me.

I agree with you 100% from the angle of vision with which you are speaking. For instance, I recall as a real estate agent entertaining clients who had read a get rich quick book on buying real estate and had very unrealistic ideas about how easy it would be to buy with nothing down and flip properties or make them pay for themselves. I have people contacting me about publishing their book thinking they have best seller material with very unreasonable expectations for what they have to work with.

Then again there are those ordinary folk who have read up on real estate or publishing that are impressive in their knowledge and judgment.

On the other hand, you may not be seeing the other side from the angle that I do and when you do we may not be that far apart.

First, let me clarify this point. I am in no way diminishing the value of a trained professional. The services of a trained dentist or doctor when you really need them can be a godsend. There us no way I would attempt to fill a cavity in my kids mouth unless I had sufficient training and equipment.

The fact is that most people can be taught many skills that I have not trained in or may have memorized materials that I have not memorized. That does not make them smarter. All it means is that they have training that I do not have. It doesn’t mean that their judgment in the use of that knowledge or training should not be tested or their judgment checked.

I would assume that every attorney in the country knows more details about the law than I do. They would have to, to have passed the Bar Exam. Does that mean I would just trust any attorney with my life if it was on the balance and he told me to not worry?

Hardly.

I have worked with attorneys that I felt I could turn things over to and they could be trusted to be competent. I have met others who I wouldn’t trust with my gerbil.

Orthodox learning can be very helpful, but it doesn’t mean their judgment is good. lwk spoke well when he said:

The fact is there are a lot of folks with degrees out the yin yang who may have accumulated a lot of facts about a specific and narrow field of study and have little or no real ability to make wise judgments in general. Even people who have studied logic and philosophy for years and who can stun students with their brilliance in the classroom will still make the stupidest imaginable judgments in real life.

A case in point is the occurrence with our friend Tyler. The doctor thinks he has a thyroid problem so he automatically prescribes Synthroid, the worst possible and most destructive and expensive alternative. About ten minutes of research on the matter by someone with some judgment will reveal much better alternatives than the doctor’s 12 years of education came up with. Most regular medical doctors are biased against natural alternatives and generally push the expensive synthetic direction.

Scientists are also biased. For instance, even though it took scientists working all over the world more than 10 years and about $1 billion to, not create, but to just sequence the human genome most will think that no higher intelligence was involved in its creation.

There are two extremes that can be taken when dealing with a recognized expert that may or may not have good judgment.

One is to argue with him when you do not know what you are talking about. This often happens, but rarely does so here on the Keys. The other is to argue with him when you do know what you are talking about.

To intelligently disagree with a highly educated person does not require that you have all the knowledge that he has. It only requires that you have a knowledge of what is actually involved in the argument. When you both have the same facts available for the argument then the one that will come out on top with be the one with the best judgment and reason.

I have never found someone so educated that I could not examine his beliefs and intelligently and legitimately decide whether I agree or disagree.

Clay:

I only had to “memorize a bunch of facts” in biology class.

Wow. Where did you go to school, in Neverland? Out of all the hundreds of classes I have taken I cannot think of one where that did not require me to study and retain some type of facts in my memory.

Are you saying that I could take the Bar Exam and pass without having read any books and retained any information? Does not compute. Some courses are more data driven than others, but all require some retention of information that is conveyed.

***

Clay:

but when it comes to specific subjects, I do value an expert’s opinions more than a lay persons, in general. Again I am only talking about general rules, and theses are just general principles to me. I have also met “martial art instructors who could not fight their way out of a paper bag, that is why it is valuable to find a “qualified expert.”

Nothing to disagree with there. Like I say, when we see each others points of view I would think we would agree. Since you are trained in law I would trust what you say is legal more than my guess at it, but if you told me not to file taxes because the system is not Constitutional I would ignore you as it wouldn’t be worth the risk.

***

Ken:

You start out with a wrong concept about Judgment and dying. Judgment can only begin once death has occurred, and THEN, to be exposed to the Light, so that proper Judgment can be rendered. True Believers were the FIRST to enter into Judgment, as Peter states: 1Pet 4:17 For the time [is come] that judgment must begin at the house of Elohim: and if [it] first [begin] at us, what shall the end [be] of them that obey not the Gospel of Elohim?

Most feel this scripture was fulfilled when the temple was destroyed and the Jews scattered which happened in this world not the next. You talk as if there is just one judgment but there are many judgments of various types. Moses had men in his circle that were called judges and judged the people. The scriptures say that God gave out his judgments on Sodom and Gomorrah, the people at the time of Noah and Jeremiah.

As I said in my treatise one has to look at any scripture in its context to see what the author was trying to say and nothing of what you say discounts anything I have written.

Ken

Now JJ, as you explain, what is the outcome of all who have never been given the opportunity to be exposed to the Light, and come under Judgment? Do they need to be reincarnated over and over again? NO, absolutely not. Their Judgment will begin (after their death), WHEN they are RAISED up AFTER the 1000 year reign of Yeshua and His Body (Rev 20:5)

Rev 20:5 says nothing about judgment. We need to go by what the scripture or the spirit says, not by what it does not say.

Ken:

ALL of those who were never exposed to the Light of Truth (in THEIR one and ONLY incarnation) will be given opportunity on the Eighth Great Day (The Last Day, the last 1000 years) to enter INTO Judgment as they are THEN exposed to the True Light and Glory of Elohim WHEN they are RESURRECTED, not reincarnated.

If you are going to argue with me from the scriptures then use them instead of your opinion. The scriptures do not support you here.

Ken:

Ken

Didn’t Yeshua speak of multiple “ages” in referencing the sin against the Holy Spirit…neither in this age nor in any age to come?

He spoke of two ages there but there are millions of them in eternity.

Ken:

You also appear to have another mistake with your explanation of the Greek word “ALLA.” Do you have a Greek manuscript that uses the Greek word-G235 (ALLA) in Hebrews 9? I would be interested to see it.

Looks like you are correct here. The correct word is DE, but it has a similar meaning so nothing has changed.

Ken

And finally, your explanation of the Greek word KRISIS, and making it to mean that you need multiple lifetimes to correct your errors, or to correct the state of death, is quite remarkable. When Yeshua spoke of KRISIS, and what would happen to the Prince of the world, are you suggesting that Satan is given many lifetimes to correct his errors (Jn 16:11 Of judgment (KRISIS), because the prince of this world is judged.?) Or when Yeshua is speaking about KRISIS here (Mt 12:36-37 “But I tell you that every careless word that people speak, they shall give an accounting for it in the day of judgment (KRISIS). 37 “For by your words you will be justified, and by your words you will be condemned.”) Is He suggesting multiple lifetimes for your words to “Justify” or “Condemn” you? Which lifetime’s WORDS will condemn or justify, the 1st or the 50th lifetime? JJ, your understanding of KRISIS and reincarnation does not compute with Yeshua’s Word, and the Day of KRISIS.

I don’t get your point. Here is what I said about the Greek word KISIS

The modern English word “crisis” (which is derived from the Greek KRISIS) is a more accurate rendering than the Bible translations. The actual Greek word implies a decision that brings correction. If it is used in connection with the word “judgment” the idea of a corrective judgment should be implied.

My use of the word was right on the mark. Why would you think otherwise?

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go HERE and other books HERE

JJ’s Amazon page HERE

Gather with JJ on Facebook HERE

Series NavigationKeys Writings 2015, Part 9Keys Writings 2015, Part 11