The Golden Age

I recently saw a long list of the freebies that a woman could get if she applied for welfare in a particular state, and would lose if she got a job.

This is an unacceptable state of affairs.

I like the entrepreneurial spirit.  And the concept of the right of an individual to the fruits of his or her labors.  

I do not like - in fact, I detest - the mentality that would force others to take care of you.  (The word 'entitlement' really should go.)  And I further detest the mentality of those who would seduce people into that way of thinking.  

A momentary hand up in the ups and downs of the drama of life is one thing.  A dependent way of life is clearly another.  And no government should set up that sort of thinking in the minds of its citizenry: to look to it for their wellbeing.

It is not the latter mentality that will inform the Golden Age; that it will operate under.  It is the former mentality, the individual, independent spirit of making things happen, that will inform it. 

The Golden Age, then, will not be about an all-powerful state, running the citizens' lives to within an inch of their lives.  It will be about each person taking responsibility for their own life.  And from that place of consciousness, the Whole will benefit.

It is about individual empowerment.  Not about Power Over, from an oppressive state.  But about Power from Within.  

Within each of us, as a facet, an aspect of the Divine; of which we are, then, a part.

A vital part, in the ongoing saga of the evolution, the development of consciousness.  

So I am saying, clearly, that the Golden Age, that we are about to embark upon,1 is informed by a vision of humanity being part of a larger Whole.  And not just the larger whole of a social order.  

But as in the whole energetic ball of Love and Light that we are a part of.

And just so is there absolute Truth.

There are people, of limited consciousness and awareness, who would try to tell you, and sell you on the idea, that the Truth of something is relative.  Is whatever you - or they - want to make it.  And I am here to tell you that that is wrong.  That there is an objective truth of a matter; not just in the eye of the beholder.  

Take the Constitution of the United States of America.  The objective truth there is what was in the minds of those who drafted it, or amended it.  And that objective truth is what needs to be considered, when thinking to apply its terms to various legal questions that arise over the years.2

And speaking of the application of Justice: I say as well that there is Justice in the universe; not just at the whim of the state, and its manipulators.  That, in point of such fact, the universe has Purpose; and that purpose is Good.

So, don't listen to those who would lead you off the path to the highest realms of the heavens.  And if they would attempt to force you off that path, resist them.  For, resistance to tyranny - of any kind - is obedience to God.  To the call of Truth in your lives.  And the ultimate truth: that you are God.  That you are a spark of divinity; a piece of the continent, a part of that main.

And don't you forget it, in the hustle and bustle - and siren-song soundings - of everyday life, on this level of existence.  About to go up a notch or two.  

With you.  Or without you.

Your choice.  As always. 

In the Creation - the Mindful Creation - of a loving God.       

---

footnotes:

1 Because it's time.

     And helped along by many examples, in our time, of the truth of 'a life after death'.

     The time for mere conjecture is over.  It's time to move on.

     Literally.  Or to say, rather: Up.

2 The 'concept' is called 'original intention', or 'originalism', or 'constructionism'.  Liberals - Democrats, mostly - over the years have attempted to insert into the process the 'concept' of 'a living document,' subject totally to the subjective 'interpretation' of the SCOTUS of the day.

     They are wrong.  Objectively so.

     This is a contract.  It is not "just a damn piece of paper;' as it has somewhat recently been alluded to, by a rather high-ranking member of the political party on the other side of the aisle.

     Which shows just how far 'off' one can get, without the overriding concept of objective truth to guide one by.