Nov 20, 2019
The Missing Goodwill
A reader asks a question worthy of attention. He references a post I made way back in March 1999 wherein I addressed concerns of predictions of the end of the world in the year 2000 as well as Y2K. I stated:
“The end of the world will not come around the year 2000. Y2K may create some problems but they will be solved and we will move on. The time of great opportunity is upon the disciples of light from this point on for the next thirty years.”
I also said that, “Providing that alternative two is successful it will still take about 150 years to successfully usher in the age of peace. But the main period of tension will be the next 30 years.”
To this Blayne asks where we are now in relation to my comments.
In that post I stated that we face two alternatives for our future:
(1) There can be great destruction which will “destroy them which destroy the earth.” Rev 11:18. Thus with all the destructive people out of the way the earth can rest from the mischief man creates.
(2) Some destruction will occur but mankind will basically institute the just laws and actions necessary to create world stability so humankind can join in with the earth in the period of great rest.
I stated that the forces of light are trying to implement the second alternative whereas the dark ones are working on the first. At that time the chances looked good or a peaceful transition to the new age but the dark forces have been more successful than anticipated in applying the principle of “divide and conquer.” The great division among us is now obvious in that all over the world we see a heightened political divide between the left and the right. Few years ago religious differences were of much more concern than political, but that has changed. Now politics has become the new religion and many who in the past that were fairly indifferent now passionately take a side with loathing and hatred toward the other.
The only other time in history that corresponds to this is the atmosphere in the United States just before the Civil War. There is a significant difference, however. Back then the fight was over a definite point of good and evil, which was slavery. Yes, there were other problems, but this was the main dividing point.
In this age, the points causing the division are much more ambiguous. The strange thing is that both the left and the right pretty much agree with what the main problems are. Unlike the Civil War period where slavery was the defining issue supported by one side and attacked by the other, there is no one main issue that divides us. Instead, the division comes from how serious these problems are and how we are to go about solving them.
The right wants to solve our problems through maximum free enterprise and minimal government and the left wants minimal free enterprise and maximum government intervention creating regulations and charging whatever taxes necessary to make things happen.
Instead of focusing on points of agreement, of which there are many, they focus on disagreements and if they are not strong enough then the other side is demonized by distorting their view into something almost satanic, beyond reconition.
The plan of the Hierarchy was to smoothly move us into the new age through the promotion of good will promoted by the disciples throughout the world.
Instead, this division tactic is working so well that many disciples have abandoned goodwill and joined in with the division and hate and loath all who disagree with them as being enemies of humanity. The efforts of seeking union through goodwill has been neutralized to a high degree.
There are a few working through goodwill but a much smaller number than is needed. Many of those who incarnated with the idea of assisting in moving this goodwill forward have failed in their mission, given impetus to the dark side and will be greatly disappointed when they have their life review.
Because of a failure to raise goodwill to the needed level our fate is in the hands of a humanity’s ability to observe the results of their policies and behavior and to deal with it in a positive rather than negative way.
After World War II there was strong optimism that we could safely transition to the new age, but now I’d say that we are down to close to a 50/50 chance. I’m still leaning a little in favor of things tending to no great Armageddon situation, but the lights of the world definitely need to become more proactive. A few generalized meditations will not do the trick. There must be more actual positive activity on the physical plane.
Back in 2004 I was contemplating the great division that was beginning to manifest and wrote the Principles of Political Unification in an attempt to bring the two sides together. Unfortunately, it has gained little traction, but the hope is still there.
Principles of Political Unification
(1) I seek that which is good for my country and the world above that which is good for my party.
(2) I support the principle of free speech. I shall be allowed to express my political and spiritual views, however repulsive, without legal restrictions and allow all people the same privilege.
(3) I support the principle of freedom and work toward securing the greatest possible freedom for individuals and groups in every situation. I accept the principles of freedom enunciated in the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights.
(4) I commit myself to sending goodwill and the spirit of friendship to all involved in the political process, especially those with differing political views.
(5) Even though the majority may not always support my views I realize that the majority view, when properly informed, rarely will lead us on a dangerous path. I therefore seek to honor the will of the people. When I disagree with the will of the people I will not seek to forcefully control them or change them but will use peaceful means to inform and educate them.
(6) There are a number of issues that cause division, heated debate and anger. Examples are abortion, gun control, social programs, drug legalization, military activities and others. Most cannot be resolved in the near future through the conversion of one side to another. I support this unifying approach: To support the principle of fairness on controversial issues both sides must be heard even though the other side may be repulsive to me, for free speech and thought is the most important principle and the prime directive of unification and ultimate peace. I therefore commit to the principle of fair play realizing that both sides deserve to be heard and have their representatives in positions of power.
(7) I believe in integrity and honesty and will seek to be truthful no matter what the opponents do. I seek not to distort or lie for the benefit of my party or for personal gain.
(8) I accept that we must be fiscally responsible and will do all in my power to create a balanced budget, except in times of national crisis. I will only support programs that can be funded or continued without increasing the burden on the taxpayer.
(9) I agree that the people are taxed enough and seek to keep the budget within the range of current tax revenues (or preferably lower) and to not raise the percentage of taxes on anyone.
(10) I agree to put the security of my country and the world above the views or actions of my own political party. If others of my party sabotage national security or undermine a just effort toward the elimination of threats I will be just as critical of them as the opposing party.
(11) I accept the fact that there is great waste and inefficiency in government spending and commit myself to eliminate waste and increase efficiency wherever and whenever possible.
(12) I accept and support the idea that we can save ourselves much grief by learning from the mistakes of history so we do not repeat them. It is therefore of extreme importance that the youth be accurately taught, without censorship, national and world history in a way that is of interest and will be absorbed by them. I will oppose all those who revise history in distorted fashion for political gain.
(13) I agree that extremism has been and is the cause of many problems in the world and seek to not impose extreme views on the people. If I happen to have extreme views which I believe to be of value to will seek to persuade by education rather than by law or force. It is also a problem when political opponents are called extremists when over a third of the public support them. Such accusations are extremism in disguise. I seek to not be extreme myself in distorting the image of opponents by calling them extremists when such is not true. For instance, it is not extremism to be simply for or against abortion as there are many on both sides of the equation.
(14) I support the elimination of poverty but realize there are two approaches to this. The first is to give a helping handout and the second is to provide circumstances so the person may help himself. Extremists on this issue have warred against each other and have been the cause of much division. I reject extremism on both sides and seek to recognize the value of both sides. There are times of helplessness when people need direct assistance and times when they need encouraged to stand on their own feet. I do not support handouts to those who are capable of helping themselves and refuse to do so.
(15) I support the separation of church and state, but reject extremism on both sides. I reject the extreme that the government should endorse any specific religious influence on public policy even though all religions have the freedom to express their views. I also reject the other extreme that any mention of God, religious values, or the public display of religious symbols is to not be tolerated.
(16) I support equal rights for all races, both sexes and members of all religions and ideologies. I recognize that the large majority both sides of the political spectrum seek what is best for all races and minorities (even though the opposition has a different approach) and refuse to manufacture accusations for political gain.
(17) I recognize that the large majority both sides of the political spectrum seek what is best for the environment but again both sides have a different approach. Two extremes causing division are: First aiding then environment even if there is strong economic and job loss. The second is seeking profits at the expense of the environment. The truth is the two are interdependent. A strong economy can provide funds to help the environment and a healthy environment provides for a good long term good economy. I seek therefore to work with both sides of this issue and will seek cooperation rather than assigning blame. I seek to aid the environment without harming the economic structure.
(18) I recognize we are a nation of laws and will not support the subversion of law for political gain. I will condemn such subversion of those who share my views as well as those who do not.
(19) I will only support the establishment of necessary law as well as the elimination of bad, as well as useless laws that clutter the system.
(20) In the end, I support the example of John Kennedy who, while campaigning, found good things to say about his opposition and instead of tearing down he said “we can do better.” I support the idea of converting by good works and ideas rather than tearing down the opposition.
Copyright by J J Dewey
JJ’s Amazon page HERE