The Seeker’s Guide to Soul Contact, Part 12

Day 115

The Intelligent Designer

The beast of unjust authority does all it can to insure that only one side is represented and presented – his side. When the choice is between light and dark he will be against the light and support the dark. In addition, he will be against freedom and support suppression, against truth and support distortion, against God and for atheism.

The irony is that the beast will claim to be a champion of light, truth and freedom. and many fall for this illusion while he subtly subverts them all.

As far as belief goes the beast controls both ends of the spectrum. He convinces those who believe in God that his agents speak for God and can tell followers what God wants them to do and believe. Those who do not believe still seek authority and he delivers it through other belief systems such as one where the state replaces God.

In modern times society has been moving away from many illogical religious beliefs and the beast has been adapting. After all, his ultimate goal is to have his representatives be the final authority in all things and in this any real contact with God or the soul is to be shunned as fantasy.

The beast has been quite successful in securing his authoritative system in our educational enterprise. His first line of attack is to suppress any teaching or belief in God, especially as the Creator. This is done in the name of fairness, in that it would be unfair to present one religious belief over another. It is also done in the name of science. Representatives of the beast tell us that any belief in God is not logical or scientific.

Therefore when students learn about theories of creation they only hear one side – whatever is accepted by the authorities of the state.

The beast is playing off the accepted and just idea that it would not be productive to mix religious indoctrination with education. Parents do not want their kids being preached to at school. But a basic belief in a creator is a common thread running through all religions and is much more prevalent than atheism. Around 90% of Americans believe in an Intelligent Designer yet any talk of such an intelligence is forbidden to be discussed in our public schools and universities. If any teacher brings up the subject of intelligent design he is likely to lose is job.

The beast has been very successful in eliminating any debate or consideration of intelligent design in our schools and presenting a very distorted image of what is sought for. What is sought for by fair minded believers is, not to present religion, but to present the science and logic of both sides of the equation.

For instance, the human cell is more complex than the most advanced computer and is as full of industry as a large city. There are many pieces that fit together like a light bulb in a socket.

Scientific theory tells us that something much more complex than a light bulb could just come together by natural means given a long enough time. But to make the bulb functional you have to have a socket to screw it into. They say this could also be naturally assembled over a long period of time.

But here is the really tricky thing. How could two complex pieces independently evolve that would perfectly fit together so the light bulb could precisionly screw into the socket. When you think about it this simple fit couldn’t just materialize in a billion or a trillion years without an intelligent hand at work. Even when the two pieces do fit the bulb will not work unless supplied with electricity. Many units in the cell have pieces fitting together which are supplied with electrical current.

The presentation of the scientific evidence for intelligence at work in creation is just as legitimate as standard scientific theory.

It is strange that intelligence in creation is so difficult for educators to accept when we see ironclad proof of it every day of our lives.

And where is the proof? Look in the mirror. Humans are intelligent and they create lots of things. If we are intelligence in matter that creates then why not consider that there is an intelligence in the universe itself that creates?

We would have a much more enlightened educational system if both sides of controversial ideas are presented and discussed.

Assignment: Ask yourself this question: “Does my Higher Self support giving credit to Divine Intelligence for the life I see around me?”

Affirmation: “I choose to see the hand of God.”

 

Day 116

Resist Dumbing Down

The beast was unable to stop the tide flowing toward universal education so he decided to lead the parade rather than continue fighting it. To continue his base of power he needs a high degree of ignorance. Since the public insists on education his solution is for his agents to be seen as champions of education while deflecting students away from learning useful information that will lead to true independent thinking.

The beast has two lines of attack to insure maximum ignorance.

The first is to dumb down courses so important facts and true principles are filtered out. The goal is for the kids to be “ever learning but never coming to a knowledge of the truth.”

Those who watched the Jay Leno interviews of the past and Jessie Watters and others in the present see that a high degree of ignorance has been achieved.

History in particular is under attack because we must learn from the past to avoid making the same mistakes over endlessly. The power of the beast depends on us repeating the same mistakes over and over so history is a subject that is under constant attack and revision.

I’ve watched TV personalities interviewing college students and asking them simple questions about which they were clueless. Many did not know who we fought during World War II, who fought in the Civil War or which century they were in. They did not know who we fought in the Revolutionary War or the time period involved. Others did not know who the vice president was.

Some think those interviews must be fake, but research has revealed they are not. Common Core did a poll a while back that revealed that around 40% of our students are just as deficient in history and political knowledge as the humorous interviews illustrated. For instance, 57% of the students didn’t have a clue as to the time period the Civil War was fought and 25% thought that Columbus discovered America after 1750. Even more disturbing is that 44% did not know the purpose of the Bill of Rights.

Schools are switching way from the crucial events in history to politically correct ones. Some are advocating the ignoring of history before there Civil War. Our colleges are offering questionable courses that divert the kids from real learning such as:

  • “What If Harry Potter Is Real?”
  • “Lady Gaga and the Sociology of Fame”
  • “Philosophy And Star Trek”
  • “How To Watch Television”

In addition to diverting students away from real learning the students are spending much less time in study than in the past. They spend about 50% less time in individual study than they did a few decades ago.

The beast has been particularly interested in dumbing down the United States since it is the major power in the world that can stop the various tyrannies from spreading.

American students rank 17th in reading, 26th in math and 21st in science worldwide.

That is a sad state of affairs for the nation that put a man on the moon way back in 1969.

Perhaps a sign that more dumbing down is on the horizon is a new book coming out spearheaded by Professor Rochelle Gutierrez at the University of Illinois with collaboration of 40 educators promoting the idea that math is racist and a product of white privilege. “Mathematics itself operates as Whiteness,” she says. She tells us that we need to move away from recognizing excellence in math toward more subtle types of reasoning. It is strange she is critical of white students who are good at math when many Asian and Indian students excel even more.

She doesn’t seem to realize that none of our electronic devices we love so much would be available if we did not have many people of numerous races doing the math necessary for their creation.

Fortunately, there are several bright spots in education for those who desire to bypass the authority of the beast and excel in learning. While it is true that the internet and social media is a big distraction for many a few students are using it for research and learning. If one wants to learn he can find just about anything.

Extra systematic learning is there to be had for free or a reasonable cost.

A great free source is the Khan Academy. Students who need greater understanding of their materials or just want to branch out and learn can choose from hundreds of classes. Currently they have over 40 million students world wide and haven’t dumbed down their math at all. Salman Khan, the founder, is a non white of Indian heritage.

Assignment: I mentioned that there were two avenues of attack by the beast directed at education. The dumbing down of teaching is one. What do you suppose the other is?

Affirmation: “I learn that which I decide – not that which is decided for me.”

 

Day 117

A One-Sided Situation

Another line of attack used by the beast to maintain authority is the suppression of points of views that do not support his plan.

We have already mentioned that he suppresses any type of education that even mentions a creator in a positive light. The beast is also very one sided in his allowance of political views.

Now keep in mind that his main goal is to exert controlling authority over the souls of humanity and in the past has used both believers and non believers as well as both sides of the political spectrum to further his agenda to restrict freedom for all but his appointed authorities. Therefore, at any point in time we must examine where the suppression lies to see where his plan of attack is taking us.

When we look at statistics the direction is quite obvious.

When looking at the dominance of the left and right or Republicans and Democrats we see that Democrats dominate in education from the beginning of a students education. Among Preschool teachers 75% are Democrats and 26% Republicans. This dominance increases at the elementary level to 85% for Democrats and 15% Republicans. Then in High School there are 87% Democrats and only 13% Republicans.

If these numbers seem lopsided take a look at the dominance in our universities. The Econ Journal Watch in Sept 2016 published a study that looked at at faculty voter registration at 40 leading universities. It discovered that the ratio of Democrats to Republicans is 11.5 to 1. The balance gets real crazy when we get to history professors where the ratio is 33.5 to 1. This is a disturbing trend when we discover that in 1968 the ratio was 2.7 to 1. The number of Democrats in domination has multiplied over a dozen times since then. A change like this would appear to be something engineered rather than a natural evolution.

This extreme dominance gives the left power to shape history in the minds of the students any way desired, and from studies of students’ knowledge of history it seems that they are not learning the same facts concerning real events as did their parents. What has happened has been a turning aside from regular historical studies to explore history related to politically correct trends at the sacrifice of a dispassionate study of major figures and events.

If these ratios were reversed we would still have problems for whenever you get such an imbalance bias and distortion creeps in.

This has shown up in our universities by the suppression of conservatives.

Some Republican students fear for their safety and good grades and find that they have to restrain themselves from talking politics as well as pretend to their teachers that they agree with them.

Conservative speakers are often not approved and if they do get an opportunity to speak they must be accompanied by massive security and are often shouted down.

For instance, in February 2017 the Berkeley College Republicans invited Milo Yiannopoulos to speak but the event was abruptly canceled when masked left-wing anarchists rioted outside the event to shut it down. Then in April threats of violence shut down an Ann Coulter speech

Berkeley received quite a bit of criticism for this since, in the past it was seen as a bastion of free speech.

Then in September 2017 a Jewish conservative, Ben Shapiro was invited to speak by the college Republicans. You wouldn’t think he would have been much of a problem for the school as he is mild mannered, has a good reputation and as no scandals attached. He even worked against he election of Trump which should have scored him some points there. Even so intolerance showed itself and threats of violence surfaced. It turned out that the school had to spend about $600,000 on security for the event and still 9 students were arrested, three of them with weapons.

This shutting down of conservative speakers has been the most newsworthy problem created by one-sided dominance in education, but there are others. Reflect on what they may be and we will continue.

Affirmation: “I must look at both sides of an argument to see the whole truth.”

 

Day 118

The Controlling Agenda

One of the most effective tactics of the beast is to shut down free speech and debate. He picks a point of view, promotes it through his appointed authorities and tries to destroy anyone who challenges it. It matters not to him whether his doctrine is true or false. What matters is that it is not questioned. As a result a hodgepodge of material that is a mixture of truth and fiction is put in circulation.

The important thing is that the authorities in charge make this mixture appeal to the emotions of the masses so they can feel good supporting it while ridiculing those who may question.

From elementary through high school numerous one-sided views are promoted until the students arrive at college. It is here that the most powerful authorities rule who are not checked by parents and local school boards. Here is where there beast has the chance to place the final nail in the coffin of independent thinking.

This is disturbing for our universities of higher learning were once considered bastions of independent thought and debate. Now if anyone steps out of line they are accused of “micro aggression.” Students are now demanding “safe places” where they will be free from hearing any opinions not sanctioned by the beast.

We recently discussed a topic under the control of the beast which concerns the spiritual side of life and God. No consideration of God or Spirit is considered being open to serious discussion by the beast and his agents. If they are discussed at all it is with ridicule.

One example that illustrates the disrespect of the agents of the beast toward the spiritual happened at Florida Atlantic University in Boca Raton. In an Intercultural Communications course Professor Deandre Poole ordered his students to write the word “Jesus” in bold letters on a sheet of paper, then place it on the floor, stand up and stomp on it.

Amazingly, only one student had the fortitude to defy the authority of the beast. Ryan Rotela, a Christian, questioned the action, and for refusing to cooperate and questioning the correctness of such an action, he was thrown out of the class.

The professor said he was merely following instructions in the textbook and had done it before so the question arises as to how many times this happened before one student voiced an objection.

Because of the publicity the professor received harsh criticism and the exercise was discontinued but every day many subtle attacks are made toward any spiritual belief in our halls of learning and students dare not contradict them, not only for fear of a bad grade, but fear of scorn from fellow classmates.

The beast is extremely adamant that only one side of the global warming debate be presented in the halls of learning. Any teacher who presents information to the contrary is risking his job and career.

The idea presented is that manmade climate change is an established fact so it is crazy to even consider another point of view. It would be like presenting evidence that the earth is flat, they say.

This is a false comparison as well as calling skeptics climate change deniers. This is silly for no one denies that climate changes. In addition many scientists doubt that man made climate changes poses the threat presented by orthodoxy. In the first 10 months of 2017 there have been 400 scientific papers presented that challenge orthodox theory. Here is a quote from the meteorologist Anthony Watts:

“During the first 10 months of 2017, 400 scientific papers have been published that cast doubt on the position that anthropogenic CO2 emissions function as the climate’s fundamental control knob…or that otherwise question the efficacy of climate models or the related “consensus” positions commonly endorsed by policymakers and mainstream media.

“These 400 new papers support the position that there are significant limitations and uncertainties inherent in our understanding of climate and climate changes. Climate science is not settled.

“Modern temperatures, sea levels, and extreme weather events are neither unusual nor unprecedented. Many regions of the Earth are cooler now than they have been for most of the last 10,000 years.”

LINK

As it turns out those who take the orthodox approach work under the strong authority of the beast and if they come up with any contrary opinion they will be subject to ridicule and losing their jobs.

Almost all the scientists who are in the skeptical category are outside the authoritarian system giving them freedom to voice a contrary opinion.

So why does the beast come down so hard on the side of panic over global warming?

The answer lies in control. Authoritative control is always the goal and if he can convince the world that the threat is so dire that all the nations must be taxed to combat it then he has established a foothold for world control that would be difficult to dislodge.

I have studied both sides of the climate debate and there is valuable information to be had from looking at both presentations. Our schools should not be afraid to allow students to hear both sides of the debate. It would be helpful if all they did was allow a guest speaker to come in now and then and present a different point of view.

The mind expands when it is exposed to two sides of a debate and contracts when exposed to just one.

Continue reflecting on how the authoritative system hinders real education.

Affirmation: “I will find the truth that lies between the extremes.”

 

Day 119

The Importance of History

Not only does the teaching within our schools have a problem with presenting two sides of controversial issues, but they have a major problem with presenting the whole picture. This occurs somewhat in science, but is most pervasive in history.

I thought that the teaching of history was pretty bad when I was a student in the Sixties. They covered the subject reasonably well, but the textbooks were extremely boring and to pass tests we had to memorize dates, names and events that were often forgotten a short time later.

I didn’t realize that history could be fascinating until I read something on my own initiative. I bought a copy of “The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich” by William Shirer. After a few pages into it I was riveted and by the time I had finished I realized that history can be very interesting after all if the writer concentrates on the story and why things happened the way they did instead if merely presenting dry details.

After reading the book I thought that it would be extremely valuable if every student would read it so we could learn from the past and prevent a threat liked Hitler from surfacing again.

As it is, in the world today many erroneously compare every leader they do not like to Hitler with little idea of who the real Hitler was.

I thought that there was a problem with the presentation of history in my day, but it is nothing like the one today. The presentation was dry, but at least we gained a few details about Western Civilization, the Revolutionary and Civil Wars and famous figures such as George Washington, Franklin and Lincoln.

Today many students do not have a clue who we gained independence from, what was the cause, or time period. My generation watched those interviews by Jay Leno displaying current ignorance and we wonder what they are learning in school.

Seeing this ignorance makes one think of the famous words of George Santayana, “Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it.”

If students who become the leaders of tomorrow do not know the historical causes of World War II and other disastrous situations, then the danger of repeating them is high. The unfortunate thing is a World War III involving nuclear weapons could spell the end of civilization as we know it. This makes the learning of accurate history much more important now than ever before.

There are two problems that create gaps in the teaching of history.

First attention has been diverted to politically correct history with emphasis on minority studies. This would be fine if they learned the major flow of events first, but this diversion fills much of there teaching time leaving very little to examine the important historical events in detail. Consequently, very little attention is focused on our great figures such as Washington and Lincoln. Some educators are even suggesting we leave out much of history that we find disagreeable.

True history consists of the good and bad and should be presented truthfully with all its warts so students can make a correct assessment of it.

The second problem is bias. Many educators desire certain people and events be minimized or completely left out so history will read the way they desire it to have been.

The soul sees only those things that are true so the seeker seeking guidance from his Higher Self indeed needs to feed his mind with true facts so an accurate picture can be formed.

Fortunately, there are a lot of good historical books out there that can fill in the gaps for those who missed out in school, but only a handful are willing to make the effort to obtain an accurate picture of the past.

The assignment today is to assess your own knowledge and views of history. How much of it does your soul confirm is accurate?

Affirmation: “The past is a key to controlling the future.”

 

Day 120

Judging the Past

Soul contact will not give you all the true details of history but it will give you a sense of what is true and false and help you see the picture that is painted by it.

The language of the soul is the language of principles, rather than data, and inner guidance can help the seeker see the cycles and evolution of society as it moves through them.

One of the things about history that needs to be corrected by the souls of men is the erroneous idea of judging the people of the past by the values of the present.

In this age people are very focused on racial justice and civil rights. Many look back into the past and judge historical figures by their current values. This is a grave mistake as they are missing an important ingredient that affects the human mind.

That ingredient is sometimes called “groupthink.” This is a similarity of thinking that controls a group, a nation and sometimes the whole world. People are thus controlled by thoughtforms energized by the thinking and belief of the masses. The beast to control most of the people in the world uses these thoughtforms.

The errors in the past were caused by this groupthink controlling the beliefs and attitudes of the people. Today’s society looks back and judges the leaders there negatively, not realizing they are also controlled, and more enlightened people of the future will look back on us and judge us as primitive thinkers in many ways.

The accusers do not realize how strong these thoughtforms are and how difficult it is to break free of them.

For instance, one may witness a friend caught up in a cult and cannot understand why they cannot see the truth and break free. They do not realize the power of the illusionary thoughtform unless they have broken free of one themselves.

What is little realized is that same power that holds a person imprisoned in a cult holds many average people in their own destructive and distorted illusions, yet they know it not.

Some of the most potent accusations from the present is toward men honored by their achievements, but were slaveholders. Numerous Founding Fathers come under attack. Famous founders who owned slaves were Washington, Jefferson, Franklin and Madison.

Some that didn’t own them were John and Samuel Adams, Alexander Hamilton, Thomas Paine and Roger Sherman.

It is interesting that all the non slave holders were from the North where slavery was not so needed and most of the slaveholders were from the South.

Those who were slaveholders found themselves involved by inheritance or necessity to need slaves to make a living. Even so, famous founders who were slaveholders evolved to see that the holding others against their will was a great evil. This is one reason that the Constitution laid the foundation for the eventual freeing of the slaves.

Here is what the famous founding slaveholders said on the subject.

“Nothing is more certainly written in the book of fate than that these people are to be free.”

— Thomas Jefferson, Autobiography, 1821

“[The Convention] thought it wrong to admit in the Constitution the idea that there could be property in men.”

— James Madison, Records of the Convention, August 25, 1787

The magnitude of this evil among us is so deeply felt, and so universally acknowledged, that no merit could be greater than that of devising a satisfactory remedy for it.

James Madison

“There is not a man living who wishes more sincerely than I do, to see a plan adopted for the abolition of it.”

— George Washington

Washington sought to free his slaves in his lifetime but did so in his death by granting them freedom in his will.

“Slavery is …an atrocious debasement of human nature.”

Benjamin Franklin

Franklin who owned slaves in his younger yeas saw the error in it and became an abolitionist in later years.

Today many condemn the Founders without realizing the great awakening they had when compared to previous generations.

Since the beginning of recorded civilization slavery has been the norm and all people high and low accepted it as a necessity. It prevailed among all nations and no significant body of men promoted the idea that slavery should be abolished. Even Jesus did not speak against it. The word “servant” in the New Testament can also be translated as slave and none of the early Christians or the Jews seemed to have a problem with the idea.

Paul even gave this advice:

“Servants, (From the Greek DOULOS meaning slave) be obedient to them that are your masters according to the flesh, with fear and trembling, in singleness of your heart, as unto Christ.” Eph 6:5

It was the Founding Fathers who broke new ground in human freedom and to do so they had to go against the groupthink of thousands of years of history where not only blacks were enslaved but all races took their turn.

We cannot judge the righteousness of the people of the past by comparing them to present norms, but must realize the powerful influence of the standards of their time and judge them accordingly.

Assignment: Consider other ways that people of the past are unfairly judged.

Affirmation: “I will see through the other person’s eyes before I judge.”

 

Day 121

Seeing the Past as It Was

A truth from history that needs to be understood is that the righteousness of an individual or a people must be judged by the standards of virtue that were accepted at the time. Until recent times slavery was the norm and few judged anyone as being evil for having them. Having slaves was usually viewed as a sign of success. Someone who mistreated slaves may have been subject to criticism but owners were generally given a pass.

In the more developed parts of the ancient world, such as Rome and Athens, slavery was seen as a necessity, for the people felt that without the practice civilization and quality of life for citizens could not flourish.

When the scriptures and wise teachers speak against an evil the people will often make an attempt to practice it, but there was nothing in the scriptures that advocated the freeing of the slaves. This quest for freedom had to foment in the hearts of the people and become manifest through humanity’s own initiative.

Instead of condemning the Founding Fathers we should acknowledge their initiatives in planting the seeds of human freedom for all.

On the other hand, there have been evils in the past committed where the people should have known better. For instance, the church and state killed, tortured and imprisoned those who merely questioned religious authorities. Persecuting people for their beliefs ran contrary to everything their founder, Jesus, taught. The leaders used threatening punishment to maintain their hold on authority for the beast and this type of action should be condemned in any time period as it goes against the teachings of the prophets and wise teachers of the past.

We have made a lot of progress through humanity’s mere awakening and going beyond the good that is advocated in the Bible and other scriptures.

The right for the people to vote for their leaders was a huge step forward. Then, later, to include all races and the female sex was another advance.

Then we have the restraint of religious authorities from having direct power over the people though government due to a separation of church and state. This is a step forward.

Another step is to give all races, genders and beliefs equal; treatment under the law.

Of course, no system is perfect, but civilization has made many advances. When we look in the past we must judge the people by the beliefs they had then rather than our own vision of right and wrong.

The average person sixty years ago would be judged to be extremely racist by most people today. For instance, most did not accept interracial marriage. One reason was their religious beliefs but another I heard expressed more often when I was young was that the culture and thinking of the different races was so different that it would make the marriage difficult. Just like today there were some who didn’t like people who were different than themselves, but most held their views because of groupothink – just as we in this generation hold many of our views because that’s what we are supposed to think.

The beast of unearned authority has used this groupthink or thoughtforms to control the people throughout the ages. Then when we make an advance and start feeling righteous because we are more right thinking than our ancestors the beast taps in to a new thoughtform that controls us and groupthink that takes us away from soul contact remains. The beast is far from being destroyed through our advances. Instead, he has just moved his power base.

It is very important that the correct learning and understanding of history be taught to our students. Students, of course, need to learn the facts of history, but more than that they need to put themselves in the shoes of the people of the past. When we do this we can learn while resisting the temptation to see ourselves as superior, for we have our own breakthroughs to make. If we understand how progress was made in the past then this will give us more power to make progress in the present and free ourselves from the authority of the beast and his agents.

Next we will examine the relationship of the beast to science. You would think that science would be pretty black and white not giving in to unjust authority controlling what is taught and practiced, but think again. Contemplate how unjust, unearned authority manifests there.

Affirmation: “I will replace feelings of superiority with humility.”

 

Additional comment in response to reader:

The point of the article was not to defend slavery as this has always been an instrument for the beast and still is today from a higher angle. The point is that for thousands of years slavery was accepted by just about all civilizations and usually the slaves themselves, unless they were brutally treated. There were a handful of of rebels when the treatment was harsh, but it took some enlightenment to see the manipulation of the beast in olden times just as it does today. The point is that we cannot judge the people of yesterday by the standards of today. Today we realize that many of the standards yesterday were misplaced just as future generations will realize the same thing about us. We must realize that the vast majority of people accept the standards of the day whether they be right or wrong.

 

Day 122

The Way Things Are

This quote from Jesus reveals an interesting truth about human nature.

“Woe unto you, scribes and Pharisees, hypocrites! because ye build the tombs of the prophets, and garnish the sepulchres of the righteous, And say, If we had been in the days of our fathers, we would not have been partakers with them in the blood of the prophets.

“Wherefore ye be witnesses unto yourselves, that ye are the children of them which killed the prophets. Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers.” Matt 23:29-32

Jesus must have been privy to some of the discussions of the authorities of his day. Apparently, they voiced strong disapproval of those who persecuted and killed the prophets of the past and saw themselves as more enlightened and of superior caliber to past leaders. They felt strongly that had they lived in the past the would have accepted and honored Moses, Elijah, Jeremiah , Isaiah and other holy men.

Little did they realize that the greatest of all was in their midst and that they had murder in their own hearts toward him. Generations yet unborn would view them with much more disdain than the persecutors of the prophets before them.

People of today make the same mistake and think to themselves such things as, “If I had been one of the Founding Fathers I would not have had slaves. If I had lived in the South after the Civil War I would have honored civil rights and fought against the Ku Klux Klan. If I had lived in Germany during Hitler I wouldn’t have been a Nazi.”

One must be careful about judging himself so generously. Just like the authorities were mistaken about themselves and how they would have reacted in the past so are many today.

There is a very powerful force that the beast uses to control the souls of men. Previously, we linked it to groupthink or thoughtforms, but there is another phrase that clearly defines the current that sweeps the minds of the people toward a negative direction, but erroneously viewed as a positive one. Here it is:

“The way things are.”

The way things are is determined by the authorities of the world and are often full of error. It matters not if the way things are may be total wrong or harmful, if a person is a part of a group, state or nation where a way of life dominates and is accepted he will have much difficulty in going against the flow.

Suppose you were born and raised in a nation that put gays to death. Do you think you would resist with righteous indignation? All should think twice on this for often those who are positive they would be fair would be the strongest voices for enforcing the way things are with his own people.

Until recent times it was just accepted that might makes right. Most thought that if God were on your side that your people would prevail over any other tribe or nation and then to the victor goes the spoils.

Skeptics read the Bible and are appalled at how destructive Israel was in the wars it fought. But they were just following the way things were at the time. In those times the strongest prevailed and they either destroyed or enslaved their enemies. Even though ancient Israel did not live up to our standards of war they were above the standards of the day. They did not torture their enemies, unlike most tribes of the day. Neither did they sacrifice their children to the gods and they had laws that made them a stable society where other Hebrews and allies were treated fairly well.

Ancient Israel did not live up to our standards, but they were above the prevailing standards of the day.

And this is how a people or an individual must be judged. Do they just go along with the way things are and yield to the power of the beast or do they question and seek for greater truth and higher ground?

In this day and age most of the people of the world are controlled by the way things are. The way things are may be different for each nation or group, but the control is still there.

In the United States political correct attitudes are determining the way things are especially in our colleges and universities. Few are willing to buck the system and speak about controversies in old fashion clear language. Free speech is greatly suppressed. Many conform for fear of being ostracized by fellow students and may get expelled from their school. It is quite possible that a hundred years from now that such restrictions will be seen as outrageous.

Slavery existed for thousands of years with few speaking against it because that was the way things were at the time.

Violence and torture was common for the same reason.

Women were not allowed to vote because that was just the way it was. The blacks were enslaved and then denied civil rights because that was the accepted norm.

Seekers today must judge the people of the past by the currents that govern them and realize there are new currents today. There are numerous things today that “just are” and are wrong and few are going against the flow or presenting any challenges.

Let us not the mistake of condemning the people of the past for being caught in the authoritative flow of the beast when we may be doing the same thing today.

Assignment: Contemplate the way things are in your group and nation and ask your soul to show you how things really are.

Affirmation: “I will question the reality that others force upon me.”

 

 

Day 123

The Importance of Seeing the Beast

Some readers may wonder why I am putting so much attention on the beast. The reason is simple. Remember that the beast represents an outside controlling authority that most people pay more attention to than their own inner authority. If the inner authority yields to an outer authority then the inner voice of the soul will be ignored . If it is ignored then it will not be heard. If it is not heard then there is no soul contact.

If we only discuss the obstacles to soul contact in the abstract then many will agree but will not see how to solve the problems in real life. To solve this problem I must present some of the difficulties in real life where the beast hinders contact so the seeker can discover solutions.

One problem is that when some see where the true authority of the beast is that they will decide that they are on the side of the beast and desire to embrace him. They will feel that he is not a beast at all, but a source of authority they should trust.

Then there are a few others who will sense a light turning on within them when they realize what the beast really is, the extent of his power and the difficulty in freeing oneself from it in so many areas of life. Remember freeing oneself from the beast in one area does not mean you are free in all areas. Maybe the seeker will reject the beast in healthcare, but accept him in his own religion. The seeker must put the beast in his place in all areas of life.

Concerning science, one would think that the beast would not have much power there for do they not deal with mathematics, physics and facts? After all, scientists accomplish feats such as sending the New Horizons probe billions of miles through space on a 9.5 year trip and can predict the exact hour that it will arrive at Pluto.

Yes, where there are known facts and distances science can do a great job and produce exacting results.

The problem is that because science is accurate in dealing with known facts many assume that they are also accurate when dealing with the unknown when they present their theories and speculation. The beast takes full advantage of this assumption on the part of the public and uses its authority to control people’s thinking on the unknown and seeks to punish those who question his established authority.

I already mentioned two areas where this happens. The first is the attack on anyone who questions the beast’s view of creation by suggesting that a higher intelligence may have had a hand.

The second is the attack on anyone who questions the standard theory on global warming.

Real science makes progress through questioning, not by automatically going along with orthodox views, yet the beast in science, just as in health care and politics, does not like its authority questioned and will seek to destroy skeptics.

A quintessential example of this is the story of Immanuel Velikovsky. Velikovsky developed some very unorthodox theories about the history of the solar system and the part electromagnetic forces plays in the movement of the planets. He studied legends and ancient writings from all over the planet and found numerous accounts that seemed to agree as far as catastrophic events on earth and in the skies. From them he developed a theory that around 1500 BC Venus was ejected as a satellite of Jupiter and passed by the earth in the time of Moses creating much of the destruction reported in the Bible and other literature from numerous ancient civilizations. He also presented a theory that Mars had changed its orbit.

He wrote a book, Worlds in Collision, attempting to prove this which was published by Macmillan and was a best seller being number one for eleven weeks.

The scientific community was inflamed by the book and not only ferociously attacked Velikovsky and his writings, but forced Macmillan to stop publishing it. Numerous scientists and universities told the publisher that if they did not cease publication that they would ruin their publishing business. This Macmillan became the first publisher to cease publishing and distributing a top selling book while still in demand of the public.

Fortunately, another publisher bought the rights and publication continued, but the attacks did not cease. Velikovsky has been a prime source of attack by the scientific world ever since. Even today, if a scientist dares to mention his name without adding condemnation, he is in danger of being fiercely attacked.

What is important here is not whether Velikovsky’s theories were right or wrong, but that the scientific community was so controlled by the beast that they would not allow their authority to be challenged and resorted to the equivalent of book burning by trying to prevent the public from even seeing his writings.

True science is happy to let all ideas compete and allow the best to win when more evidence comes in.

Continue to reflect on the different areas of life where the beast exerts his authority.

Affirmation: “I will not conform just because others are.”

 

Day 124

The Beast Attacks

Earlier we talked about Ignaz Semmelweis who came up with the discovery that washing hands could rid doctors’ hands of microscopic life, now called germs, and would prevent infection. Because this idea was a challenge to authority, supported by the beast at that time, Semmelweis was persecuted and eventually placed in a mental hospital where he died.

A similar fate befell Wilhelm Reich, the inventor of the orgone accumulator. Reich believed that there was a universal living energy in circulation that could be amplified with a device. He called this energy “orgone,” which fits the description of prana, the life energy that we get from the cosmos according to eastern teachings.

Once people sat in his orgone accumulator they felt like they had been recharged. He started offering it to people who were depressed or had various diseases and found out that they were greatly helped. Then he offered his services to cancer patients and reports came out about people being cured. The scientific and medial establishment felt their authority was on the line and came after him with all the power the beast had to offer.

Reich was condemned by all the major media which gave the authorities justification to go after him. Eventually, the medical community encouraged the U.S. Food and Drug Administration to seek and obtain a court injunction to stop him from researching, writing, and speaking about orgone.

He didn’t conform to the letter so they invaded his facility and removed all his books and research papers and burned them. All together they burned six tons of his papers and books. Then they put him in prison where he died in 1957.

What a blot on the authorities in science, medicine and government – all coordinating to destroy this man and his work. Burning someone’s books and research goes against everything a free society stands for. Who knows what benefits we could have had if we still had his research papers today.

If the authorities in science and medicine were true and proven authorities then they would not fear any book or research done by any of their colleagues. An earned authority will allow all ideas to circulate and allow the public to go with the ones that are proven to be correct.

Maintaining authority over the treatment of cancer seems to be an important objective of the beast. Numerous innovators have been jailed or persecuted just because they have made statements to the effect that cancer can be cured, or helped, with their treatments. I met one such individual sometime ago who told me he developed an actual cure that was a combination of about 80 different herbs. He made the mistake of spreading the good news and sharing his discovery with numerous people and wound up in jail. After he got out of jail he was really careful about making any claims or going public. He did share his formula with a number of doctors under the table who used it and he told me that many people were cured of cancer by using the formula.

I read of many other accounts of doctors who have developed cures or medicines that greatly help people with cancer who end up being persecuted or prosecuted by the authorities. Part of the problem that really seems to bother the authorities is that many of the potential cures are very reasonable in cost whereas the orthodox cures are extremely expensive and make the medical establishment a handsome profit.

Here are four more doctors who been persecuted for their an unorthodox treatment of cancer taken from Dr. Mercola’s website:

Gaston Naessens – Dr. Naessens created a cancer treatment based on the theory that cancer is caused by a friendly microorganism called somatids “little bodies”) — which are present in all cells — that becomes unfriendly.

His formula, 714X, provides nitrogen to the cancer cells, thus causing this microorganism to cease excreting their toxic compounds, and mobilize your immune system to kill the cancer cells. He was subsequently put on trial for his cancer discoveries.

Stanislaw Burzynski– Dr. Burzynski, founder of the Houston-based Burzynski Institute, treats cancer patients with substances called antineoplastons. He was indicted by a grand jury in 1995 for his use of antineoplastons– his second trial that year. He was acquitted.

Ryke Geerd Hamer – Dr. Hamer’s “German New Medicine” (GNM), operates under the premise that every disease, including cancer, originates from an unexpected shock experience, and that all disease can be cured by resolving these underlying emotional traumas.

Dr. Hamer has spent time in prison for refusing to disavow his medical findings and stop treating his patients with his unorthodox techniques, and is currently living in exile, seeking asylum from persecution.

Science as it relates to medicine seems to be an area of much concern for the agents of the beast. Not only are large sums of money involved, but there is also a lot of authority exercised over the people, which thing the beast desires more than anything else.

Authorities in science, just as in other fields, do not like challenges anywhere to established authority. We will explore this further in the next lesson.

Affirmation: “I will question authority.”

 

Day 125

Closed Science

Authorities in science especially seek to control the debate concerning evolution, climate change and certain aspects of healthcare. They are very threatened if anyone not on their approved list obtains any type of voice that will challenge them in any way. Instead of debating and letting the facts speak for themselves they prefer to just silence their opposition.

The areas that involve big money, religion or public attention arouse the tightest control, but other areas of science are also subject to strong authority.

Einstein who, at one time, was the one challenging the accepted Newtonian system has now become the standard which is not to be challenged. His Theory of Relativity is considered almost sacred by all but a few scientists. Those who do have challenging ideas are quickly dismissed.

One of the interesting aspects of Einstein’s theory is how time is relative to speed. That is a faster you go the slower time goes. Scientists often gives the example of twin brothers where one twin stays on the earth and the other takes off in the spaceship to the nearest store system. In the journey the ship approaches the speed of light and by the time the twin returns the one twin that traveled may have only aged a couple years or as the other twin might have aged 10 or 20 years depending on how fast the twin traveled. They figure that the twin that traveled in the spaceship increased his speed relative to the earth and therefore time slowed down for him so he didn’t age as fast.

A twist on this at I’ve never seen answered is to reverse the relativity and see it from the viewpoint of the earth moving away from the twin’s spaceship. If you look at it in that light the twin who stayed on the earth should have aged at a slower rate.

Another sacred idea in science is the speed of light. The speed of light is about 186,000 milers per second in a vacuum and never varies no matter what. You could be on a spaceship traveling hundred thousand miles per second and shine a flashlight and relative you light will still go 186,000 miles per second. They say the speed of light always stays the same and we can never go beyond that limit.

We can’t really blame scientist for believing this because all measurements and mathematics seemed to verify it. Nevertheless a handful scientists believe the speed of light can be exceeded. For instance, the red shift of faraway galaxies indicate a speed faster than light.

What could solve all these ministries would be actual contact with an alien race. That brings us to another sensitive area of science. Most scientists are open to the fact that there is life out there somewhere in the universe since it’s so vast, but they’re closed to the idea that we may have been visited by extra terrestrials.

If we are ever are visited the first question I would want to ask is if they traveled faster than the speed of light to get here and if the idea of relativity about time slowing down actually played out for them in their travels.

Another area of science they don’t want to be challenged is the idea of the Big Bang. They say the Big Bang occurred about 13.8 billion years ago and before the Big Bang there was nothing except an infinitesimal point from which all things originated. This originating point was smaller than an atom, some say it was smaller than a quark. Some force completely unknown to science caused the point to just explode and create everything there is. When you think of it in some ways that’s much harder to believe then the ideas that some divine intelligence created the universe.

Some scientists challenge this theory providing evidence that some of the galaxies would have taken longer than 13 billion years to evolve. Some scientists think the universe is eternal and never had a beginning and others present evidence that the universe is not billions of years old but perhaps trillions. But scientists are not very open to alternative ideas especially if they involve any idea of God or higher intelligence.

Those who have challenged a lot of scientific theory have not got much traction and therefore the beast hasn’t come after them on these type of theories like they do on health, evolution and climate change. But if someone produced a best-selling book challenging Einstein’s theory or the Big Bang or something like that you would see the authority of the beast surface quite quickly.

Assignment: Religion and spiritual beliefs have been a favorite tool of the beast through the ages. Even sacred things such as the scriptures, the prophets and Jesus himself have been very useful tools. Contemplate on how this could be the case.

Affirmation: “That which appears to be is not always the truth.”

Copyright by J J Dewey

NEXT – Part 13

Links for the first 11 sections of this series.

Part 1,  Part 2,  Part 3,  Part 4,  Part 5,  Part 6Part 7, Part 8, Part 9, Part 10, Part 11

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

 

McCall Gathering 2007, Part 54

This entry is part 54 of 54 in the series McCall Gathering 2007

Closing remarks

JJ: I was going to go into cycles and global warming and what were we to expect in cycles. One of the things that I will say that I find kind of interesting is I have done some reflecting on the cycles and I think we will have a warming period as we are having now but I do not think that it will last and by somewhere around the year 2030 we are going to have another cooling period and then this global warming idea will have to be completely revamped in people’s minds because I do not know why but many people have it stuck in their mind that because we are releasing more carbon dioxide that we are just going to get warmer and warmer forever and they forget about the normal cycles that have been with us just about forever and ever.

Sharón: Light keepers say that always before a cooling period with the earth that it always looks like a warming cycle but then it cools and we head into a colder cycle.

JJ: That’s right, before every ice age there is a warming cycle. Those that seriously studied it are more worried about an ice age than global warming. Now it is possible that we are emitting enough carbon dioxide into the atmosphere to make the difference between an ice age and just a cooling period and that would be a nice thing. What would be funny and very humorous is if all this carbon dioxide and greenhouse gasses is actually going to save us from a drastic ice age for ice ages are a lot tougher on humanity than a warming cycle.

The last major ice age was about 11,500 years ago and then there was an even worse one about 30,000 years ago. An interesting book is “Unstoppable Global Warming every 1500 years” and he says that for the past couple million years there has been a 1500 year cycle of warming and cooling and these cycles are a part of greater cycles.

Here are some of the more recent ones: Between 600 to 200 BC we had an unnamed cool period that preceded the Roman warming then from 200 BC to about 600 AD. We had a warming period and then from 600 AD to 900 AD we had the dark ages that was also a cold age for we had a mini ice age during that time period. Then we had the medieval warming period between 900 to 1300 and during this time Greenland was discovered and it was actually green. They went there and raised hay and cattle and it was a lot warmer than it is today. Then from 1300 it started to cool and after that time people started to freeze to death in Greenland and all the villages could not sustain themselves with growing food anymore so they either had to leave or starve so there was hardly anyone left by around 1400.

From 1300 to 1850 was a little ice age and I think by 1816 or something like that we had a major volcanic eruption that spread ash all around the world and it became the year without a summer. This was a period of great distress all over the world and during this time period crops failed everywhere. It is a miracle that people survived as good as they did.

So we had the little ice age from 1300 to 1850. As this wasa winding down we were fighting the Revolutionary War. We just cannot appreciate the cold that the poor soldiers had to endure for the cold was extremely bitter, much worse than it is today. When George Washington crossed the Potomac there was all kinds of ice build up in the river because it was such a cool period and at Valley Forge everybody just about froze to death.

Then between 1850 to 1940 we had another warming period. especially between 1920 to 1940. Some may say that is because of all the carbon dioxide that we began to release into the atmosphere. But the first great s urge of Human caused CO2 began at World War II and from 1940 to 1975 we had a cooling period. So we had a lot of carbon dioxide going into the air and yet it cooled during 1940 to 1975 and right around 1975 when it had cooled for 25 years straight pretty much everybody was talking about that it looked like we were entering an ice age.

Newsweek had a big front page article about the coming ice age and that we had to do something to prevent it just like they are talking about today that we must do something to prevent the warming age. From 1979 to the present there is a large disparity between surface thermometers, which show a fairly strong warming, and independent satellite readings, which show only a slight warming, trend. Global warming alarmists emphasize the land based thermometers but what is interesting are satellite measurements that they think is more accurate show just a very slight warming trend.

What is interesting about global warming is that unfortunately it has become a political issue and one side of the political fence believes global warming hook, line and sinker and the other side of the global warming fence is accused of not believing in global warming which is not true. They believe it is mainly not man made and it is just a natural cycle but they are called global warming deniers and this is what they call people like me. This is incorrect named calling. I do not deny anything but am skeptical of any prediction that cannot yet be proven to be accurate.

Everyone that believes the way I do is not a global warming denier, we look at the temperature readings and accept them for what they are. The earth has warmed slightly over the past 100 years and the land based measurements say about a degree, the satellite measurements say maybe about a couple of a tenths of a degree or something like that. Whatever it is, that is what we accept.

But whatever it is, it has become a political issue with people throwing accusations back and forth. Instead of throwing accusations why don’t we look and discover what the real truth is. One meteorologist came forward and just questioned some of the views of global warming that were prevalent and one of bureaucrats in charge of the global warming thing comes up and threatens his job and he says I am going to destroy you completely unless you change your mind. A number of meteorologists have come forward to say that they disagree with some of the global warming conclusions and their jobs are threatened. There is a lot of threats and intimidation to try to attack anyone who comes presents an unorthodox view.

Why is it that they say that all the scientists agree on global warming? Well they created this IPCC (International Panel on Climate Change) for the UN that is supposedly composed of a whole bunch of scientists but unfortunately the leaders of the panel are not scientists but bureaucrats with an agenda and they pay these scientists to come up with research and if their research does not point in the direction that the bureaucrats want then they cease to get funding.

They take the findings from the scientists and compile them together to fulfill their own agenda. Scientists that are not connected with these panels come up with an all together different conclusion than the UN panels and the UN claim that they have ten thousand scientists or whatever but on the other side has written statements that are contrary to that too. So you have thousands of scientists against thousands of scientists and what is interesting is not so much that the scientists disagree but that we have different scientists with different motives.

The truth is we find what we look for and if the scientists are paid to find something then they will find something because if they do not find it then they lose their grant and funding and lose their jobs so they are going to find something that keeps their employer happy. The independent scientists that are looking into it have very different findings than the ones whose job depends on getting specific results.

The problem is that the political agenda behind global warming is not to save the planet from global warming it is to change our way of life. The plan is to take away 80% of the greenhouse gasses that we emit in the next 20, 30, 40, 50 years and that would completely alter our economy and they want us to do it without nuclear energy using only solar panels and wind power which with our current technology can only provide us with maybe 2% to 3% of our current use of energy.

Nuclear energy has the capacity to provide 100% of our needs but they are against doing that. Al Gore and many of the UN scientists are against using nuclear energy and the bureaucrats certainly are and so what their draconian steps would do is completely take away our prosperity and our potential for freedom so that we could be taken over by a dictator and a one world government in the wrong direction could materialize.

So this is something for people that believe in freedom to stand up for. The interesting thing about carbon dioxide is that when it is emitted as a greenhouse gas – as it increases in density it inversely decreases in its power to produce a greenhouse effect. So if you double the amount of carbon dioxide the amount of the effect is reduced by 50%. All the scientists that support the global warming theory do not tell you that. They just act like that if we double the amount of carbon dioxide then we will have double the effect. When we double the amount of carbon dioxide then the amount the increase will affect global warming will go way down. We would have to introduce a lot of carbon dioxide to produce the effect that they are trying to scare us into thinking that is happening.

Audience: Aren’t these people looking at France that gets like 88% of their energy from nuclear power?

JJ: France is doing great, they get 80% of their electricity from nuclear power. The same people that are against global warming are fighting to get France to switch to some other form of providing power. Right now Germany who is trying to be green has to buy much of their electricity from France because they cannot produce it with the solar panels and wind and all this type of thing and yet they preach to everybody about remaining green whereas France is a big supplier of electricity for Europe right now. France has their faults but in the way of energy they did it right. They entered the mental plane and they planned. This happened in the days of oil embargo and the middle east oil was threatened to go up about double in a two week time period and it scared the dickens out of everybody and France said that we do not have any oil resources so we have to do something practical. As a result they developed nuclear energy and I would say that France would be completely falling apart now if they had not done this and have that nuclear energy as a base.

We could have nuclear energy as a base and we could power the United States indefinitely. Instead of putting the nuclear waste in Yucca Mountain by using fast breeder reactors we could power this country for thousand years just recycling the waste and use the energy to power electric cars and be completely independent. But unfortunately President Clinton stopped the research into the breeder reactors. But fortunately France is continuing research in breeder reactors. So when we finally get enough common sense turn around on nuclear energy we will most likely have to go to France to get our breeder reactors. The breeder reactor was developed right here in Arco, Idaho and this is where they actually created the technology where they can reprocess the waste and turn it into power that could power us for a thousand years but because of short-sightedness this has become a pipe dream.

May the next generation be wiser than the last.

Copyright by J J Dewey

Index for Older Archives in the Process of Updating

Index for Recent Posts

Easy Access to All the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Global Warming Mistakes

This entry is part 47 of 73 in the series 2015

Nov 9, 2015

Global Warming Mistakes

Global warming alarmists want us to give them trillions of dollars so they can supposedly fight global warming as they live in luxury. If we do not do this we are doomed.

Why should we trust these clowns who are not as accurate as monkeys throwing darts at predictions?

Examples:

Al Gore predicted that the North Pole would be “ice-free” in the summer by around 2013 because of alleged “man-made global warming.”

The 2005 UNEP predictions claimed that, by 2010, some 50 million “climate refugees” would be frantically fleeing from those regions of the globe.

“New York will probably be like Florida 15 years from now.” — St. Louis Post-Dispatch, Sept. 17, 1989

Paul Ehrlich predicted in 1970 that half the world’s species would be extinct by 2000, and that all would be extinct by 2025.

In June 2008 ABC News Warned NYC Will Be Under Water by 2015

James Hansen, the most quoted climatologist, gave predictions that in the1980s have been off 400% on temperature and over 1000% on sea level rising.

(Because of warming by 1996) “The Mexican police will round up illegal American migrants surging into Mexico seeking work as field hands.” Michael Oppenheimer of the IPCC

In March 2000, David Viner, of the Climatic Research Unit claimed that in the UK “Snowfalls are now just a thing of the past.”

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

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

Global Warming Facts

This entry is part 29 of 73 in the series 2015

Oct 12, 2015

Global Warming Facts

Facts that the Global Warming Alarmist Hates.

Skeptics like myself do not deny facts, but use them to reach sound conclusions.

All scientists do not agree about manmade global warming. They agree that CO2 has an effect on climate, but they do not agree on how much that effect is. Guesses range from less than 1% to 100%.

Earth has had over ten times the present CO2 in past eons and life flourished.

Government plans to spend trillions to reduce CO2 will have little effect. If governments stay out of the way private enterprise will make green energies profitable.

CO2 is not a pollutant, but is a plant fertilizer. Plant life could not exist without a reasonable amount in the atmosphere. The earth is greener than it was 50 years ago because of increased CO2.

Mercury released by coal plants poses a much greater danger than CO2.

Contrary to alarmists predictions, no major hurricanes rated Category 3 or higher have struck U.S. soil during the past nine years.

Nuclear energy has reduced CO2 emissions many times that of wind and solar yet alarmists have generally fought against it.

Al Gore releases over twenty times the CO2 that I do.

Copyright 2015 by J J Dewey

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

Keys Writings 2014, Part 7

This entry is part 9 of 33 in the series 2014

May 4, 2014

Good and Evil

Joan:

I attend a monthly “shadow group” with 4 other women where we try to work out deeper issues that seem related to unconscious material. Which brings me to the idea of evil. (I get evil and sickness mixed up). Does being sick (mentally or physically) necessarily mean that evil is present?

 

JJ

I all depends on how you define evil. In the old days people had a pretty simple view of good and evil. Evil was basically that which angered God and good was something that pleased Him. Today some people have gone the other extreme and watered down the definition so much that nothing is evil.

 

When you think of it, it is silly to claim that the reality behind a word does not exist for all words represent something that does exist.  If good and evil did not really exist then we should completely eliminate them from our language.  We do not, because they represent something real just as all words do.

 

When we talk about the meaning of words though we should have their meaning clear in our minds and see that meaning in the language of principles as much as possible. Here is the definition I gave of good and evil the other day.

 

Good is that which moves us forward in the direction of greater freedom, health, happiness, peace, love, understanding and spiritual living.  Evil is that which takes us away from these things.

 

I added in “freedom” here as it is an additional ingredient I left out.

 

So to answer your question, yes, sickness implies there is some force present, taking one away from health and happiness.  It is of course, not evil in the form of some dragon-like devil afflicting a person, but it is technically caused by an evil force.

 

The trouble with the word “evil’ though is it is a strongly polarized word and unless great harm is being done it may be advisable to use something else in its place. Saying that sickness is caused by a lack of balance or wrong life choices is not so harsh as labeling it an evil thing.

 

Joan

I kind of see what you mean but sometimes I see “evil” as simply ignorance or lack of awareness due to any number of reasons and many times when one is able to finally see and literally wake-up to the truth, the “evil” disappears.

 

JJ

Ignorance does lead people in the direction of evil Many people followed Hitler in ignorance of where he was taking them. Ignorance can lead to a loss of freedom, health and happiness, which takes one in the direction of evil. Again, if someone makes a mistake through ignorance we generally do not label them as evil as it is such a charged word.  A seeker’s language should be as harmless as possible, but always silently understand the meaning behind events.

 

Joan

Anyway, one question I have is, if Jesus could make such “evil” disappear when he was literally walking the planet….could he not do the same today if he is alive on some other level, say in the heart of man–or in the dimension just beyond us? In other words, what would keep such an avatar from performing miracles in the present moment and curing us of disease, (should it be God’s will) and we ASK for help, for Him to do so?

 

JJ

Anytime one exercises enough true faith the door to the miraculous becomes open. However, each avatar has a different mission and plan behind it.  Jesus performed a lot of miracles as a part of the great plan.  Abraham Lincoln, another avatar, performed none (in the normal sense). Unless one is a high initiate, such as the Christ, he either needs to work with great faith of the patient or have assistance from an unseen entity who has decided to assist.

 

Joan:

Which brings me to the next issue I was hoping you could also shed light on for me. My friend, (and the leader of the “shadow group” I am involved in) believes that the only way a person can heal from darkness (evil, disease, negativity) is by facing and healing the shadow or unconscious.

 

JJ

This is often true, but not always.  Many illnesses are caused by denial or suppression of emotion and before the healing can take place those thoughts and feelings must be revealed, faced and sent to their right place.

 

Joan

I guess this friend of mine believes that prayer does not have enough power to transform a person. So now I am wondering the same.

 

JJ

Prayer is very helpful and a positive thing to do, but by itself does not transform a person. Some of the most annoying people I have ever met have been huge on praying very regularly. The most important thing for spiritual development is how you actually treat your brothers and sisters. In the parable of the Good Samaritan the injured man was ignored by a priest and a Levite, both of whom were known for their long prayers. The Samaritan, one not known for prayer, actually helped the guy. Jesus said:

 

Luke 10:33 But a certain Samaritan, as he journeyed, came where he was: and when he saw him, he had compassion on him,

Luke 10:34 And went to him, and bound up his wounds, pouring in oil and wine, and set him on his own beast, and brought him to an inn, and took care of him.

Luke 10:35 And on the morrow when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the host, and said unto him, Take care of him; and whatsoever thou spendest more, when I come again, I will repay thee. Which now of these three, thinkest thou, was neighbour unto him that fell among the thieves?

 

It sounds as if your group teacher may be on to some good things but I do not know enough about her to give much more judgment on her.

 

If there is anything you need greater clarification on, please ask.

 

May 5, 2014

Gospel of Banabas

Tom:

Was Jesus really crucified because this old Bible says he was not and Judas dressed as Jesus and was killed in his place?????????????  Give your point of view on this.

JJ

This book claiming to be from the time of Christ has not been tested to authenticate its age. Most experts think the Gospel of Banabas was written after 700 AD and if this is so then the writer knew fewer real facts about the crucifixion than we have available today.

For many centuries alternative views ha e been put forward on the details of the cucifxion. The idea that two people were involved probably came about because some of the inner circle taught that two people were involkved in the mission of the Messiah – Jesus and the Christ…Christ did exit the body at the crucifoixion causing Jesus to compain thgat his Lord had forsaken him. So technically Christ wasn’t crucified, but the man Jesus was.

Does it make sense that the government would publicly put a famous person to death for all to see and execute the wrong person? Not likely.

 

May 6, 2014

John Paul I

There seems to be a little confusion on my teachings concerning John Paul I and Jesus.  Yes, I said that Jesus came in the person of John Paul I but how he came is explained in more detail later by me. Here’s a quote from the archives:

Pope John the First who was only in office thirty-three days before he was killed. What we believe happened there is from DK who said right around the time Pope John I came into office The Master Jesus would attempt to take over the Catholic Church from the Vatican. What happened, is, I believe, Jesus overshadowed John Paul First. John Paul the First was not Jesus but Jesus worked through him. John Paul the First came to the Vatican and he was going to fire everybody and completely rearrange the Vatican. He saw the corruption there and he was making big changes. There is a book written about him that gives tremendous evidence that he was killed. poisoned. He was only in office thirty-three days!

Jesus was just working through John Paul the First. He was overshadowing him and working with him very closely. Jesus wasn’t reincarnated, just working with him very closely.

Archive #2306    LINK

I didn’t set 2020 as a date written in stone for another attempt but said it “may” happen as early as that. It is also quite possible that the Hierarchy is working with the current Pope as he is much more humble and receptive to change than anyone since John Paul I.  It is also possible he may be preparing the way for the real attempt that may come soon. I am concerned about his disparaging remarks about capitalism and would like to know more details about his real beliefs about freedom and communism. Sometimes a disciple will talk about the rejection of materialism in such a way that he sounds like he is against free enterprise when he is not.  He may merely be advocating attention on the spirit side of things rather than matter.

Ruth asks:

If Jesus overshadowed John Paul, then wouldn’t Jesus have been able to intuitively pick up the DBs thoughts about their plan to murder John Paul…

JJ

Someone asked the same question at the 2003 gathering and here is what I said:

Well, it depends on how closely he was listening at the time, I guess. You know maybe he did receive a warning. The person in the body is the one who makes a decision related to the body. There were times in my life where I received a warning about something and I thought, “this will be really awkward to obey this warning” and I found out the warning was correct. Maybe he did receive a warning and just ignored it. Maybe he couldn’t believe his brethren would betray him.

 

May 7, 2014

Earned Authority

Ruth says:

If that was the case, then JJ would have taught us the truth on this matter by now, surely.  To be an earned authority means one is reliable enough to teach the Truth.

JJ

First, I want to stress again that I am not infallible and students must run teachings by their own souls whether they come from me, an angel, a god or the National Enquirer.

Even an earned authority can never replace soul confirmation.  What we should do with an earned authority is give a lot of weight to what he or she says, but not accept without question if something seems amiss.  For instance, DK is an earned authority with me.  Ever so often I come across something he says that sounds a little unbelievable.  When this happens, because he is an earned authority, I do not automatically discount what he says, but give it a lot of weight and attempt to figure out how the words may be true. For instance he says that Jesus took the fifth initiation as Apollonius of Tyana.  The problem is that Apollonius was born at the same time that Jesus was supposed to have been.  That means hat Apollonius was seemingly alive at the same time Jesus was and it would appear that Jesus could not have been born as him.

If most teachers presented such a contradiction I would write it off as a highly probable mistake, but because DK is an earned authority I have spent a lot of thought reflecting on how this could be true and have come up with a number of possibilities.

When I first read DK’s teachings about the overshadowing of Jesus I had a difficult time accepting it because it went against my belief system at the time.  But I gave his words weight and later received confirmation of the principle.

I have not taught all I know and neither do I know all things.  There are a few things in history I have either received a revelation on or an intuitive glimpse, but on most things I have no greater advantage than anyone else. My gift in this life is the understanding of principles, the language of the soul.  I have not placed much attention of finding he details of history in the Akashic records.

Keith is going the right direction in contemplating all possibilities, even if they go against the grain.  There are many details of the life of Jesus that are hidden from all but the masters or those who have received a revelation for some purpose.  There are many things I do not know for sure about the life of Jesus and many other things in history.  Finding out what really happened in history will be one of the fun things to learn after death – for those who are ready.

There are several mysteries connected to the death and resurrection of Jesus that I do not know for sure and I, like the rest of the group, look forward to learning them.

Larry gave some good comments on this statement of Keith’s: “Judas suddenly going bad doesn’t make sense.”

He pointed out that people who are supporters  can indeed turn on you.  I have found this to be the case. Before writing The Immortal I had several teaching groups and gathered a number of people who were dedicated and it seemed they would do anything for me. But before the dust settled a number of them became enemies and probably would have sold me for 30 pieces of silver if someone would have offered.

Here is what I have found from my own experience.  When a seeker finds his teacher and shares the spiritual energies through the soul, he becomes altered, and if he goes against those higher energies his mind becomes dark and he loses his spiritual direction.

The words of Jesus were certainly true:

Matt 6:22 The light of the body is the eye: if therefore thine eye be single, thy whole body shall be full of light.

Matt 6:23 But if thine eye be evil, thy whole body shall be full of darkness. If therefore the light that is in thee be darkness, how great is that darkness!

When coming across a greater light the seeker has a chance to be “full of light” or great darkness.  This is one reason in this age the Brotherhood is cautious in giving out endowments of spiritual energy to seekers.

 

May 7, 2014

The Apollonius Mystery

Keith says:

I might have a solution for the Apollonius mystery. I have just finished reading Michael Newton’s book ‘Journey of Soul’s’ which I highly recommend. Michael takes clients into a theta hypnotic state in order to apprehend a persons history between lives. Michael has come across the occasional phenomena of highly developed souls splitting their essence into two different physical personalities at one time. If anybody is evolved enough to live two lives at once Jesus/Christ definitely fits the bill.

So Jesus and Apollonius were alive at the same time because Jesus/Christ split their soul essense between the two. Who knows maybe even more than two?

JJ

Good thinking Keith.  That is one of the possibilities I also came up with.  Great minds think on parallel lines they say.

Here’s another possibility. Jesus survived the crucifixion, as many legends relate. Something happened to the real Apollonius so Jesus assumed his identity because surfacing as Jesus made him a big target.

 

May 8, 2014

Global Warming

Here’s another letter to the Statesman that ought to get some comment.

Those in power who seek to scare the uneducated over an impending doom due to climate change say they want to save the planet, but their actions testify to the contrary.

How can this be?

Because they fight any energy source or breakthrough that has a chance of making a real reduction in CO2.

Nuclear energy has saved us from pumping over 28 billion tons of CO2 (many times that of wind and solar together) in the atmosphere in a 60 year period yet most alarmists fight it tooth and nail.

Natural gas has saved over 25 billion tons over coal yet alarmists show up protesting fracking.

Hydro may be the cleanest of all yet this bunch wants to tear down the dams.

Electric cars are now available, but most alarmists drive gas guzzlers and the wealthy ones fly without concern in private jets. Al Gore’s carbon footprint for just one of his mansions is about 20 times average.

What can we conclude from this? This bunch really isn’t concerned about saving the planet at all, but have another agenda which is to use global warning as an excuse to impose their political agenda on us.

 

May 9, 2014

The Good Guys

Keith:

I haven’t watched the Vikings yet, but my oldest daughter keeps telling me to watch the show. She tells me its better than Game of Thrones which I love. I asked Janine what Loki is like, and she said a dirty smelly blind guy who people like to lick. Thanks J.J. I think I’d rather be Loki. Lol

JJ

Your daughter is correct. The Game of Thrones is boring compared to the Vikings. The name of the guy Judy mentioned is Floki.  The nameless seer reminds me a little of you and he’s probably no more smelly than the rest of the bunch. He kind of plays the Obi-Wan Kenobi role of that time. They do have the odd custom of licking his hand after a reading.  Not sure if the Vikings of history did that or not. It is interesting that the story is based on real history.

Keith:

I haven’t received an impression about Obama being a former pharaoh, but he gives me the definite vibe that he was.

JJ

I don’t get a Pharaoh image of him but I do get the impression of a Roman Emperor.  Nero comes to mind.  He was more interested in being a celebrity than he was in good government and seemed to get out of being blamed for the decline that set in.

Keith:

It amazes me how the good guys get bumped off so easily. Examples being Caesar, Joseph Smith, Lincoln, Kennedy’s, Rev. King, John Paul I. It’s almost seems they are extremely careless. On the other hand getting rid of the bad guys is like trying to scrap the last bit of dog shit off ones shoe.

JJ

Good point and I like your imagery. DK actually talks about this problem the good guys have and points out that one of the reasons for it is they attempt to move their reforms too quickly and upset their enemies who see that their world could come crashing down.  He tells us that a lot of persecution and danger can be avoided by disciples by assessing the long term situation more accurately and moving ahead with wisdom and in a way that doesn’t overwhelm enemies with threats.  Jesus spoke along these lines telling his disciples to be as “wise as serpents and harmless as doves.”

There are times though that there is no way to move safely ahead. Lincoln was in a situations where he moved forward in about the best way possible and still he was killed.  There is always risk, but many disciples draw much more pain to themselves than necessary.

You would think these good guys would be more sensitive to inner warnings.  Lincoln received a dream of his funeral shortly before the assassination.

According to Plutarch, a seer had warned that harm would come to Caesar no later than the Ides of March. On his way to the Theatre of Pompey, where he would be assassinated, Caesar passed the seer and joked, “The ides of March have come,” meaning to say that the prophecy had not been fulfilled, to which the seer replied “Aye, Caesar; but not gone.” (From Wikipedia)

I read once that JFK had a negative feeling about going to Dallas.

Joseph Smith knew that he was going to be killed if he returned to Nauvoo.

Yes, the good guys often do not pay enough attention to the inner voice. I have found that it is wise to follow it even if you suffer a lot of inconvenience.

And you’re right.  Some of the bad guys just do not seem to go away.  Castro is a great example. That guy just keeps hanging on.

And you’re right about Seth.  Even though it was direct voice channeled the books still have some good information in them.  I would say they are the best teachings that have come out of an unconscious medium. Of course, they must be read in the light of the soul.

Keith:

O.K. I know – I got Spielberg and Lucas mixed up. I’m laughing at myself. Anyway my altimiers kicks in every now and then. Sometimes I can’t even remember the names and birthdays of my kids.

JJ I thought you were talking about Schindler’s List Where Speilberg did identify the true good guys and bad guys.  It is easy to recognize the bad guys in hindsight, but much more difficult in the present because they are usually highly accepted by the media. Until the vstart of WWII the media was soft on Hitler and Mussolini, even praising them at times, and were especially enamored with Stalin.  They hated Lincoln with a passion.

 

May 9, 2014

The Pope

This doesn’t sound good.  Any forced redistribution doesn’t help the rich or poor and leads to tyranny.

(AP) Pope Francis called Friday for governments to redistribute wealth and benefits to the poor in a new spirit of generosity to help curb the “economy of exclusion” that is taking hold today.

Francis made the appeal during a speech to U.N. Secretary-General Ban Ki-moon and the heads of major U.N. agencies who met in Rome this week.

Latin America’s first pope has frequently lashed out at the injustices of capitalism and the global economic system. On Friday, Francis called for the United Nations to promote a “worldwide ethical mobilization” of solidarity with the poor.

He said a more equal form of economic progress can be had through “the legitimate redistribution of economic benefits by the state, as well as indispensable cooperation between the private sector and civil society.”

Francis urged the U.N. to promote development goals that attack the root causes of poverty and hunger, protect the environment and ensure dignified labor for all.

LINK

 

May 11, 2014

Atheists After Death

Ruth asks if atheists really realize there is an afterlife after they die and if so, would they take that realization to the next life?

It is amusing that many atheists would rather be right and suffer annihilation than to be wrong and have a chance at eternal life.  After death, many of them are surrounded with a dark cloud because they expect nothing but eternal darkness.  After a time though they all come to the realization that they still exist and start to explore the spirit world.

The fact that they learn there is an afterlife doesn’t mean they will take it with the knowledge with them in their next life.  We knew many things in a higher state in the spirit world that we do not know here.  When we are born, we are born with a clean slate.  All we bring with us is our basic intelligence.

That which we assimilate during earth life, especially the understanding of principles, is strongly imbedded and much more likely to carry over into the next life than something we learn in the spirit world.

The material form is a very powerful veil that blocks spiritual knowledge and power until the time comes that the seeker sees through the material illusion and masters it.  When he places spirit as master over matter then the door of the soul swings open and more pure knowledge from his higher self becomes available.

Also all atheists do not go to the same place just as all believers in God do not.  An atheist who is kind and loving will go to a place where others are kind and loving whereas a mean spirited one will go to a place where there is a lower vibration.

 

May 11, 2014

Socialism vs Free Enterprise

Fifty years ago before the government stepped in to help us poor folk even the poor could afford good medical care and pay for it themselves. As proof I will relate a personal experience I have given out several times.

In 1958 I was injured in an explosion. Altogether I had six operations over several years and was in the hospital for a total of over three months. My first hospital room, when my stay was for a month, cost us $8 a day. That’s around $80 in today’s money.

My mother was recently divorced and received no child support and had no assets. She and I picked fruit in the summer and she worked for minimum wage at a potato processing plant in the winter.

We paid off the all the medical expenses with no help from the government. It would be impossible for a fruit picker to pay off such a bill today, but back then even the poor folk could afford to go to the doctor and the hospital.

Back then sometimes the doctor would put a person in the hospital overnight for observation because it was affordable by most.

Unfortunately today, a night in the hospital can cost around $4000 a day compared to the $80 (adjusted for inflation) that we paid. You don’t hear of anyone paying out of his own pocket to go there for a relaxing night of observation these days.

People complain about big oil but they have done a much better job of controlling prices than big hospital. Back in 1958 the price of gas was 39.9 cents [USD] per gallon and my hospital room was $8 a day. If the price of gas had escalated as much as a hospital room then we would be paying about $200.00 a gallon today instead of around $3.50.

In other words, we have $200.00 a gallon health care costs, and who do we look to for solutions? The same people who created the problem in the first place — our friends in the government.

Just think. If we had health care costs low like they were in 1958 then even illegal aliens and fruit pickers could afford to stay in the hospital. If costs were this low we wouldn’t even be thinking about socialized medicine as there would be no need for it.

I spent two years (1964-66) in England and was able to compare their socialized system with ours before the government started helping us.  Even though medical services in England were free we didn’t save much because our costs in America were already very low. On top of that, the doctors in England were really overworked as people went to them much more. I knew people who went to the doctor once a week whether they were sick or not. No one I knew in the U.S. went to the doctor unless they had some kind of need.

Because the doctors were so overworked they rushed the patients through.  I remember one time a doctor started writing me out a prescription when I was just in the middle of telling him what was wrong.  U.S. doctors were never rushed like that in my experience.

Then I went to a private doctor in England once that had to be paid outside the system and he was relaxed and took his time, just like an American doctor.

Even before Obamacare the U.S. medical system was about 60%socialized.  If you want to see how effective and efficient a real free enterprise system would be all we need to do is look back to the good old days before the government offered their help. Those were the days when a fruit picker could have a serious accident and pay off all the expenses of a three month stay in the hospital and six surgeries with no government help.

Government help has also driven up education costs.  Most of my friends and I paid our way through college (early Sixties) by working in the summer and working part time as we went through college. None of us had to take out a loan.

Reagan spoke truly when he said that the most terrifying words a taxpayer can hear is, “I am from the government and I am here to help you.

 

May 12, 2014

Re: Socialism vs Free Enterprise

JJ

What, which country are you from, Soryn?

Soryn:

A few observations though. Beginning with the title: the idea that a few socialist principles integrated into the society stand against free enterprise is incorrect.

JJ

It depends on whether the socialism is imposed by force or created through free will.  Generally, when it is imposed by force it is called socialism and when done through free will it is called a cooperative or some other name reflecting what it is.  A cooperative implies free will because cooperation is normally a free will endeavor. When that which someone sees as the ideal or a good plan is imposed by force then cooperation does not enter in much and the term socialism is usually used.

We could  technically call a cooperative free will socialism for it accomplishes a similar objective much more efficiently without the use of force.

I do not know if you have read my treatise on the Molecular Business, but it accomplishes the objectives of socialism, but with no force imposed by the government.  Everything in it is accomplished by free will and the battle of free will vs the ideal imposed by force is the main dividing line between the Brotherhood of Light and the Dark Brotherhood.

To read the treatise go to the archives at:

LINK

And read sections 187, 188, 190, 191, 192, 194, 195, 197, 201 and 205

Soryn:

People should still be able to get rich but it would prevent the rich from transforming certain shared facilities (such as education) into a money making business which defies their purpose.

JJ

Who cares if people make money teaching or running a school if it works well and does a good job of educating the kids? Many private schools do a great job.  In fact the last two presidents, Obama and Clinton, who were supposedly big supporters of public schools sent their kids to private schools.  Jimmy Carter was the last president to send his kid to a public school.

Soryn:

To be honest, I have nothing against private medical care as long as it is affordable to everyone, but that’s where the natural profit tendency of capitalism comes in and starts to favor people with power and money.

JJ

It doesn’t matter whether you go to a socialist country or a partially capitalist one (there are no fully capitalist counties available) the rich will always have an advantage.  The only way to take that advantage away is to make everyone rich and we are a long way from that.

The system we had in the U.S. before forced socialized medicine was introduced worked much better than anything in any European country today and it took no taxes at all to support the system.  Like I said even a fruit picker could afford the best of care.

Soryn:

I agree that doctors that work for the state are overused since the service is free, but solutions can be found to this (such as a better queue system for non-urgent cases).

JJ

I do not think any country on earth with socialized medicine has solved this problem.  But the problem did not even exist in the United States before 1964. Instead of going back to what worked, most want more of what doesn’t work.

Soryn:

Also, I totally support the idea of local food and small local entrepreneurship; most of those corporations are capitalist mutants that are driven by the simple idea of buying cheap and selling big. They go into China and India, buy and manufacture everything cheaply, and then go and sell it in the US and Western Europe. This is capitalist savagery in my eyes.

JJ

The large corporations work on the same principle as the local food entrepreneur. If you go to a farmer’s market you’ll see a wide variety of prices and much of the produce is a lot higher than the same thing at Walmart.  A lot of the big corporations that are accused of being greedy operate on a lot lower profit margin than the little guy. Often a small entrepreneur has to mark his goods up 50% or more just to survive whereas a  big company can operate on a margin of 20% or less.

Does this mean the small guy is the real greedy one?  No.  Both are doing what is necessary to make the wheels of commerce work.

Many harshly criticize corporations for going into the third world countries and using their cheap labor, but do not realize that they are doing the people a favor.  The employees realize this and gladly line up for the jobs.

You have to look at it from the corporation’s point of view. If Apple, or any other company, decides to expand their manufacturing they have two choices.  Hire locally and pay a high wage or expand overseas and pay a lower wage.  The disadvantage of expanding overseas is there are many other expenses besides the labor plus there is always the danger that some dictator could take over the facilities, as has happened many times in history.  As they examine all the costs and risks low wages is often the deciding factor.  Without the possibility of low wages they would not expand abroad but at home.

And what would be the result if no companies expanded abroad?

There would be much more starvation disease and death than now exist.  People in a poor third world country are not going to have money drop in their laps by magic.  Some business enterprise must enter their nation to help them move forward.  The solution is to start with low wages rather than none at all and the people strongly desire something rather than nothing and starvation if business does not expand there.

Once business interests get anchored in a country then wages start going up. China now has almost as many rich people as the United States and are buying as many cars as we are. A generation ago the well-to-do were lucky to be able to afford a bicycle.

After World War II Japan offered business very low wages and it seemed that all the cheap products bore the label, “made in Japan.” A short time later Japan became a wealthy nation and our products now say, “made in China.”  The wages are now going up in China, just as the did Japan. A country seeking to gain prosperity cannot just start at the top of the ladder but must climb up a step at a time just the way the United States and other countries have.

The problem with the thinking of many idealists is they think the problems of the world could be easily solved if government just forced people to do good.  Hitler and Lenin tried that and both of them failed miserably.  There are not enough goods and services available on this planet to make all comfortable if we just share everything.  The solution is to increase the amount of goods and services through free will by freeing up the human spirit to innovate.  Human innovation will eventually bring abundance for all.  How long that will be will be determined by the amount of freedom the people have.

 

May 14, 2014

Only 4% think they are below average intelligence.

LINK

 

May 15, 2014

Global Warming Again

Soryan

JJ, how would you comment those climate change proofs laid out on those sites?

They seem to have a lot of scientific evidence.

From what I understand, you say that global warming is only a construct for the government to take more money from people.

 

JJ

There is not what I have said. There has been some global warming the past century but any construct made of it comes from people not the warming itself.  Governments desiring more control and taxes are using it as a scare tactic and an excuse to gain more control.

 

Soryan:

Even if the global warming is not affected by CO2 emissions, the air in the big cities is certainly affected and something needs to be done in my opinion. Taxation can be a solution in some instances.

 

JJ

Global warming is affected by CO2.  That is not the debate.  The debate consists of two things.

(1) How much effect does CO2 have? Estimates are the warming is less than 1% to 100% caused by CO2.

(2) What we should do about it.

 

CO2 does not pollute our cities but is a plant fertilizer and the increase we have experienced has caused an increase of plant growth of around 15% which has wound up saving many lives from starvation.

 

Coal does give off a lot of pollutants and we should be working to replace it.

 

I have just placed a chapter from my book on global warming at freeread.  Take a read here:

Global Warming

 

May 16, 2014

Handwriting of Ayn Rand

LWK asked me to look at Ayn Rand’s handwriting.  I found a some samples on the internet so I’ll briefly say a few things.

First, if I had to imagine how her handwriting would look from what I know of her history and her writings I would have imagined quite close to what it turned out to be.

It shows she is intuitive, good powers of concentration, a self learner and one who is very curious about how things work.  She doesn’t like complexity and always tries to break the complex down to its simple parts.

She looks at things, even relationships from a mental rather than an emotional perspective, though she can be quite passionate when she lets herself go with the flow.

She has strong interests in the abstract philosophical side of life as well as the practical material side – something that definitely comes out in her writings.

She is a quick, accurate thinker – one that rarely gets deceived by outward show. Overall, her intelligence is very high.

She is very sure of herself that she is right and the only way to change her mind on something is through the use of some very good logic.

She is honest, but careful about what she reveals.

One thing that is a little surprising is a pessimistic attitude. She doesn’t fear the future and is happy to move toward it, but she’s not very trusting of human nature and not surprised when people make bad choices. She hoped for the best, but anticipated the worst.

It would be interesting to see the handwriting of Raj Patel who is the polar opposite of Ayn Rand, but can’t find any.

Larry:

JJ, what do you think of my idea here? Is this a worthwhile idea or just a waste of time? Should we try to coordinate our talking points and should we try to “sound bite” them so people, like Soryn, can understand lwk better and see that we speak with one voice (and visa versa)?

JJ

It’s always good to be on the same page as far as the definition of words go, but even when you make a great effort to have two in disagreement use the same definition, problems occur.  Remember a while back several had different definitions as to what “legal” was and I tried to get all parties to use the same one and they refused so real communication came to a standstill.

The bottom line is that if two really want to understand each other they will make an effort and do so.  If a person’s only goal is to be right then he will not understand the other person no matter what.

What is needed is a huge grass roots effort to teach the masses about the principle of freedom and how it can be wisely used in a free market, or a free market capitalism as well as how social programs can be tested with free principles.

The trouble with social programs today is that when they do not work someone then dictates that we do more of it.  A free society does not do more of something that is not efficient but makes changes until the ideal is reached.

Larry W

Could we start very small and make that business carry its own weight — bootstrap…?

JJ

A small business operating on a shoestring would not be able to demonstrate the principles.  The first one should be some type of manufacturing, production or possibly a service, and start with at least 24 employees.  A pure sales organization like real estate, wouldn’t work though a molecular business could incorporate salespeople. The first person who starts a successful one will have to have some reasonable financial resources to put it together and make it work.

 

May 16, 2014

Raj Patel

Soryn referred us to Raj Patel’s book and several other materials.  It would take several books to appropriately comment on them all, but I will say a few words about Patel.

I first heard about him several years ago on Benjamin Crème’s site.  There he was pretty much portrayed as the Second Coming of Christ. That kind of raised a red flag for me for rarely does Crème say anything that turns out to be accurate or correct.  Every prophecy I know of that he has made has failed miserably.

Crème is also a communist and most people he endorses are Marxists also – so I anticipated that Patel would lean that direction – which he does seem to do.

He has a strange combination of teachings.  He emphasizes a fairly nebulous direct democracy on one hand, and then voices support for big government and central control on the other. He can’t have it both ways.

On his video he tells us he is an Obama supporter but has been disappointed that he hasn’t used more executive power in getting things done.  He says he is encouraged that Obama is getting more “belligerent” and using a more aggressive approach.

He supports Obamacare and thinks that climate change is a major problem. He also has praise for regulations and seems to want more of them.

On the positive side he wants (as do I) to feed the hungry people of the world, for people to raise more of their own food and to go in a more organic and sustainable direction.

He wants all the poor people to have some land so they can grown their own food, but doesn’t say how to accomplish this.  He’s participated in several protests, (such as the Battle of Seattle in 1999) so perhaps he wants to forcefully take land from the rich and give it to the poor as Castro claimed to have done.

Some of the problems he articulates are real problems, but the solutions must take place through a maximum of free will and educating the public rather than dictating to them.

Soryn:

You say this and that about what Patel said. Can you link the video and the text please?

JJ

I’ve read a number of things about him and watched a couple videos on his web page at:

LINK

Raj discusses how individuals are working to take back the food supply system Tweet

View on rajpatel.org

Preview by Yahoo

 

One of the two that I watched there that was most revealing was “UCF – Global Perspective.” That was where he was glad that Obama was starting to use a “belligerent” approach to get things done.

Actually, I was thinking of continuing on the socialist – free enterprise subject for a while but instead of using the shotgun approach we should break it down to simple parts and talk about them.

First, the core difference between the left and right is in the use and constriction of freedom

On one extreme we cannot have anarchy and some destructive actions (like burglary, rape, murder etc) need to be restricted and on the other it is easy for those in authority to take away too many freedoms.

Some of the ideals of socialism are in a good direction such as relief from hunger, poverty, discrimination etc.

The question is – how many freedoms are we willing to sell down the river to accomplish these things and can they be accomplished in a state of maximum freedom (which has never existed in modern civilization).

I’d like to see some comments on this subject.

 

Copyright 2014 by J J Dewey

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

Global Warming

This entry is part 6 of 33 in the series 2014

– Chapter Seven –

(From the book, Fixing America)

Global Warming

It’s silly, really, to consider that a topic that belongs to science has become a prime source of political division. Could you imagine this happening to other subjects? We could hear dialog like this:

“So, you don’t believe in the sixth quark? You are a quark denier and must be a conservative.”

“So, you believe the moon was once a part of the earth do you? Then you must be liberal.”

Yes, this sounds like a very foolish way to demonize a person by placing him on his opposing political side, but, ironically, this is what is going on with global warming.

If two people look at the facts of global warming and come to different conclusions, this should not mean that one conclusion is conservative and one is liberal.

Yes, it shouldn’t mean this – so why are those on the opposite sides today so politically divided?

The answer is simple. Most people today have not made their decision on global warming because of a study of the science, but because of political indoctrination. This has happened on both sides of the political spectrum, and it greatly obscures the debate.

To make the case, I merely ask: who is the most famous proponent of global warming theory? A famous scientist?

Not hardly. We all know it is that famous politician, Al Gore.

And who are those that most widely accept his theories?

Yes. The same people who accept his politics.

The world would not be so divided on the subject if the greatest proponent was a scientist with no known political connections, and was willing to truthfully present his case and debate it.

The problem with Al Gore is he is willing to present his case to friendly faces, but will not debate or receive and answer questions from skeptics. A real scientist would generally have no problem defending his studies.

Thus, we have the situation that the current global warming debate is more of a political debate than it is scientific. In fact, this is the first time in recent history that the right and wrong of what is considered scientific consensus has been judged politically more than scientifically.

Don’t get me wrong – science alone without politics does have its dogmas and mindsets. For instance, anyone who presents evidence that seems to disprove the Big Bang Theory is somewhat seen as a heretic, and often his thoughts are automatically discounted; but the emotional heat from this is nothing like that produced by the Global Warming Theory.

He who goes against the standard model in global warming can lose his livelihood and even receive death threats. The different problem here is that the majority of heat the skeptic takes comes not from other scientists, but from bureaucrats and knee-jerk political extremists who don’t know the difference between Fahrenheit and Celsius.

In this country, we make a big deal over the fact that we have reasonable separation between science and religion. Vastly overlooked is the fact that a merging of science and politics is just as suppressive. True science is not determined by a consensus of political thought with scientific budgets controlled by partisan politics.

The problem with the political approach over the science is that the conclusions are presented as absolutes similar to the days of Galileo. Those presenting one side tell us there is a definite consensus, as if all scientists agree that there is an emergency and something must be done now or the apocalypse is on us.

The other side also has their illusions, some thinking that there is nothing to be concerned about.

The truth, as always, is somewhere in between. On one side we do not need to destroy our economy and way of life to reduce CO2 in the atmosphere; and, on the other, we have to realize we take some risks by altering the content of our atmosphere. We do need an alternative for fossil fuels for a number of reasons.

What is needed in the debate is to stick to science and a critical examination of the track record of the experts to estimate how much they can be trusted in the future; also, good old common sense is a great help.

First, let us examine how the experts performed in predicting weather the recent past.

It wasn’t long after Hurricane Katrina that Al Gore insinuated that it, and all current and future hurricanes, is caused by man-made global warming. After this, the politicians, the media and even many scientists jumped on the bandwagon.1

Time Magazine ran this headline on Aug 29, 2005:

“Is Global Warming Fueling Katrina?”

The article reads:

“So is global warming making the problem worse? Superficially, the numbers say yes.”

Politicians called for more restrictions on man-made activities causing CO2 emissions.

Then the scientific experts joined in by making alarming hurricane predictions supporting the idea.

There is a problem for those making predictions, however. When the time period for the prediction is over, we can then evaluate in black and white whether or not it was correct.

For the 2006 hurricane season, experts were predicting more Katrina-like storms, giving the jitters to millions of people across the land and fuel for global warming scare tactics. Experts were predicting up to 17 named storms, but we had nine. They were expecting ten hurricanes and we had half that number – five. 2006 was the calmest hurricane season in a decade and the first time since 1997 that only one storm made its way to the Gulf of Mexico.2

After the 2006 season ended, the experts were a little embarrassed but not discouraged. 2006 was a fluke they said, caused by a growing El Nino. 2007 will see terrible storms, they exclaimed. Again, they predicted Katrina-like storms for 2007, giving lots of fuel to the global warming camp. In fact, the predictions for 2007 were almost a duplication of 2006. The funny part is the results were also a duplication, with one variation – 2007 was even calmer than 2006. It had the least hurricane activity in 30 years.

In 2008 there was some increase of hurricane activity doing damage to Haiti and Cuba, but nothing stronger than a Category 2 reached the continental United States.

2009 was again much below average, similar to 2006, with no storm of hurricane force reaching the United States.3

The record shows a trend toward fewer hurricanes rather than an increase.

After listening to all the hype that didn’t materialize, my question is this. Were the experts’ predictions based on pure science, or were their predictions influenced by the doomsday expectations of the global warming crowd with their “consensus” of scientists?

If predictions of doom by scientific consensus were dismally off for the United States four years in a row, then why should we have faith in their climate predictions 100 years in the future?

If climate is not predictable within the space of a year, then why do these experts expect a linear progression of change for the next century and beyond?

In a somewhat ironic note, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. -not an expert, but definitely a spokesman – said in 2008, through the LA Times, that the lack of snow in the Washington DC area was caused by global warming. Then, after record-breaking snowstorms hit the area in 2010, his voice was nowhere to be found.

Now let us look at another area of prediction of a hot political topic by using scientific consensus.

In the Washington Post, Nov 19, 2007 we read:

 

The United Nations’ top AIDS scientists plan to acknowledge this week that they have long overestimated both the size and the course of the epidemic, which they now believe has been slowing for nearly a decade, according to U.N. documents prepared for the announcement. . .

The latest estimates, due to be released publicly Tuesday, put the number of annual new HIV infections at 2.5 million, a cut of more than 40 percent from last year’s estimate, documents show.

 

This is interesting. A consensus of the best scientists the U.N. can produce were off by a whopping 40% in predicting the HIV infections only one year in the future. If a consensus of scientists are so far off in using fairly easy-to-handle data as an increase in a disease one year in the future, then why on God’s green earth should we trust U.N. scientists who are predicting results of weather 100 years in the future?

Yes, that’s right. We are assured that current weather patterns caused by CO2 emissions will heat up the earth to unbearable proportions in a hundred years or less. In fact, the predictions get more alarming every day.

Here are a few headlines from the Drudge Report just within a period of a few days in 2007.

 

WARMING WARNING OF ‘UNRECOGNIZABLE’ EARTH

November 17, 2007

 

GLOBAL WARMING WARNING: EXTINCTION FOR THIRD OF ALL PLANT, ANIMAL SPECIES…

November 17, 2007

 

UN OFFICIAL WARNS IGNORING WARMING WOULD BE CRIMINALLY IRRESPONSIBLE

November 12, 2007

 

For years now, it seems that the news media gives us some alarmist warning almost daily about the dangers of global warming. Along with these warnings are statements such as:

 

“The debate is over…”

“All respectable scientists agree…”

“There is a scientific consensus…”

“Those who question are global warming deniers.”

 

Just as global warming is a charged issue, so is AIDS. Before the U.N. admitted its incompetence, anyone who dared suggest that AIDS was not spreading the way the scientific consensus said was targeted as a cold-hearted bigot. Only now, when the cat is out of the bag, can a skeptic speak openly about it, and then only with the highest of sensitivity.

The question that needs to be examined is this: how could respected U.N. scientists be off by 40% in their predictions of AIDS when they had all the tools at their disposal to make a fairly accurate prediction?

This same Washington Post article gives the answer:

 

Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the epidemic to help gather political and financial support for combating AIDS.

 

Perhaps a number of years from now, when it is undeniable that U.N. scientists were wrong about many of their predictions concerning global warming, we may read a similar statement as to why warming damage was so overestimated. It could read something like:

 

Critics have also said that U.N. officials overstated the extent of the effect of CO2 to help gather political and financial support for combating global warming and instituting cap and trade policies.

 

Indeed, global warming funding is big business. In 2009, the Obama administration raised Bush’s already high amount of $7.37 billion to $10.6 billion for climate-related programs, with a bonus amount of $68 billion from the stimulus passed in Feb 2009.4 If we include other nations in the U.N., there will be over $100 billion available to fight climate change. 5

If you don’t believe these respected scientists aren’t willing to stretch the decimal point a little to get some of these billions by sounding alarms, then I’ve got some acreage on Pluto I will be happy to sell you.

Just try to find a skeptic who is not mimicking the party line, yet is receiving any of these billions. You can’t do it.

The Climategate controversy created by insider leaked emails confirmed some of the worst accusations of the skeptics.

It was discovered that the U.N. scientists were sabotaging skeptical scientists’ research by either ignoring or denying Freedom of Information requests. The UK Guardian reported that of 105 requests to the university concerning the climatic research unit (CRU), which Phil Jones headed up to the end of December 2009, only 10 had been released in full.6

It has long been suspected by skeptics that the peer review process was stacked against anyone not agreeing with the standard, but, after Climategate, there is hard evidence. Let us look at one example.

Siberia is supposed to be the landmass with the most warming during the 20th century, so any evidence to the contrary would threaten orthodox conclusions. Many skeptics have been suspicious of conclusions drawn there.

Lars Kamel, a Swedish astrophysicist, was a skeptic who submitted a paper to be reviewed. Kamel analyzed the temperature records from weather stations in part of southern Siberia, around Lake Baikal. He claimed to find much less warming than the orthodox conclusions, despite analyzing much the same data.

Kamel told the UK Guardian: “Siberia is a test case, because it is supposed to be the land area with most warming in the 20th century.” The finding sounded important, but his paper was rejected by Geophysical Research Letters (GRL) that year.7

Rajendra Pachauri, chairman of the U.N.’s International Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), summed up the orthodox view toward skeptics:

 

I don’t want to get down to a personal level, but all you need to do is look at their backgrounds. They are people who deny the link between smoking and cancer; they are people who say that asbestos is as good as talcum powder – I hope that they apply it to their faces every day – and people who say that the only way to deal with HIV/AIDS is to screen the population on a regular basis and isolate those who are infected.8

 

With a bias like this, is there any surprise that skeptics have difficulty getting peer reviewed?

Here is an anonymous quote from a scientist commenting online that sums up the thinking of many skeptics:

 

When I publish in my field I have to release my data and let people challenge it. Why have the raw data (not the processed data) claiming climate AGW not been released? Why has the statistical methodology used in the analysis not been made available? Why isn’t the raw data published online for independent analysis? Why were the Siberian tree ring data so selective? Finally, can I say that if you try publishing a viewpoint radically against the accepted truth in a scientific field you are in big trouble!

 

After the damaging emails weakened the orthodox global warming argument, it seems that scientists began taking a more jaundiced look at the 2007 IPCC report. Several disturbing revelations surfaced.

First, it was discovered that the prediction that the glaciers in the Himalayas would melt by 2035 was off by centuries. How could such a miscalculation be included in a report that is touted as being created by thousands of the best scientists on earth and screened by the best of minds?

It turns out that the Himalayan prediction came not from any of their supposed pool of climate scientists, but a magazine article in which nothing was peer reviewed. This magazine article was quoted by a zealous environmental group in their World Wildlife Fund publication, and apparently made it from there to the prestigious IPCC report.9

The UK Telegraph, Feb 27, 2010, succinctly sums up quite a number of other errors discovered:

 

…that global warming was about to destroy 40 per cent of the Amazon rain forest and cut African crop yields by 50 per cent; that sea levels were rising dangerously; that hurricanes, droughts and other “extreme weather events” were getting worse. These were a handful of isolated errors in a massive report.10

 

After all the billions spent in support of global warning research, we deserve better than this.

On the other hand, how much is spent looking the other direction? Where do skeptics get their funding? Do they get their share of the public funds? Hardly. The fact is that many of them get no funding, but work with their own time and money. A few have gotten some funds from oil companies and other corporations. Orthodox global warming believers attack them as if they are the ones receiving the majority of the funds, but are they receiving billions to prove their point of view, as are the warmers? The largest funding that can be attributed to the global warming skeptics is $19 million given by ExxonMobil over a period of years to the Competitive Enterprise Institute and others who have come up with non-conformists data.11 Because of pressure from environmentalists, they have backed off the funding. Now, keep in mind that we’re talking about millions here, not billions, as in orthodox research. A billion is a thousand million. That’s over 5000 times the entire funding by ExxonMobil. Big difference.

Harris Rosen, Central Florida’s most famous hotel owner, has lashed out at false global warming-related predictions. He believes that because hurricane experts like William Gray have been making alarmist and false predictions over the past couple years, Florida’s businesses have lost billions of dollars of tourist revenue. He said that surveys show that 70% of the guests who do not return stay away because of the false and alarmist predictions.

Rosen is threatening a lawsuit so maybe an “I’m sorry” may not be enough this time.12

False hurricane predictions using global warming data are destructive, but nothing compared to false long-range predictions demanding long-range drastic solutions.

The hurricane predictions have the advantage of being proven right or wrong within a year, and now, after several years of drastic incompetence, they begin to lose their power to scare the daylights out of the people.

But, with global warming, the predictions focus on the end of the century, many decades away. There is no chance to prove whether the predictions are right or wrong before trillions of dollars are wasted, and civilization itself drained of its life-giving energy.

Let us briefly examine orthodox global warming points with detachment and see how it conforms to reason.

1. Authorities stress over and over that anyone who disagrees with them is a “climate change denier.”

If I have ever seen a piece of propaganda, it is the use of this phrase. If Hitler or Goebbels were alive today, they couldn’t have produced any greater piece of emotional diatribe to promote their cause.

For one thing I do not think such an animal as a “climate change denier” exists. Everyone left and right agree that the climate changes with time so this should be a non-issue.

To associate those who question orthodoxy with the neo-Nazis today who deny the holocaust is completely outrageous, and as low of an emotional approach as one can achieve. I’ve not seen anyone using this statement that is able to put together a logical sentence about global warming.

2. “The authorities agree.” Instead of explaining why they are correct, they merely try to make us think that all scientists agree with them; therefore, we must also agree.

Let me give several pieces of information that destroys this attack on people such as myself, and makes their arguments inconsequential:

(a) Skeptics are neither global warming nor climate change deniers. When the data verifies that it is getting warmer, we assume it is getting warmer; and when they indicate it is getting cooler, we assume it is getting cooler. To categorize those who disagree as not accepting that it has warmed some in the last century is extremely deceptive and disingenuous. This argument could be turned around and the skeptics could accuse many of being global cooling deniers since it has not warmed since 1998 (as of 2010 data). The disagreement is not over whether there is overall warming in the last century, but the cause.

Most skeptics believe CO2 does have an effect on warming, contrary to what they are accused of thinking. They just believe that it may not be the major factor as believed by bureaucrats.

The bureaucrats (and some scientists), on the other hand, consistently state that man-made CO2 is the cause of global warming. This position disagrees with their own scientists they quote. The IPCC report of 2007 gives the belief that around 50% of global warming is caused by man-made emissions. Bureaucrats generally speak as if it is 100%. This is very deceptive language, even based on their own data.

The 50% figure is very inflated and fanciful, according to many climate scientists. Models are not capable of proving the exact figure, but the data I have studied indicates it is very minimal.

New analysis of NASA satellite data may force a revision of the warming effect of CO2. They show the Earth’s atmosphere is allowing far more heat to be released into space than IPCC computer models have predicted.12A

Computer models can only be as accurate as their input data, and IPCC models have been feeding the computers a huge error in the amount of heat released into space. When (and if) this error is corrected, projected warming will be substantially less.

The question then is – are researchers honest enough to make the correction when funding may be at stake?

(b) Financing research. Data presented from the skeptics is often dismissed merely because of the accusation that anyone who disagrees is a lackey of the oil companies. True, oil companies have financed a small amount of research, but this is distorted beyond all reality, to the point of projecting that the poor little U.N. scientists are fighting a monster of overwhelming proportions to present the truth.

Nothing could be further from the truth. The United States government alone (as previously noted) spends $4 billion per year on climate change research. This accounts for about 99.5% of such money spent in this country on global warming research, and anyone who voices skepticism in any degree rarely gets any of this money.

(c) Projections by orthodoxy are inconsistent and change from year to year, decade to decade in unbelievable proportions, even to reversing conclusions.

During the last century, consensus has shifted at least four times between predicting global cooling and global warming. Global warming was often presented with the idea that an apocalyptic situation is near. Over a hundred years ago, it was predicted that Canada would be wiped out and billions would die in an impending ice age.13

In 1971, NASA’s James Hansen’s research was used to predict an ice age. On July 9, 1971, the Washington Post stated that the temperature was expected to decrease 6 degrees over the next 50 years due to automobile emissions, and the next 5-10 years could trigger an ice age.

The prediction was wrong in both cases. The temperature went up over the next decade, the fifty-year predicted period is almost up, and the temperature is higher still.

Presently, interpretation is totally reversed. James Hansen is now the poster boy for the orthodox man-made global warming theory. Hansen’s calculations are currently used to predict global warming instead of cooling.

Hansen does not have much of a track record for making predictions. In 1988, he told the U.S. Congress that temperature would rise 0.3°C by the end of the century (it rose 0.1°C), and that sea level would rise several feet. It never even rose an inch.

In 2001, the third IPCC report of the U.N. predicted a sea level rise of somewhere between 4 and 35.4 inches by the end of the century. Then, in 2007, the fourth report predicted 7 to 23 inches. Then, to top it off, the non-scientist Al Gore predicted up to 20 feet!

Does this sound like guesswork or what? The 2001 prediction of a sea level rise between 4 and 35.4 inches is a variance of almost a thousand percent!

That would be like me saying, “The wind speed tomorrow will be between 5 and 50 miles per hour.” If I predicted such a thing, a person of common sense would look at me cross-eyed, and figure I didn’t have a clue as to what the wind speed would be tomorrow.

The 2001 IPCC Report also predicted a steady rise in temperatures from the turn of the century to the year 2100, but temperatures have held steady or decreased in the last decade.

Now, look at the change of the minimum and maximums between 2001 and 2007:

 

Minimum: Sea level rise was increased from 4 inches to 7 inches, an increase of 175 percent.

 

Maximum: The maximum was reduced from 35.4 inches to 23 inches. That is a reduction of 35 percent.

 

If this wavering and inconsistency sounds like science to you, then I have some new ocean front property I’ll sell you in Idaho.

(d) Actual history does not agree with present CO2 global warming theory.

Between 1850 and 1940, the earth experienced a global warming trend. During this period, the release of human-caused CO2 was insignificant.

Between 1940 and 1976, we had global cooling and many scientists were predicting an ice age. The fact that the earth cooled when we had our first major surge of human-caused CO2 gives powerful evidence that the current alarmist trend is just that — an alarmist trend.

(e) As there is an increase in the percentage of CO2 in the atmosphere, there is a decrease in its greenhouse effect. This fact is often overlooked in computer models.14

The truth is that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and does produce an effect, but it is much smaller than projected by alarmists. You would think that CO2 is the main cause of the greenhouse effect, but it is only estimated to cause between 4.2% and 8.4% of it.15 That variance in estimate of about 100% just shows how difficult it is to pin down the exact effect of the gas.

In addition to this, an alarm is raised by the IPCC telling us that CO2 will remain in the atmosphere 50-200 years. This contrasts with geologists who say the time is more like five to ten years.16 Big difference. After reading about the deception in the IPCC from the leaked e-mails, I tend to go with the geologists.

Sometimes I think the alarmists do not believe their own doctrine, for most of them fight tooth and nail against the best two current solutions available, which are hydropower and nuclear energy. Instead, they offer us wind and solar power, which are unlikely to ever create a dent in CO2 emissions within the near future.

 

 

Not All Agree

Researchers Fred Singer & Dennis T. Avery tell us:

 

A survey of more than four hundred German, American, and Canadian climate researchers was reported in the UN Climate Change Bulletin in 1996. Only 10 percent of the researchers surveyed said they ‘strongly agree’ with the statement ‘We can say for certain that global warming is a process already underway.’ Close to half of the researchers surveyed-48 percent—said they didn’t have faith in the forecasts of the global climate models, the only strong argument in favor of quick, decisive international action to counter a dangerous global warming.

A 1997 survey of U.S. State Climatologists (the official climate monitors in each of the fifty states) found 90 percent agreeing that ‘scientific evidence indicates variations in global temperature are likely to be naturally occurring and cyclical over very long periods of time.’

In 1998, more than 17,000 scientists signed the Oregon Petition, expressing doubt about man-made global warming and opposing the Kyoto Protocol. More than 2,600 of the signers of this anti-Kyoto petition have climate science credentials. The petition was hosted by the Oregon Institute for Science and Medicine.17

 

Here is what Richard Lindzen, a meteorologist from MIT has written about ‘An Inconvenient Truth’:

 

A general characteristic of Mr. Gore’s approach is to assiduously ignore the fact that the earth and its climate are dynamic; they are always changing even without any external forcing. To treat all change as something to fear is bad enough; to do so in order to exploit that fear is much worse.18

 

Here are a few of Al Gore’s inaccuracies as stated by Senator James Inhofe:

 

• He promoted the now debunked ‘hockey stick’ temperature chart in an attempt to prove man’s overwhelming impact on the climate.

• He attempted to minimize the significance of the Medieval Warm period and the Little Ice Age.

• He insisted on a link between increased hurricane activity and global warming that most sciences believe does not exist.

• He asserted that today’s Arctic is experiencing unprecedented warmth while ignoring that temperatures in the 1930s were as warm or warmer.

• He claimed the Antarctic was warming and losing ice. He left out that is only true of a small region and the vast bulk has been cooling and gaining ice.

• He hyped unfounded fears that Greenland’s ice is in danger of disappearing.

• He erroneously claimed that ice cap on Mt. Kilimanjaro is disappearing due to global warming, even while the region cools and researchers blame the ice loss on local land-use practices.

• He made assertions of massive future sea level rise that is way outside of any supposed scientific ‘consensus’ and is not supported in even the most alarmist literature.

• He incorrectly implied that a Peruvian glacier’s retreat is due to global warming, while ignoring the fact that the region has been cooling since the 1930s and other glaciers in South America are advancing.

• He blamed global warming for water loss in Africa’s Lake Chad, despite NASA scientists concluding that local population and grazing factors are the more likely culprits.

• He inaccurately claimed polar bears are drowning in significant numbers due to melting ice when in fact they are thriving.

 

Al Gore completely failed to inform viewers that the 48 scientists who accused President Bush of distorting science were part of a political advocacy group set up to support Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry in 2004.19

A high court judge in England seemed to agree with Senator Inhofe and ruled that “An Inconvenient Truth” made nine claims that were not scientifically founded.20

There are many more arguments that can be made to show that the debate is not over on the truth of man-caused global warming. I just want to make enough points to instill doubt in the mind of the reader that what orthodoxy tells us may not be fully true. There are numerous good books by skeptics. One of the best I have found so far is “Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years” By S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery.

“So, you doubt the scientific consensus,” says the conformist. “What do you suggest we do then, drive gas guzzling SUVs and Hummers? Should we keep building coal-fired plants and drill for oil until the last drop is gone? Surely you must accept that CO2 has some effect. Should we do nothing?”

 

 

The Answer

Global warming alarmists have an unrealistic view of global warming skeptics. Among popular untrue assumptions are:

False assumption one: Skeptics do not believe the earth is warming.

The truth: The vast majority of the skeptics do believe the earth is warming and accept the scientific data until proven otherwise. There is a variance between satellite measurements and earth-based measurements. The satellite measurements, which are thought to be more accurate, show a lesser warming than the earth-based measurements, but alarmists ignore this fact.

False assumption two: Skeptics believe that humans are not a factor in global warming.

The truth: Again, the vast majority of skeptics believe that man-made emissions are a factor, but a small factor or, at worst, an unknown factor; and not the magnitude of alarm believers proclaim. It’s a little like accepting the scientific probability that a comet will hit us sometime in the far future. It could happen, but the probability is not high enough to lose sleep over. The earth could continue to warm for some time, but skeptics believe in the probability that a natural cooling cycle will kick in sooner or later and offset this.

False assumption three: Skeptics are like the flat-earth people of the past and reject science.

The truth: From my experience and study, the skeptics are much more scientific in their thinking and reality based than are the alarmists. Many of the alarmists pick and choose pieces of data that seem to fit their mindset, whereas the skeptics are more likely to look at the whole picture. For instance, most alarmists ignore the fact that from 1940-1978 the world had a cooling trend, even though we were experiencing the first major surge of CO2 emissions.

False assumption four: Skeptics do not care about the earth or the environment.

The truth: This is an attempt to demonize opposition to their consensus thinking. Skeptics are just as concerned (as a whole) as are the alarmists about Mother Earth. The difference is that alarmists want to press forward with drastic changes that often make little sense or will have little effect. Skeptics want to make changes that will have a measurable positive effect and help mankind, as well as the environment.

False assumption five: Skeptics do not want to do anything. At least the believers want to do something.

The truth: Even though skeptics are not worked into a frenzied state of alarm, many are happy to work toward common sense solutions to reducing man-made emissions. After all, they do have some effect and the safe path is to eventually reduce emissions.

This brings us to what should be some points of consensus regarding this problem. Here are items on which both believers and skeptics can agree:

 

(1) The earth is limited in oil resources. Sooner or later, we will have to switch to other energy sources. We might as well start now working in this direction.

(2) Limited oil resources could lead to many future wars and conflicts, which could be avoided by developing alternatives.

(3) We import close to 70% of our oil from foreign sources, many of them openly hostile to us and with the ability to hold us hostage. Anyone with a common sense on either side would agree that reducing these imports is desirable.

(4) Burning oil produces greenhouses gases, and both sides agree it would be safer to reduce them rather than to increase. Even many skeptics are concerned, just not alarmed to apocalyptic proportions. It would thus be desirable environmentally, from both sides, to reduce dependence on oil.

(5) Both sides generally feel it is desirable to reduce our dependence of coal-fired plants. These not only release CO2, but other contaminants such as mercury and more radioactive elements than a nuclear plant.

 

The truly big issue concerning global warming is how to reduce manmade greenhouse gas emissions? Unfortunately, there are two huge divisions, which are:

Division One: The alarmists want to reduce greenhouses gases in ways that will limit or remove certain freedoms. For instance, most support greenhouse gas decrees and laws plus taxes and fines, not only nationally, but also through the United Nations. Many consider the Cap and Trade legislation in the United States as a necessary but drastic solution. They believe this risk to our freedom is necessary because of the alarmist situation.

The skeptics only want to use law where absolutely necessary, giving no extra power to the U.N. and working with the free market as much as possible.

Division Two: The alarmists generally lean toward socialism and are anti-capitalists. They generally favor solutions that promote their social agenda and big government. There are exceptions, of course.

One of the worries of the skeptics is that the global warming movement has attracted the support of many ex-communists, socialists and enemies of the United States. These skeptics have grave concerns that the global warming movement could be a Trojan Horse to destroy our economy and freedom, and yet produce little effect on reducing greenhouse gases. They see the alarmist cries as a ploy to further their agenda more than true concern over rising sea levels.

It’s too bad this last division exists, because it has little to do with global warming itself. Instead, the division is over the true motivations of the movers and shakers behind the movement.

In seeking a synthesis that can unite, we must take the two above differences into consideration, and create goals that both sides can accept. Here are a few:

 

(1) Promote hybrid technology.

The best selling hybrid car, which is the Honda Prius, gets around 50 miles per gallon, yet is still a comfortable car for general use. Others are coming forward with more fuel-efficient hybrids all the time, and plug-in cars are being introduced.

The plug-in Prius is expected to average at least 112 MPG. Part of the reason is a lighter, more efficient lithium-ion battery. This new generation of batteries will not only make hybrids more efficient, but will pave the way for the first truly practical all-electric vehicles.

Both sides of the equation stand in the way of maximizing this solution.

The believers will mouth support of the hybrids, yet are slow to actually buy and use the most fuel-efficient cars. I don’t know how many times I’ve seen a global warming believer asked what kind of car he drives and it turns out to be a standard fuel-guzzling SUV; asked why, believers like Robert Kennedy Jr. have a ready answer such as, “I have a big family and need one.”

Congressman John Kerry had a more creative answer. He merely said, “This is my wife’s SUV.”

Many wealthy alarmists, such as Al Gore, offset any savings on the road when they take private jets, where one trip can burn many times the amount an SUV does in a year. Barbara Streisand has SUVs, but usually ops to drive a motor home to work. The carbon footprint of her mansion has to be enormous.

In 2009, hybrids accounted for less than 3% of cars sold in the U.S., and even less in 2010. This seems hypocritical when over 50% of the voters elect lawmakers who want to use drastic measures to reduce our carbon footprint.21 Something doesn’t add up here. If we were in a state of emergency, then it would seem that the least a global warming supporter could do is buy a hybrid. This would have a much bigger impact than switching to fluorescent bulbs.

Another interesting fact about hybrids is that their sales spike whenever there is an increase in the price of gas. This indicates that people switch to them, not to save the planet, but to save a buck. There’s no way of knowing how many skeptics buy hybrids, but I would guess there are quite a few. I plan on buying one for my next car, and I am a skeptic.

We have a problem with hypocrisy of the alarmists, but there is also a problem with the skeptics. Some of them are very negative toward hybrid technology for no good reason, and make fun of people who drive them. Hybrids make good ecological sense, are economical to drive, reduce the need for foreign oil, and are comfortable to drive – some even say fun. The only downside is they cost a little more, but that will be offset as more are sold.

Hybrid vehicle technology makes a lot of sense, especially when over 100 mpg is reached. Resistance is futile. It’s only a matter of time before the majority supports it.

 

(2) Solar Power

Both sides support the use of solar power, but view it from different perspectives. The alarmists seem to believe that it can be a major factor in energy independence. The skeptics seem to be more practical and see it as helpful, but hardly making a dent in our energy needs in the near future.

In 2009, according to the Energy Information Administration, solar energy only accounted for a mere three tenths of one percent of the nation’s energy needs. This means there was only enough solar energy sold to supply one person in 333 with this alternative source.22

Again, there is something strange going on here. Over half the people demand solar as a solution to global warming, but they will not buy it themselves. Since this seems to be their number one choice, you’d think well-to-do alarmists would install solar panels, but few do. Even wealthy Al Gore was criticized for having no solar panels; shortly after his film “An Inconvenient Truth” he acquiesced and stated he intended to install them. The last I heard, he finally put in a few.

My question to alarmists is this: if you really see impending doom through global warming, and solar energy as the best solution, then why will you not install solar panels yourselves, especially in the states with government incentives?

The answer must be the same as to why they do not buy hybrid vehicles.

As far as being a clean renewable energy source, solar power is a definite improvement over fossil fuels. Some see it as free energy and completely pollution free, but this is not quite so.

Producing the materials (vast quantities of steel, glass, and concrete) for deployment of a solar hardware requires about 3% as much coal burning as producing the same amount of electricity by direct coal burning.23

In addition to this, solar panels often use cadmium compounds, which are very poisonous and must be replaced and properly disposed of periodically.

The greatest pollution problem is space, and this item alone could prevent standard solar energy from supplying more than a couple percent of our energy needs – unless a breakthrough is made.

The authors of the popular book “Superfreakonomics,” after consulting experts, make this observation:

 

Although a widespread conversion to solar power might seem appealing, the reality is tricky. The energy consumed by building the thousands of new solar plants necessary to replace coal-burning and other power plants would create a huge long-term warming debt… Eventually, we’d have a great carbon-free energy infrastructure but only after making emissions and global warming worse every year until we’re done building out the solar plants, which could take thirty to fifty years.24

 

Consider this: If we could convert 100% of the sun’s energy into electricity, a square foot of land at the equator would supply enough energy to light a 125 watt light bulb. But then if we take the nighttime or the variable weather into consideration, we would only have enough for a 22-watt bulb. The big problem is that we only convert about 14% of this into energy, so this reduces the power to 3.1 watts. Finally, if we move our solar collector to a more probable location in the United States – where most of us live – the power is reduced to around a single watt.

To build a solar energy plant equal to the power of a typical coal burning one of a billion watt capacity would occupy a space of 40 square miles.

To even come close to supplying our energy needs, we would need about 400 plants, which would require (figuring maintenance roads and access) 24,000 square miles of ground, which is almost equal to the surface area of Connecticut, Delaware, Rhode Island, New Hampshire and New Jersey combined.

On this ground, there could be no farming, no fishing, no hunting, no camping etc., and would be a great eyesore on the environment.

It is true we may have a breakthrough in energy conversion, but even if efficiency went from 14% to 20%, it would remain impractical as a large-scale energy source.

Another problem is that in large population centers (New York, Boston, and Chicago) where the greatest amount of energy is needed, the amount of sun available is much less, and transporting electricity from solar power over long distances is impractical and involves large energy loss.

And Great Britain and other northern nations are out of the question. It would take about half of the surface area of that country to supply power through solar means. If you ever lived there, you would understand.

The main reason there is not greater proliferation of solar power is the cost. Each watt created by solar power just costs more than those produced by coal, oil, nuclear or natural gas.

 

 

(3) Geothermal

Again, both sides support geothermal energy, but the supply is very limited.

This has some potential here in the United States, but until greater technology is developed to retrieve it from deep within the earth, this will only supply a small amount of our needs. We currently receive about a third of one percent of our electrical power from geothermal,25 and the maximum projected would be 4.6%.

 

 

(4) Bio-Fuels

The most discussed bio-fuel is ethanol. Many from both sides of the environmental spectrum support this alternative.

The advantages of ethanol are that it burns cleaner than regular gas and reduces our dependence on foreign oil. Some claim that it reduces pollutants and carbon within the engine, extending its life. There seems to be no disadvantage.

But…

I talked to a mechanic a while back who told me what he thought was a major problem of which most is not aware. He said that because ethanol burns hotter than regular gasoline, it causes the O-rings to harden, causing engine problems. He told me that if I wanted to get maximum mileage out of my engine to not use it often. He said using it one tank out of ten might be useful to keep your engine clean, but not to use it regularly.

Another major drawback is that it requires a tremendous amount of energy to create this energy source. The main source for ethanol in the United States is corn, and when the energy to run the farm equipment, create fertilizer and run the refineries to create the ethanol is considered, the net energy savings becomes negligible. Some contend that it takes more energy to create ethanol than it releases, and others a little less, but all have to concede it is like borrowing from Peter to pay Paul. We borrow energy to create energy.

Another strike against bio-fuels is they are made from grain, which causes the cost of such products to rise dramatically. This not only creates hardship for people in the United States – where corn, milk and beef are more costly because feed prices have risen – but this also means that food exports to Third World countries will decrease and prices will rise. Corn prices in Mexico have gone through the roof thanks to ethanol production consuming so much of it. Unfortunately, things will only get worse because do-gooders in Congress are mandating increased ethanol production.

The elephant in the room that tells us that ethanol from corn will not be a big part of any long-term energy solution is this: if we converted all the corn produced in the United States to ethanol, leaving none for animals or humans to consume, this would only give us enough fuel to replace 12% of our gasoline.26

Truly, any mandate that forces us to convert a higher percentage of our land to corn or corn-to-ethanol production is not in our best interests.

Yet another major drawback is that more ethanol production requires more land, and the land would be in continuous use. This country, and the world, has a limited amount of farm ground available. We will be lucky to have enough food to feed the world, let alone have excess to convert into fuel.

In 2011, ethanol production provides about enough energy to power the United States for one day. We are paying a high price for such a small benefit.

Some are under the illusion that the energy value of one gallon of ethanol is equivalent to one gallon of gasoline. The truth is that it takes 1.53 gallons of ethanol to equal the energy in one gallon of gasoline.27

If we already do not have enough to be concerned with, a news story tells us that a big problem is being created by nitrogen fertilizer run-offs in the Corn Belt states. This waste is making its way to the Mississippi River and then to the Gulf of Mexico, where it contributes to a growing 7,900 square mile dead zone with such oxygen depletion that fish, crabs and shrimp suffocate.28

When all things are taken into consideration, it seems to make much more ecological sense to drill for oil in ANWR in Alaska, (or anywhere for that matter) where only a couple square miles will be affected.

What effect do bio-fuels have as far as releasing greenhouse gases? Advocates say none, and here is their logic: bio-fuel only releases the CO2 from the plant that was taken in from the atmosphere. Corn takes in CO2 from the atmosphere, and burning it puts it back in making for a zero sum gain. Therefore, there are zero overall increases produced in CO2.

But, not so fast… A lot of energy is needed to grow the crops, and this includes gasoline, oil, coal, natural gas and other energy sources. Even if clean-burning natural gas is used, this means that more coal has to be burned somewhere else. Because it takes as much or more energy to create bio-fuels as they save, there is not much net reduction in greenhouse gases.

 

 

(5) Conservation

Both sides support energy conservation, but, again, each has a different approach. The alarmists want mandates with the force of law behind them, and the skeptics want to work with free will and work with incentives.

In U.S. households, simple heating and cooling accounts for about 90% of domestic energy used. Therefore, anything we can do within reason to make homes more energy efficient is helpful. Innovations are being made all the time and are being accepted and incorporated.

The second major goal of energy conservation is our vehicles of transportation. Again, the alarmists want mandates enforced by law and the skeptics, as a whole, prefer incentives.

Right now, hybrid technology offers the best solution, as mentioned earlier, but small economical gas-powered vehicles and all- electric vehicles are becoming available.

Unfortunately, the above five solutions are about the only ones widely supported by global warming alarmists.

“But,” says one, “they support wind power, don’t they?”

Don’t be so sure.

A few years ago, almost all environmentalists, global warming alarmists and the political Left endorsed wind power as the panacea for all our energy problems. It didn’t take long, though, before a crack in this united support began to occur.

The first problem began to surface when environmentalists became aware that birds, sometimes even endangered ones, were being killed by flying into the great revolving blades of the windmills. Suddenly, the question emerged: was this green energy worth the sacrifice of a few birds? Some thought yes and some no. Thus, the division began and is increasing. Then, a coalition of environmental groups sued the Texas Land Commissioner to delay or completely halt the construction of a giant wind farm of 60,000 acres south of Corpus Christi. The suit alleges that the windmills “could kill untold numbers of migratory birds and damage the bay.”

(American Statesman, Dec 5, 2007)

Soon other problems surfaced – pollution problems. No, it wasn’t greenhouse gas pollution, but other types.

First, noise pollution. Those who lived near a wind farm discovered these machines do not operate in silence, but give off an annoying hum. Some wind farms have been threatened with lawsuits for disturbing the peace.

Second, visual pollution. When the first wind turbines came out, most people thought they looked cool, but as they proliferated, the visual novelty subsided. Now, even strong environmentalists are fed up with the visual pollution. Even such global warming alarmists as the late Ted Kennedy and Robert F Kennedy, Jr. condemned windmills if built in their own back yards.

And that is just what has happened. For almost a decade the Kennedys opposed the construction of a wind farm near Cape Cod.28 What kind of message does this send to other wind energy investors? Perhaps to stay away from a project that may not get approval, even after ten years.

Actually, the proposed wind farm is about six miles out at sea and, from the Kennedy home, they are barely visible even on a clear sunny day. Still, this is seen as an invasion to the Kennedy pristine view. Ted Kennedy gave his reason for opposing the green energy:

“But don’t you realize — that’s where I sail!”29

In the beginning, Robert Kennedy Jr. didn’t seem to have much of a reason to oppose the wind farm (outside of wanting a pristine view) but, after he came under fire from fellow environmentalists, he came up with some additional reasons. He added that the wind farm could hurt the fishing industry and destroy tourism.

The Alliance to Protect Nantucket Sound filed a lawsuit in June 2010, claiming the federal approvals violated the Endangered Species Act, Migratory Bird Treaty Act, and National Environmental Policy Act.

If the $2.5 billion project is ever completed the electricity from it is expected to cost double that of other current sources so making a profit may be a problem.

On the other hand, proponents believe it will increase tourism and add more jobs than it will cost. A wind farm at sea can be a great tourist draw, especially to environmental types.30

The third problem with wind energy is with weather pollution. Research is just beginning on how a high density of wind turbines may affect the weather.

Charles Meneveau, a turbulence expert at Johns Hopkins’ Whiting School of Engineering said that “dense clusters of wind turbines also could affect nearby temperatures and humidity levels, and cumulatively, perhaps, alter local weather conditions.”31

Believe me, as soon as environmentalists realize that wind turbines could alter weather, many more will turn against them.

Wind has other drawbacks. One of them is very similar to solar in the fact that the materials for construction also require considerable outlay of energy (probably from coal) to produce.

There are also a limited number of geographical areas where there is sufficient wind to make wind farms economically feasible. We would be limited in how much we could use this source, even if we decided to move ahead full speed with it.

Many think that when wind farm construction is completed, the power plant is home free expense-wise. This is not the case, as maintenance and repairs have been higher than projected. One will often see non-working wind turbines because of some operating problem waiting for repairs.

A final problem is their unreliability. Wind does not blow consistently 24 hours a day, and since electricity from wind power cannot be stored, there will be gaps where power generated at one time may be only half as much as the day before. A community that uses wind power must have a backup source of power for windless days.

Some fairly large companies who have invested in wind power have later abandoned the projects because of financial loss. But, there are other, mostly smaller, companies that persist in perfecting this source in the hope of a better, cleaner world.

 

 

Other Alternatives

There are a number of potential green technologies that alarmists encourage and act like they would support if developed, but would they?

They claim to encourage ocean wave technology, but what if new methods of energy production turn out to kill a few fish, like the windmills kill a few birds? Suppose one of the Kennedys finds a wave turbine in the way of his yacht – what then?

Global warming alarmists claim to support putting solar reflectors on the moon and microwaving the energy back, but what if there is an increase of cancer from the microwaves – or even the rumor of such? All of a sudden, the alarmists would seek to sabotage the many billions spent on the project.

Others support going to the moon and mining for Helium 3, which is believed to be a source of clean nuclear energy. But will someone find some danger in the nuclear processes that will be developed for converting it to energy? You can bet on it.

Still others want hydrogen power, but when alarmists realize that it presently takes the burning of more coal to create hydrogen then the power released, the enthusiasm will change to protest.

Then, we have the granddaddy hope of them all – hydrogen fusion. The technology to produce energy using this method has not arrived yet, and it will most probably cost many billions of dollars to perfect. Today, many alarmists support research on nuclear fusion, but some are just spooked by anything with the word “nuclear” in it.

It would be a shame to spend a trillion or so developing nuclear fusion plants, only to be met with screaming protesters wanting them shut down because of some miniscule danger that might develop.

The problem with working with the alarmists boils down to this: there are only three partial solutions that they presently accept. (I say “presently” because they may even turn on these).

These three are solar, geothermal and conservation. Solar and geothermal combined supply less than 1% of our energy needs, so no solution is in sight from these sources.

When this is pointed out, they always turn to the importance of conservation. But the stark truth is this: conservation is not a solution. It has never in our history resulted in a permanent reduction of energy consumption. Even with the most supportive president and Congress, the best conservation has done is make growth a little slower than it would have otherwise been.

But hope springs eternal. With no evidence whatsoever, alarmists keep telling us that conservation can be a major factor in solving our energy problems and CO2 emissions.

This is just plain false. Conservation can slow energy growth and that is all. There is no evidence it can do more than this.

Now, here is what is scary about the plan put forth by the alarmists. They want to mandate by law a great reduction in any energy source that releases CO2, but have no plan to replace the energy that will be eliminated. If Al Gore has his way, and we reduce energy consumption that produces CO2 by 90 percent by 2050 with no way to replace that energy, what will happen? Using conservation only, we would have a depression that would make the Great Depression seem like the good old days.32

Alarmists seem to think that if they pass a law saying we have to reduce CO2-related energy use by 90%, such energy will somehow be magically replaced, as if by osmosis of some kind.

It would be nice if such blind faith worked, but that’s exactly what it is – blind faith.

Cap and Trade legislation is the first step in this direction. Some critics call it “tax and trade” because the additional cost that will be placed on consumers will have the same effect as a tax increase on all citizens, rich and poor.

After the stock market crash in 1929, Herbert Hoover had blind faith that reducing the money supply would somehow help the money supply, but, of course, it made the depression much worse.

Even so, reducing energy does not create more energy. To increase energy, as the world desperately needs, there is only one simple solution: more energy must be developed and produced.

There is one form of energy which should appeal to both alarmists and skeptics. This energy has virtually zero CO2 emissions and has a safety record in the Western hemisphere higher than any other source and doesn’t even harm birds, bugs or animals. It has the potential to provide us with all our energy needs for a thousand years and more. The good part is the technology is already here.33

This sounds great as a source of energy, but, even though alarmists feel we are in an apocalyptic time that needs drastic measures, they fight this solution tooth and nail.

What is this safe and abundant energy source?

Think nuclear.

Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey

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

 

 

Keys Writings 2013, Part 6

This entry is part 6 of 25 in the series 2013

Feb 25, 2013

The Speed of Gravity

Alex asked a couple more questions. First he wants to know the speed of gravity in relation to the speed of light.

There are a number of theories on this. Some believe the speed of gravity is instantaneous across the universe but recent experiments indicate that Einstein was correct in that it is approximately he same speed as light.

The Chinese recently applied some tests that indicated the speed of gravity was “between 0.93 to 1.05 times the speed of light with a relative error of about 5 percent, providing the first set of strong evidence showing that gravity travels at the speed of light.”  LINK

This has not convinced some that see the effects of gravity not matching up with the speed of light.

Here is an interesting article that speculates the speed of gravity is much faster than light, perhaps instantaneous.  It is interesting that the argument boils down to a disagreement between the two greatest scientific minds of all time, Einstein and Newton. Newton thought that gravity traveled instantaneously and Einstein theorized it traveled at the speed of light, which he believed to be the ultimate speed allowed in the universe.

After reading both sides I wonder if the effects of gravity may be dual as are subatomic particles. Scientists couldn’t figure out if an electron was a particle or a wave and now they think it is both. Maybe certain ingredients of gravity (perhaps waves) travel at the speed of light and other effects of the field much faster or instantaneous.

Tom Van Flandern in the article noted believes gravity acts something like an anchor pulling on a buoy. The effect of the pull of the anchor is instantaneous but the waves created by the movement of the buoy take time to travel.

I don’t have a revelation on this subject but it is interesting to contemplate. I have contemplated the limitation of the speed of light and feel there is something missing from Einstein’s thinking on this but have not yet pinpointed it. I think it is possible to go faster than light without reaching infinite mass.

Next Alex quotes me: “The Aquarian Gospel was not voice channeled, but Levi entered a state of conscious meditation and read the Akashic records. I personally believe he was 90% accurate or better as he related the life of Jesus.”

Alex: May I ask how a medium is reading Akashic records. I would think that in this meditation state his brain receives input not from his senses, but from the Akashic records “tape”.

If it is the case, then I can easily understand the medium seeing the original scenes, as if it were a video and hearing everything.

But what about transcribing conversations between original personages?

a) Does the medium actually hear them speaking in Hebrew, Latin, etc, then the medium somehow “understands” what they are talking about and interprets in English?

JJ When a medium who usually works on the astral level catches a glimpse of the Akashic records he or she does not read them in sequence but catches bits and pieces. When he then puts them together in his mind they are like kaleidoscope of colored information which makes for interesting dialog but jumbled and not very accurate. This is why a medium will sometimes come up with some startling true information but then be way off the mark on other items.

It takes either a master or a dedicated initiate focusing on the records to transmit them accurately. I personally do not know of any mortal that can do this, though many claim this ability. Levi who received the Aquarian Gospel spent a lot of time in deep meditation to read the records, but today few disciples will dedicate the time necessary to do what he did.

If a person is accurately reading the records he could recall the original language but because he will be unfamiliar with it he will normally concentrate on the meaning that is being conveyed. He will then translate the impressions into his familiar language.

 

Feb 27, 2013

Manipulation of the Free Will

Alex asks: Is manipulation infringement on the free will or not?

Good question. In other words, if you manipulate circumstances so the outcome changes have you infringed on free will? For instance, suppose both you and Bob are up for a promotion and Bob is more qualified. Then you spread an ugly and untrue rumor about him that causes the boss to promote you instead. Have you infringed on Bob’s free will?

The answer is no. The fact is that manipulation changes circumstances and circumstances change for us almost on an hourly basis. There are dozens of things happen to each of us every day that change or manipulate our circumstances.

Even if you take out the trash you are changing the circumstances so no one else in he family is faced with the decision to take it out. If you kiss your spouse you affect his or her circumstances so now she does not decide to initiate the affections because you did it first.

Manipulation by itself is neither good or bad, positive or negative. It is neutral like money and can be used to create a good and or bad depending on the intent and the luck of the initiator.

Instead of taking away free will manipulation increases it because each manipulation presents the one manipulated with additional choices.

Let me give a couple examples.

Brad drives ten boring miles to work everyday. During the drive he is almost in a trance and nothing much happens. The drive is the same every day.

One evening a couple kids siphon most of the gas out of his car. They think it’s funny that Brad will run out of gas on the way to work. Sure enough after about five miles he does run out of gas. Because of this he has to exercise more free will than normal and make some extra decisions. Should he call his wife for help, the AAA or walk to a nearby gas station? He decides to walk to a gas station and a sexy blond sees him and offers him a ride. They hit it off and she invites him to lunch. Now, instead of a boring ride to work all kinds of decisions confront his free will.

The kids thought it was funny that they were manipulating Brad’s circumstances, but they did not alter his free will. Instead, they provided him with additional choices.

If standard manipulation does not take away free will then what does? What does take away free will is an act that attempts to take away the power of decision in a certain area. This is normally accomplished through a government or some authority figure.

Let us suppose you lived in a country where the punishment was death if you even disagreed with your dear leader. Would this interfere with your power of decision to write a letter to the editor stating what you really think?

Yes, in this case free will is restricted and fewer decisions are made.

Let us suppose the fine was $5 if you were caught not having a seat belt. Would this interfere with free will? Only slightly because you could afford to pay $5. But suppose the fine was $1000. Would this interfere?

Yes, even I would buckle up whether I wanted to or not if the fine was that great.

Suppose you were a member of a cult with a prophet leader who you believe speaks for God. He tells you that God wants him to sleep with your wife. You do not want to allow this but feel forced into it because you think it is God’s will. The prophet is using your belief system to restrict your power of choice.

People have boundaries, which, when crossed, will yield their free will. Those who push the people through these boundaries are agents in limiting free will.

 

March 1, 2013

Thunderbolts of the Gods

Here is an interesting video presenting a different view of how the universe works. It lasts over an hour so watch it when you have some time.

 

March 2, 2013

Starting a Group

My Friends, Many times readers have asked what they can do to help in the work and in response I have often sated that the best thing a person can do is to start a local group. So far we’ve only had a handful make this attempt and they have found it difficult.

Now it looks like some enterprising individuals on the web have provided a vehicle which will greatly assist in enhancing group activity. The site they created is called meetup.com. I guess it’s been around for over a decade but I just discovered it recently thanks to Lorraine. Actually, now is a good time to use it because it is well seasoned and a lot of people are aware of it.

The reason I am happy to stumble across the site at this time is I am attempting to form a local group here in Boise. We had our first meeting on Feb 20 and just a handful showed up. Since joining Meetup we are getting a lot more interest. I think it will be very helpful.

If you are an enterprising individual you can start up a study class in your area. There are plenty of writings in the archives to provide material for a long time to come. I can also supply teachers with audios of various classes I have given.

If you are interested but nervous you can get your feet wet by attending other spiritually minded classes in your area and check out how they are operating. You will find a lot of them listed at Meetup.com.

The general address for meetup is: http://www.meetup.com/

The address to check out the Keys meetings is: http://www.meetup.com/The-Keys-of-Knowledge/

In the meantime I am going to forthwith include some of my past advice on starting a group;

Now I know that many of you wish the group could be together on a physical level, but there is something within our reach which is just as good. No matter where you live there are seekers out there who are looking for knowledge that you have. When you gather a handful of them and meet on a weekly basis you’ll have as good a camaraderie as we have here. If that idea doesn’t motivate you I don’t know what will.

The great part is you do not have to be a teaching whiz. All you would have to do is throw out a few of the questions we discuss on this list and you’ll have to chase them home. Many will be hungry for more.

QUESTION: Sounds good, but how does an amateur like me get started?

Start with your friends. Most of us know at least a couple people with a metaphysical bent. Call them and tell them you are going to form a study group and study some new teachings you discovered on the Internet and see if they are interested. If you do not know anyone interested in metaphysics you probably need to get out more, but all is not lost. I am always here to support you with ideas.

First, select a place that will accommodate at least a dozen people. There is nothing wrong with starting with a home or apartment.

If your place is small it is quite possible that one of your first students will have a large comfortable home that they would be happy to share.

There are also some places that may allow you to meet on a free basis. Some libraries have rooms for meetings that are either free or very inexpensive. Also check with your bookstores. Some of them will let you have meetings there in hope of selling your group some books. Many restaurants also have free meeting rooms if most of the group order something.

If you have a little money to work with you could find a meeting room connected with a local Motel, YMCA, New Age Center, Judo Club or some other organization and rent it on a weekly basis. If you do this you will need to collect some dues from members so you will not have to bear the whole burden. Once you get ten people or so the expense will not be much of a burden on any one individual.

Once you select a definite meeting place then you must do some promotion.

First let’s cover the what you can do for free.

(1) Many newspapers have sections that are totally free where you can announce on a weekly basis details about any weekly meetings your group may have. Call then up and see what they have available.

(2) Local TV and Cable channels also have places for free announcements. Check them out.

(3) Hold a press conference. Select a place like a room at the local, library and send an announcement to all the media – Newspaper, TV, radio in your area with an announcement that you are forming a local study group based on the book The Immortal about a guy who just may have met John the Revelator. In a typical area you should be able to send out about 20 announcements and get 2-5 responses. There’s a good chance you would get on TV this way.

(4) Print up flyers (or we’ll print them for you) announcing your project and circulate them in book stores, metaphysical centers, health food stores and so on. We’ll work up a master copy for you.

(5) Newspapers love doing features that have something to do with the internet. Call the features editor and tell him or her that you have been participating with a study group on the internet and are going to extend it to the local people. Chat a while with this person and he may want to write about you.

(6) Now you have exhausted the free methods you should spend a few dollars in regular advertising. Check around and see if there are any metaphysical newsletters in your area and run a small ad there. Then run a small display ad in your local newspaper. In addition to this the classifieds in the local free give-away advertisers are often very effective depending on the area and they are often very inexpensive – sometimes just a couple dollars a week.

(7) If you are bold enough to do public speaking let me know and I will give you further advice.

You’ll need a name for the physical group. May I suggest THE SYNTHESIS GROUP (Or Keys of Knowledge).

To synthesize means to gather together various unrelated parts and to put them together into a working whole which wholeness is greater than the sum of the parts.

For instance our discussion group is a synthesis of some of the best people on the internet. http://www.freeread.com/archives/183.html

 

March 3, 2013

Group Dweller

Good quote on the Dweller Ruth from: http://www.freeread.com/archives/2722.html

Let me add a couple things that may help those having problems with negative forces.

I mentioned the importance of not talking about the negative forces but this must be used with judgment. It is a good thing that Leasel shared her problems with us as she was at her wits end and had to reach out for help.

A mistake that those experiencing a negative attack often make, however, is because it is so consuming to their attention they talk about it a lot to whoever will listen. Because energy follows thought this focus of thought creates a channel for the negativity to flow with greater and greater strength. So, yes, share your problem with those who may be able to help but do not share with those who cannot help unless prompted by your soul.

The principle of energy following thought is illustrated in a story I heard in my younger days in the mission field. In one district there were a couple elders who began experiencing attacks from what seemed to be evil spirits. After this occurred they began sharing their experiences with various members of the church and other missionaries in the district. Pretty soon the attacks and phenomenon seemed to spread like a virus. Other missionaries and members soon had similar trouble. After a time all anyone could talk about were the evil spirits and the scary things they were doing.

Finally, it got so bad that it drew the attention of the mission president.He contacted the missionaries and wisely told them to cease talking about the evil spirits. He told them not to talk about them in meetings, with members or other missionaries. They obeyed and a few weeks later all attacks of the evil spirits subsided and it became as if they did not exist.

The mission president probably had never been taught the principle of energy following thought but he had the correct intuition in following it.

Another thing that can be the cause of negative attacks is guilt. Unresolved guilt can keep the door to negativity open even if you try not to talk or think about the attacks.

There are two things that must be done to resolve guilt. First resolve the problem with the person you may have hurt. If this does not apply then confess your guilt to someone you respect. This principle of confession is used in some churches and it does offer relief.

The nail in the coffin must be struck by identifying the source of guilt. Guilt is caused by allowing some mortal to take the place of the God Within. Release this outside source from having power over you and follow the inner Holy Spirit instead. The inner Spirit does not use guilt to control you but supplies guidance instead.

 

March 4, 2013

Attacks

Dan: Seemingly “negative” things happen to everyone and one’s imagination, guilt, and/or desire to be special can make such occurrences seem more personal than they warrant.

JJ Very true. Ruth wants to know your motive with the “desire to be special” comment. I do not see any sinister motive here and do not think we should care about what your motive may be for you made a true statement. Many people take negative things that happen to them and attribute then to demons, Satan or dark brothers for the reasons you gave and more.

Indeed, some people go through sequences of bad luck and because they feel they are special beings they may feel that they are targeted by the devil himself when in reality no one of significance whether he be good or evil is paying much attention to them.

Dan: I have not experienced ANY “supernatural attacks” that I am aware of, nor I suspect have most other keysters.

JJ I think you are correct here. Real attacks are not that common. I have not met many who have given an accurate description of a supernatural attack. Now if we are talking about some type of supernatural experience, good, bad and neutral the percentage is much higher. I would guess that the majority here has had something occur which has been otherworldly.

Stephen’s account which he posted here and personally sent to me is quite interesting and he seems to have made definite supernatural contacts.

It sounds like Leasel and her family may be dealing with a dweller or possibly left over energy from earthbound spirits. Keep your thoughts and prayers headed her direction for they will help.

Dan: I’m just saying REAL attacks are uncommon and rare, thinking you MUST BE under attack (but PROBABLY are not) is most likely/commonplace.

JJ You are correct if you are referring to real attacks by the Dark Brothers toward some individual. The Dark Brothers do attack but they use key people in positions of power to manipulate the people toward their desired ends. All the steps that have been taken recently to reduce our freedoms are part of an assault by them.

On the other hand, many seekers have to deal with some type of influence coming from their Dweller. This can range from fear, guilt or just moving forward – to negativity of tremendous force that can be very nerve wracking to deal with.

The Dweller can be aroused by too much thought directed toward the negative or some type of positive action that may threaten to reduce his power.

One like yourself who has not had a definite supernatural attack may wonder if you are not significant in the work because no one has attacked you. The answer is that this should not concern you. Each seeker has a different cross to bear and different lessons to learn. No two initiates, disciples or aspirants have the same things happen to them but your soul has planned your life in such a way that your learning will have a maximum curve should you follow the lesson plan.

 

March 7, 2013

Global Warming

Here’s another letter I wrote to the Idaho Statesman. I would have liked to have said more but am limited to 200 words.

On March 6 you published a disturbing article telling us that Leftists views (approaching religious fever) on global warming will be indoctrinated into our kids minds from the eighth grade on. The weird thing is that one of the organizations promoting this, the National Center for Science Education, claims to oppose “the teaching of religious views as science.” Yet most global warming alarmists approach the subject with faith rather than science often resembling religious fanatics.

For Instance, the earth has not warmed since 1998 yet their faith still tells then the earth has been warming during this period.

Because the facts challenge their faith they changed their preaching to climate change rather than global warming. What challenges their faith though is the climate is always changing no matter what humans do.

Because the logic of skeptics disturbs their faith they have formulated a win win plan. If it gets hotter, its climate change but if it gets colder they are still right. If the weather is dryer it’s climate change but so is more moisture. There is no course the weather or climate can take that will cause them to revise their faith.

Here’s the reference to the article I mentioned; http://www.idahostatesman.com/2013/03/06/2478937/climate-change-poised-to-be-par\t.html

 

March 7, 2013

Re: Global Warming

Nathan writes: The Web of Science is a database with articles from a little over 10,000 academic journals. Of that entire database, 13,950 articles can be found on the subject of climate change. Only 23 articles reject global warming or reject global warming as a man-made phenomenon.

JJ I’m surprised they found 23 fitting their criteria which is: “To be classified as rejecting, an article had to clearly and explicitly state that the theory of global warming is false or, as happened in a few cases, that some other process better explains the observed warming.”

Every knowledgeable skeptic including myself would have to side with the majority here. Of course, over the past century there has been warming and man made emissions has been a partial cause. The disagreement isn’t over this technicality but on how much of a cause CO2 is and whether the apocalyptic doctrines they promote are probable. Maybe we should worry more about being hit by an asteroid and concentrate more on preparing for that than global warming. After all, global warming has never destroyed most of the life on earth.

Nathan quoting me: (3) The first great surge of human produced CO2 from 1940 to 1976 mysteriously resulted in global cooling rather than warming.

Nathan: Can you really claim that CO2 correlated with this cooling you speak of, or is it just variability that I mentioned earlier which you’re citing.

JJ I didn’t say it correlated. What I am saying is that the result runs counter to what the global warming alarmists are correlating. It also runs counter to what their computer programs would have predicted.

Nathan quoting me; Since CO2 is a plant fertilizer there are benefits to CO2 emissions such as a greener more productive earth.

Nathan: That seems to be based on the false pretense that plants can absorb an indefinite amount of CO2, which they cannot. The average deciduous tree, for example, absorbs about 50 pounds (highly variable) of CO2 per year, far less than what, say, the average American puts into the atmosphere which is about 4,600 pounds per year.

JJ It is not based on the premise that plants can absorb an infinite amount of CO2. No one is saying that. Plants, as a whole though, can absorb quite a bit more than they do now or even more than in 1900.

Here are a few references for you;

 …like carbon dioxide being an essential trace gas that underpins the bulk of the global food web. Estimates vary, but somewhere around 15% seems to be the common number cited for the increase in global food crop yields due to aerial fertilization with increased carbon dioxide since 1950. This increase has both helped avoid a Malthusian disaster and preserved or returned enormous tracts of marginal land as wildlife habitat that would otherwise have had to be put under the plow in an attempt to feed the growing global population. Commercial growers deliberately generate CO2 and increase its levels in agricultural greenhouses to between 700ppmv and 1,000ppmv to increase productivity and improve the water efficiency of food crops far beyond those in the somewhat carbon-starved open atmosphere. CO2 feeds the forests, grows more usable lumber in timber lots meaning there is less pressure to cut old growth or push into “natural” wildlife habitat, makes plants more water efficient helping to beat back the encroaching deserts in Africa and Asia and generally increases bio-productivity. If it’s “pollution,” then it’s pollution the natural world exploits extremely well and to great profit. Doesn’t sound too bad to us. LINK

CO2 acts like fertilizer for trees and plants and also increases their water use efficiency. All trees with more CO2 in their atmosphere are very likely to grow more rapidly. Trees like the high-altitude bristlecone pines, on the margins of both moisture and fertility, are likely to exhibit very strong responses to CO2 enrichment – which was the point of the Graybill and Idso study.atmospheric carbon the higher the concentration of CO2. Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years By S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Page 71-72

The Idso analysis also notes that higher CO2 levels act as fertilizer for trees and plants, and that higher CO2 levels also reduce the amount of energy needed by most plant species to conduct a process called photorespiration. So long as temperatures and CO2 are both rising, trees and plants gain vigor with which to exploit warming’s opportunities for range expansion. / The Idsos are widely published on CO2 benefits to plant growth and the phenomenon has been widely studied in dozens of countries because of its importance to crop growth. Their peer-reviewed analysis of forty-two experimental data sets collected by numerous scientists showed that the mean growth enhancement from a 300 parts-per-million increase in atmospheric CO2 rises from almost nil at 10 degrees C to doubled growth at 38 degrees C.24 At higher temperatures, the growth stimulation rises even higher.25 / The importance of CO2 as a fertilizer is endorsed by satellite observations of global vegetation from 1982 to 1999, which found an increase in global plant growth of more than 6 percent. The planet during that period featured slightly increasing rainfall and slightly rising temperatures – but the major change for plants was the rapid increase in atmospheric CO2.26 All of the regions showed positive gains in plant growth – despite the real and imagined environmental stresses that climate warming alarmists have been telling us threaten the world’s plant life. Unstoppable Global Warming, Every 1,500 Years By S. Fred Singer and Dennis T. Avery, Page 83

Higher CO2 levels help all plants, in all environments. Growth increases are temporary only when the CO2 increase is temporary.

Your “source” contains a lot of “ifs” and “maybes” – truth is, all it does is raise conjectures about how growth MAY be limited in some cases.

C4 Plants – True, they have a mechanism for “fixing” carbon dioxide. But the more carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, the more they can “fix”. Furthermore, the vast majority of the world’s plant biomass is C3, not C4. The only crops that are C4 are corn, sorghum, sugarcane, and millet (with only corn being a major crop). C3 crops include soybeans, all small grains (wheat, barley, oats, rye), and the most important food crop in the world, rice. Additionally, even the C4 plants can be bio-engineered to be C3 plants.

Tropics – While it MAY be true that increased CO2 will be less beneficial in the tropics than in temperate regions, the vast majority of crops are grown in the temperate regions. So this is not an issue. LINK

 

March 7, 2013

Re: Global Warming

Judy: As JJ, says, our concerns should be elsewhere and not on global warming.

JJ Yes, there are a number of issues that deserve as much or more attention but I am not in the group that thinks we should do nothing. What I an against is taking some of the drastic steps suggested that would have little effect except the ruination of already fragile economies.

I support nuclear energy which has proven to be the most effective means of reducing greenhouse gasses. If we could get the global warming alarmists to stop the lawsuits and protests over nuclear energy we could actually help them achieve their goal of reducing greenhouse gasses.

No matter what the government does natural evolution is likely to cause us to switch to electric vehicles and alternative energy sources over the next 50 years.

Two things could stop this from happening.

(1) Weapons of mass destruction. (2) If the global waring people get their way and assist in the collapse of world economies causing us to burn whatever we can find for fuel.

 

March 8, 2013

Rand Paul

Adam Wrote: I sense a very “spirit of 1776” vibe when I hear Rand Paul speak. Passionate but calm, mental, measured energy. I thought yesterday’s filibuster was intensely cool on many levels. He didn’t walk on water, but holding it for 13 hours was rather impressive, no?

JJ I’ve had a good vibe from him since the first time I saw him. I like him much better than his dad and think he will go far.

Adam …Oh, and Lindsay Graham and John McCain showed their true “establishment” colors. These career Washington fixtures just cannot handle anything un-Washingtonly-orthodox. Bunch of tired, stodgy, old mouth breathers. Can they just shut eff up? No one cares what these jackwagons have to say.

JJ Agree. The light of change rarely strikes amidst the Old Guard.

 

Copyright 2013 by J J Dewey

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

Keys Posts 2012, Part 3

This entry is part 16 of 40 in the series 2012A

Feb 5, 2012

Is This a Man From Future?

 

Feb 7, 2012

Minority/Majority rule

LWK Almost all Utopian schemes imagine some alternative rational or scientific method of running society, but in the end they always end up with some group of people telling other people what to do.

 

JJ The big problem with utopian schemes is that free will is drastically limited from the planning stage. A free society is actually the best utopian scheme one could come up with. As long as freedom dominates living conditions will get better and better until we will have a virtual utopia.

 

Feb 10, 2012

JJ on Capitalism/Socialism

A number of people have speculated as to the Constitution of a future Zion, but we are a long way from having a need for a specific one so whatever we create now will probably undergo some changes when the time comes. Right now we can be a little like John Locke or Montesquieu and write about the principles that will govern future society in the hope that the best ideas will prevail. I am sure some of the items you list will be incorporated in some way. I think that what you said about juries having power to negate law would be particularly important to have in any future constitution because any law written is not perfect. I doubt if I will ever write an actual constitution for a future society but will most likely lay out some guiding principles that I hope to see

 

For food for thought here is a Constitution written by another LDS thinker, Joel Skousen.

 

Feb 10, 2012

Re: Force/Free Will

LWK writes: In Nazi Germany it was scientifically concluded that mental defectives should be eliminated. It was not an arbitrary decision, but rather a very scientific decision. Initially they put them in the back of closed trucks where the exhaust gas was forced into the closed area and drove around until they suffocated. Later on they came up with even more scientific methods.

 

JJ That’s one I have never heard before. Sadly this is a believable story when considering the Nazi mindset.

 

Feb 10, 2012

Re: Woodrow Wilson Quote and Fiat Money

Susan: I trust my connection to God and to think for myself. JJ is an earned authority for me in many areas. Perhaps it is ok with JJ for me to disagree and so I take the opportunity to speak my mind when something strikes me as important to a discussion. If you don’t like it, PLEASE delete it.

 

JJ I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me and voicing it here as long as they are civil. Some of my best writings have been in response to some challenge from members and some of the most trusted members here have voiced string disagreements with me at one time or another. Freedom of expression without fear of being condemned by the leader is one things that sets this group apart. Many teachers do not allow for disagreement. We do not want to take that route. As Larry indicated this creates some problems for the teacher, but that is okay with me. Better to have a living group than a stagnating one.

 

As far as disagreements with my writings on fiat money goes one of the main problems is my detractors lump all fiat money into one category whereas I place them in two categories:

 

(1) Fiat Money created by a third party through loans to the government and people at interest. This can create an unsustainable debt.

 

(2) Fiat money created by the representatives of the people tat has no interest and is not a loan.

 

I teach that this second category can become the best of all money systems as long as inflation is controlled.

 

For more information go here:

 

Or better yet read the whole series.

 

Feb 11, 2012

Re: The Galileo of Global Warming

 

This is one of the best articles I have read on global warming. I have said for some time that the mindset of he warmers will someday be equated with the consensus of the Vatican scientists who opposed Galileo.

 

Feb 11, 2012

And It Came to Pass

The other Ruth (Ruthangel) send me a cute post written in Biblical style by a minister’s wife.

 

AND IT CAME TO PASS

And it came to pass in the Age of Insanity that the people of the land called America, having lost their morals, their initiative, and their Will to defend their liberties, chose as their Supreme Leader that Person known as “The One.”

 

He emerged from the vapors with a message that had no meaning; but He Hypnotized the people telling them, “I am sent to save you.” My lack Of experience, my questionable ethics, my monstrous ego, and my Association with evil doers are of no consequence. I shall save you With hope and Change. Go, therefore, and proclaim throughout the Land that he who proceeded me is evil, that he has defiled the nation, And that all he has built must be destroyed.

 

And the people rejoiced, For even though they knew not what “The One” would do, he had promised that it was good; and they believed. And “The One” said “We live in the greatest country in the world. Help me change everything about it!” And the people said, “Hallelujah! Change is good!” Then He said, “We are going to tax the rich fat-cats.” And the People said “Sock it to them!” “And redistribute their wealth.” And the people said, “Show us the money!” And then he said, “Redistribution of wealth is good for everybody..”

 

And Joe the plumber asked, “Are you kidding me? You’re going to Steal my money and give it to the deadbeats??” And “The One”Ridiculed and taunted him, and Joe ‘s personal records were hacked and publicized. One lone reporter asked, “Isn’t that Marxist policy?” And she was Banished from the kingdom.

 

Then a citizen asked, “With no foreign relations experience and Having zero military experience or knowledge, how will you deal with Radical terrorists?” And “The One” said, “Simple. I shall sit with Them and talk with them and show them how nice we really are; And they Will forget that they ever wanted to kill us all!” And the people Said, “Hallelujah!! We are safe at last, and we can beat our weapons into free cars for the people!”

 

Then “The One” said “I shall give 95% of you lower taxes.” And one, Lone voice said, “But 40% of us don’t pay ANY taxes. ” So “The One” Said, “Then I shall give you some of the taxes the fat-cats pay!” And the people said, “Hallelujah! Show us the money!” Then “The One” said, “I shall tax your Capital Gains when you sell Your homes!” And the people yawned and the slumping housing market Collapsed. And He said. “I shall mandate employer-funded health care For every worker and raise the minimum wage. And I shall give every person unlimited healthcare and medicine and transportation to the Clinics.” (And no Muslim shall pay for their share of healthcare.) And the people said, “Give me some of that!” Then he said, “I shall penalize employers who ship jobs overseas.” And the people said, “Where’s my rebate check?”

 

Then “The One” said, “I shall bankrupt the coal industry and Electricity rates will skyrocket!” And the people said, “Coal is Dirty, coal is evil, no more coal! But we don’t care for that part about higher electric rates. “So “The One” said, Not to worry. If your rebate isn’t enough to cover your expenses, we shall bail you out. Just sign up with the ACORN and you troubles are over!” Then He said, “Illegal immigrants feel scorned and slighted. Let’s Grant them amnesty, Social Security, free education, free lunches, Free medical care, bilingual signs and guaranteed housing… ” And The people said, “Hallelujah!” and they made him king!

 

And so it came to pass that employers, facing spiraling costs And Ever-higher taxes, raised their prices and laid off workers. Others simply gave up and went out of business and the economy sank like unto a rock dropped from a cliff. The bank banking industry was destroyed. Manufacturing slowed to a crawl. And more of the people were without a means of support.

 

Then “The One” said, “I am the “the One”- The “Messiah” and I’m here to save you! We shall just print more money so everyone will have enough!” But our foreign trading partners said unto Him. “Wait a Minute. Your dollar is not worth a pile of camel dung! You will have to pay more… And “The One” said, “Wait a minute. That is unfair!!” And the world said, “Neither are these other idiotic programs you have embraced. Lo, you have become a socialist state and a second-rate power. Now you shall play by our rules!”

 

And the people cried out, “Alas, alas!! What have we done?” But yea, verily, it was too late. The people set upon The One and spat upon him and stoned him, and his name was dung. And the once mighty nation was no more; and the once proud people were without sustenance or shelter or hope. And the Change “The One” had given them was as like unto a poison that had destroyed them and like a whirlwind that consumed all that they had built.

 

And the people beat their chests in despair and cried out in anguish, “give us back our nation and our pride and our hope!!” But it was too late, and their homeland was no more.

 

Feb 14, 2012

Reflections on Inelia Benz

A couple days ago Kelly asked about Inelia Benz and this stirred up quite a lot of discussion so I thought I would make a few comments.

 

First I had to check out some of her teachings. I watched the video recommended by Alex and read the transcript of the video recommended by Kelly.

 

Her basic message is this. She incarnated to assist in raising the vibration of the people on this planet so we can effectively transition into a new age of peace.

 

I have no problem with this message as this is also one of the reasons I am here and I’m sure some members of the group feel it is a reason they are here also.

 

As long as she keeps this as her main goal and follows it to the highest she knows then I wish her Godspeed.

 

Whenever a teacher manifests before the public eye true seekers will always take a look with a mind open to the possibility that he or she may be an agent of light or a deceiver of the darkest dye – or someone in between.

 

Unless I receive some evidence to the contrary I take Inelia at her word that she is here to serve and assist humanity.

 

I am encouraged by the fact that she is a big believer in free will and expanding it. She presents a teaching that I have given that if we do not make decisions then someone else will be making them for us.

 

She presents several teachings to do not sound right to me.

 

She says there are an infinite number of parallel universes where each of us live in slightly different realities. For example, in Universe A there is a famous JJ and in Universe B there is one that is an unknown homeless guy. Then there’s another universe where I’m still with my first wife and never met Artie – my current wife – poor guy.

 

The point to consider here is that creation, especially the creation of a universe, takes a lot of effort and creators only put a lot of effort into creation when there is a significant purpose. I don’t see much purpose being served by the Creators in making infinite numbers universes with the same people doing just slightly different things. As it is, this one universe is vast enough to give the Life of God a chance to experience every possibility through the many trillions of lives in it. He doesn’t need a billion or so variations of me running around.

 

She tells us she is a unique being who has never incarnated into this universe before. She has no past lives but incarnated directly from the mind of God.

 

We always have to take into account that anything is possible but in my view the most likely truth is she has incarnated here many times but has reflected so strongly on God that she sees herself as an extension of Him in a way that others are not.

 

This teaching is the biggest red flag because even if she truly seeks to help others this may cause followers to see her as an outside source of God rather than looking within. This could cause her to become the Beast to her followers unless she does all in her power to teach them to rely on the inner God rather than the outer.

 

She says there are millions of others who are helping to raise the vibration of the planet but is not clear if there are others like her with no past lives who came directly from God. If she sees herself as a totally unique being she could be creating many glamours that will need to be dealt with as well as illusion.

 

Overall, she seems a pleasant person who is attempting to serve so I will not be overly concerned about her unless some good reason were to manifest.

 

She does have a course she sells for $99. Because of this some have accused her of being in the work for the money but every work does need t bring in some money.

 

Here are the ingredients in the course:

 

1. Unit One – An Introduction – Listen to the Introduction NOW. Spiritual Ascension Course Sample

2. Unit Two – Setting of Goals

3. Unit Three – Main Goals Exercise

4. Unit Four – Specific Goals Exercise

5. Unit Five – Detoxifying the Physical Body

6. Unit Six – Reconnecting with the Physical Body

7. Unit Seven – Physical Body Reconnection Exercise

8. Unit Eight – Healing the Ego

9. Unit Nine – Identifying and Embracing the Ego

10. Unit Ten – The Mental Body

11. Unit Eleven – Identifying the Mind

12. Unit Twelve – Silencing the Mind Through Breath Meditation

13. Unit Thirteen – The Emotional Body

14. Unit Fourteen – Healing the Emotional Body

15. Unit Fifteen – The Spiritual Body

16. Unit Sixteen – Identifying and Reconnecting with the Spiritual Body

17. Unit Seventeen – Aligning Our Bodies

18. Unit Eighteen – Expansion Of Awareness

19. Unit Nineteen – Expansion Of Awareness into Oneness

20. Bonus Unit Dealing with Sickness during Ascension Work

 

If anyone has taken or takes this course in the future I’m sure the group would be interested in a report.

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

 

The True Left

This entry is part 13 of 40 in the series 2012A

Dan writes:

You have said in the past that when you use the word “left” or “leftist” you are talking of those on the “left-hand (dark) path” rather than the mainstream (liberal, political) left. Is this still the case here?

JJ

It’s probably time to clarify a few things since people do get confused about what is Left and Right.

The first thing to point out is when I write for the general public I have to use terms they understand even if the common vernacular is not technically or esoterically correct.  Therefore, when speaking to them I understand that they will interpret the Right to mean the Republican-conservative-Christian-libertarian side of the discussion and the Left to be the Democratic-environmentalist-pacifist-redistribution side of things.

Even though the public has set ideas as to the meaning of words, when I use Left and Right I try to use them so they are correct in the eyes of the general public as well as esoterically correct.

For instance, when I talk about the Left attacking a belief in God I am talking about the true Left and not the Democrats, as many Democrats are believers. Poll show that 25% of evangelical zealots are Democrats and no one calls them the Left yet when one refers to the Left attacking a belief in God most just assume one is talking about Democrats.  Not true.  When I use Left, I mean the Left – not Democrats. There are also Republican atheists who attack the belief in a High Power.

So when I write political posts I will generally use Left and Right in its true esoteric meaning.  This will help clarify what I am saying for those who follow my esoteric teachings.  When the use of Left and Right becomes extra confusing I will then use more specific terms such as Republican, Democrat, conservative, liberal, libertarian, etc.  When using “conservative” and “liberal”  writing to the general public I will use them as they are commonly defined to avoid confusion. For instance, when writing for the general public I will call an environmentalist, liberal, even though most are archconservatives attempting to conserve what is.

Another very important point to clarify is this.  When I use the terms “Left” and “Right” in political discussions I am NOT identifying people who are on the Right and Left hand paths. Probably less than one out of a million are actually settled on the actual Right or Left hand paths.  Most of the general public are mere pawns in a great game or contest that is being played out by those who truly understand the two paths.

DK talked about this.  I do not have time to find exact references but he basically said this:

Humanity as a whole lends their energy to the Left Hand Path, or the Dark Brotherhood.  There are only a handful of disciples who clearly see the two paths. The work of the Brotherhood at present is to lift the consciousness of the human race so they will lean to the Right more than the Left.  When this happens the door to evil will be shut. The conflict of World War II did a lot to push humanity toward a vision of the true Left and Right but we are still not securely there.

The bottom line is this. The average person of all political beliefs supports some elements of the Left and some of the Right but generally supports more from the true Left than the true Right.

So what represents the true Right hand path and the true Left?

By far the most important differentiating thing is the Principle of Freedom.  I’ve written a lot about this and if one searches my writings he can get a good idea of my thinking on this.  The principle of Freedom is the path to maximum freedom not unlimited freedom. For example, if we had unlimited freedom with no rules or laws then the burglar would be free to enter your house and take what he wants.  This would prevent maximum freedom from taking place for yourself. The Second Key of Judgment must be used so the right amount of rules and laws will be implemented.  Most people want too many rules or not enough and these, the vast majority, lend unknowing support to the Left Hand Path.

During this phase of my work when I am writing some political material my job will be to identify those illusions that support the Left Hand Path and do what I can to dispel them. In doing this to avoid confusion I will call the liberals in error the Left when talking to the general public.  Labeling conservatives in error as the Left would be confusing so I will merely identify them as conservatives and attempt to point out their illusion and move them toward the true Right.

To make things more confusing for some is the realization that the true Right is really the true Center and the True Left takes us dangerously far from the True Center. To make good judgment even more difficult for the average person is that the Brotherhood of Light often has to put extra attention on the direction of Left or Right when the pendulum has swung too far.  For instance, when the pendulum has swung to the Left, as it has at present, then extra attention must be given to the truths on the Right. This causes many disciples involved in politics to be currently identified as right wing in the current era when they are really just pushing toward the great center.

That said let us list some traits that that will help us identify when people give energy to the Left Hand Path.

(1) As stated they will support authority that limits maximum freedom. This is the biggie.

(2) They will be a dangerous distance from the true center.

(3) They fight having extra light being thrown on a controversial subject as the dark ones progress much more rapidly toward their own ends when the masses are in ignorance shielded from the light.

There are many examples of this playing out concerning which the masses.

(A) When two politicians run against each other you’ll find that generally one will be hiding who he really is.  On the Left he may have socialist or unconstitutional goals and on the Right he may have secret plans to implement his religious views against the will of the people. In not revealing their true agenda they support ignorance which plays into the hands of the Dark Brotherhood.

(B) The Global Warming debate us another example.  Those believers who claim the most light fight tooth and nail to prevent any of the skeptics’ views from surfacing. This has always been suspected but proved with the release of the Climategate emails. Al Gore and the rest of the orthodox believers refuse to debate the subject with skeptics and instead follow the path of intimidation and threats.  Check out this article:

(C) Obama’s birth certificate.  From the time this has been any kind of an issue Obama supporters have avoided talking about it like the plague; instead calling investigators birthers, haters, racists etc. When the issue was fairly new I was asked on a political forum if I thought Obama was born in the USA.  I responded that there seems to be evidence supporting both sides and I did not know but would give him the benefit of the doubt. I thought this was a fairly non confrontational statement but I was attacked by many on the Left with a zeal I have rarely witnessed.  Unless I would confess to them that I was 100% sure he was native born I was an outcast to this group, to be attacked and shunned at all costs.

I would have liked to present the evidence for both sides but they didn’t want to hear it and if I had pushed it any further I think I would have been in physical danger with this bunch.

It matters not if an issue is controversial or not – those supporting the true Right will allow all evidence to surface and are prepared to examine it dispassionately as much as possible.

(D) Religious dogmatists refuse to look at or even allow evidence to be submitted that would question their views.  Just try and present evidence of reincarnation to a staunch born againer and you’ll see what I mean. Try and present some obscure but controversial Mormon history to a true believer and he will refuse to check it out.

This reminds me of a time some Jehovah Witnesses knocked on my door and gave me a pamphlet to read.  I told then that I would read theirs if they would read mine.  I then grabbed a copy of my booklet entitled REINCARNATION AND THE BIBLE and handed it to them.  The poor gal held it in her hands, looked at the title and started shaking.  She then walked over to the coffee table and laid it down and retreated as fast as she could.

Conclusion:  The masses aid the path of the Left by refusing to allow light to shine upon the darkness.

(4) One way indoctrination. This is especially used in children but often on adults in countries ruled by tyrannies. Today the Left is attempting to see to it that that children in our schools are not taught any truths about God.  Whether it be lower or higher education the mere mention of intelligent design is anathema. Children and students receive a one way indoctrination that man was created by random forces with no intelligence involved.

In addition they are receiving close to one-way indoctrination on the environment and global warming in an attempt to prepare the rising generation to accept an all-powerful Big Brother to save us from ourselves.

On the political Right there used to be a lot of indoctrination from religious schools and still is to a degree but this technique of conservatives has largely shifted from the religious ones to liberal political ideologies.

(5) Threats, intimidation and name calling. If those supporting the True Left do not get their way they will threaten life and livelihood of those who stand up to them.  They will intimidate through name calling and labeling.  A prime example we can all agree on was the way blacks were manipulated after they were supposedly freed after the Civil War.

Presently we see these tactics used on teachers who even mention Intelligent Design or who express skepticism about orthodox global warming. Both sides will use these to a degree when it is important to them to get their way.

(6) They will support force to achieve their ends, even if that force runs contrary to majority will.

The ideals of equality of socialism and communism are not evil in themselves if they worked with free will but they do not.  They advocate forcefully taking from those who have and redistributing it contrary to their wills.

A certain amount of force is necessary when used in harmony with majority will to prevent murder theft rape, etc but excessive force contrary to majority will is part of the agenda of the Left Hand Path.

Force, lack of freedom and darkness are the ingredients those on the true Left Hand Path uses to control the unsuspecting masses.  Among these are many good-hearted idealist people who do not have a clue that they are making progress easier for the dark ones.

Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here

 

After New Hampshire

This entry is part 2 of 40 in the series 2012A

Now that the New Hampshire voting is over I thought I would give a rundown on my views of the presidential contenders for the Republican party.

(1) Romney. With two wins it looks like his chances are improving to get the nomination. All may not be smooth sailing however because the other candidates are ganging up on him. Gingrich and Santorum have received substantial contributions lately, Rick Perry still has cash and if Jon Huntsman gets some help from his rich father he could wind up doing some damage. The there’s Ron Paul with lots of cash who goes after anyone he doesn’t like or agree with.

I’ll cover the rest of the candidates and then go back to Romney.

(2) Ron Paul. I agree with many of his libertarian stands as far as they support liberty and financial common sense but many of his views I consider to be anti libertarian, especially his isolationism. I think that if he were president instead of FDR that he wouldn’t have assisted Churchill and Hitler would have conquered England and all Europe. It is doubtful he would have developed the atomic bomb whereas Hitler would have and would have eventually invaded us with him having atomic weapons and us being ill prepared, but standing on some obscure principles of supposed non interference and supposed freedom.

Today we face new Hitlers and Ron Paul wants to just leave them be to establish a new incarnation of Nazism that we fought so hard to defeat in the last century.

Whoever is president should demonstrate the power to use good judgment but the trouble with Paul is he has everything formulated in black and white and doesn’t seem to leave any wiggle room for making judgments out of the box when necessary.

I see his core group of supporters remaining strong and enthused but the 23% in New Hampshire will most likely be near his high point in votes.

(3) Huntsman came in third in New Hampshire. Earlier he said that if he didn’t win in this state that he would drop out of the race. Well, he came in third and he’s more determined than ever to stay in and bring Romney down. Even though Ron Paul beat him for second place by five points Huntsman has the gall to proclaim that he really came in second. Why? Because Ron Paul doesn’t count.

This idiotic statement by itself is enough to turn me off of Huntsman. I’m no fan of Ron Paul but he does indeed count and most take him much more seriously than Huntsman.

I’d vote for Huntsman over Obama but there is something about his demeanor that rubs me the wrong way. He exudes an atmosphere of superiority that I think a lot of people sense and are turned off by. For instance, he seems smug about the fact that he accepts the orthodox view of global warming and sees skeptics as “anti-science.” This is not true at all for the true scientific method has to include a hearty dose of skepticism.

(4) New Gingrich. When I learned he was entering the race I told myself that if he wanted my support he had to do something to redeem himself for appearing with Nancy Pelosi in support of orthodox global warming propaganda.

Instead of changing my mind he has only reinforced the idea that he is capable of making big mistakes that is unbecoming a president.

He started out with an air of superiority himself by claiming to be the only candidate who was going to remain positive to the end. Well, he took an about face on that idea after Romney ads took him out of the picture in Iowa. He has now turned into the most negative candidate I have seen in my life. He seems more determined to destroy Romney than he is to become president. He’s like the general who turns on his own troops in anger while forgetting that he has a real enemy to fight.

On top of this Newt has attacked Romney as a supporter of “predatory capitalism.” Obama and the Wall Street protesters couldn’t have come up with a better attack phrase. When I have heard him attack Romney’s efforts in capitalism the past few days I hear words that could have come from socialist Bernie Sanders.

(5) Santorum. As expected Santorum took a hit in New Hampshire and is unlikely to win much in the future. To his credit he hasn’t joined the chorus in attacking free enterprise. His big drawback is he comes across as too religious and places lopsided attention on social issues. Reagan was a conservative, but he placed over 80% of his attention on the economy and national security. I believe that this is where the majority of Americans want the president to put his attention.

The biggest problem I have with Santorum is his bad judgment and lack of self control. When he was running again Hillary and debating her he left his podium, walked over to hers and challenged her. That really seemed to infringe on her space and was a big item in his defeat.

Several times in the current debates he ran into overtime and then interrupted other candidates, stealing their time talking over them. That really rubbed me the wrong way.

Our president must be more than a pure ideologist but must be composed and have to self-control to use correct speech and timing in dealing with world leaders.

(6) Perry He seems to be a lightweight lacking gravitas similar to Santorum and also spoke out of order during the debates. He clinched my rejection of him when he called Romney’s legitimate business ventures “vulture capitalism.” He appeared to be attempting to out due Newt in the attack capitalism department.

This brings me back to Romney. He may not be the perfect candidate but he is head and shoulders above the rest of the bunch. I think a lot of the criticism of him is misplaced and he seems to have good self control and presence that will be needed in dealing with world leaders.

Agreeing with me is only part of what I look for in a president. If he agrees with me but doesn’t have presence of mind to avoid insulting world leaders and possibly leading to an unnecessary conflict then he is not for me.

Overall I think Romney has the best judgment of the bunch and if elected president I believe he will eventually be compared to Reagan.

Copyright 2012 by J J Dewey

Easy Access to all the Writings

Register at Freeread Here

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

Log on to Freeread Here

For Free Book go Here