In the 1500s, Thomas More published a book called Utopia that even today is somewhat debated by people. There is widespread differences in how this book is interpreted by various experts. But there are some that have realized that the book is probably not meant seriously as a recommendation for this kind of society, but more as a satire of contemporary England of my time.
Looking down upon the present
However, there is more to it than that, in the sense that it is also meant to be a satire of those who are dissatisfied with their current society and always looking to the future, thinking society will be better in the future, possibly the distant future. You find this, of course, today as well. You find many people, both in the democratic world and elsewhere, who are dissatisfied with the world as it is. Who are always looking at the negative, always looking for problems, always trying to analyze what is wrong here, what is wrong there. And they think they are doing this with the best of intentions. They think that they are trying to discover a theory of how to create the ideal society in the future.
This was also the case in the 1500s and in many other time periods. There has always been a certain group of people, some of them are manipulators, who are always criticizing their present time looking towards some better future. And therefore, what are they doing? They are in a sense saying that the present time is no good. There is this problem, there is that problem, there is all kinds of wrong things going on in society. And therefore, people should be dissatisfied with the present and look to the future. This is not really all that different from the Catholic church and many other Christian churches who promoted the idea that you cannot truly be happy in this world. Happiness comes when you are saved after this lifetime and go to heaven. If, of course, you follow the dictates of the church.
There is a very strong mentality in the world, there is a very strong collective vortex of looking down upon the present and looking towards the future. Or even looking back to the past, thinking that conditions were so much better in the so-called ‘good old days.’ You see people who are either longing back to the Roman Empire or this empire or that empire, or longing forward to the Utopian society that they are convinced will manifest in the future.
You cannot solve a problem with the same state of consciousness that created the problem
How do you actually improve society? Many will say that you improve society by analyzing and pointing out the problems that exist, and then solving those problems. There is always a subtlety, there is always a challenge in discerning a higher view, a higher perspective. Of course, you can look back at history and see that people have analyzed problems and then attempted to come up with solutions to those problems. This is a necessary approach. But if this is your only approach, you will not actually be successful and you certainly will not create an ideal society.
Why not? Well, what is it that higher awareness actually stands for? In order to have higher awareness and discernment, you need to understand the duality consciousness. One aspect is the dialectic described by Hegel. A thesis generates an antithesis, and the interaction between the two generates a synthesis that becomes the next thesis and so forth. This is actually what happens when you try to analyze problems and solve problems with your current level of consciousness.
Einstein was inspired by us to say: “You cannot solve a problem with the same state of consciousness that created the problem.” And this is what many people are doing through this analysis. Because what was the consciousness that created the problem? Well, the consciousness of duality. What are these people using to analyze the problem? The consciousness of duality. What are they using to suggest a solution? The consciousness of duality. And how can a problem generated by the consciousness of duality be solved by the consciousness of duality? IT CAN NOT BE DONE.
Transcending the consciousness behind the problems
What did Jesus really do? What did he really represent? What did he really present to the world? The ultimate solution of problems is the transcendence of consciousness. No Christian has the foundation for understanding this in Christian doctrines because the teachings were perverted by the formation of the Catholic church where the power elite took over. And where it actually was the consciousness of anti-christ, the consciousness of Peter, that became the foundation for the Catholic church.
Many, many people in the world have the foundation for grasping this. Even grasping it in universal terms where they see that you have to rise to a higher level of consciousness, a higher perspective in order to solve a problem. Because most human problems are the outcome of a specific state of consciousness. There is this attitude of the self-centeredness, the selfishness, the me first, the willingness to do unto others and take from others by force. Just look at the world today. The willingness to take by force. Look at how many problems spring from that state of consciousness. All crimes, all wars, all invasions and conquests.
Look at the economy. The power elite being willing to take from the people through force has created all of the economic problems you see. It has generated the worldwide poverty that you see. It has generated the inequality in income distribution. It has generated inflation, the money system, speculation leading to increased prices and so forth. It is all about some people trying to take by force from the whole, from the population. So many problems that you see in the world were generated from this state of consciousness.
How could you possibly solve those problems, unless you transcended that state of consciousness and rose to the state of consciousness that is the foundation for democracy? Where you do unto others, you are not taking by force, you are working to raise the whole, because you realize this is the ultimate way to raise yourself. This does not have to be in a religious context. It does not have to be in a spiritual context. It is something that many people can grasp and observe in these universal terms.
Once you grasp this, you can consider what kind of societies would be able to implement this shift in consciousness. Well, certainly not Putin’s Russia or Xi’s China or nations of the Middle East. It must be the democracies. And the democracies, therefore, need to recognize that it is necessary to step up to a higher level of consciousness, even a higher approach to society, to human interactions and to government. And this includes selecting leaders.
Cognitive dissonance of the power elite
You can go back to the book Utopia and many commentators have said that it was written as a satire of contemporary England. Yet the main problem in England of the 1500s, was that you had a king and a group of noblemen around him that had that consciousness of taking from the people by force and therefore, forming a power elite that was exploiting the people. There was more than one power elite – the War of the Roses, for example, was two rivaling power elites.
The problem with this kind of leaders is that they claimed to have certain ideals, but they acted in ways that were contrary to their professed ideals. For example, they claim to be Christians, but they were exploiting the population. Taking away wealth and power, ignoring the fact that agricultural practices had changed so that many people were in danger of starving to death. This could not possibly be an expression of Christian ideals and Christian teachings. They were not willing to see this, because they were only focused on themselves, their power and their privileged lifestyle. Nothing else mattered.
There was this dichotomy, this cognitive dissonance. There is a certain class of leaders that are abusing power. And someone had to not bow to these leaders, not submit to power and the abuse of power, but take a stand for what he believed to be right. In other words, many people have said Thomas More was obsessed with the church’s teachings being followed to the letter. And therefore, he was against divorce. He was against the king divorcing a wife that could not give him children, so he could find another wife and get an heir. And when we look at this today, we see that divorce is universally accepted, even by the Catholic church, at least grudgingly, and everybody gets a divorce. That issue is no longer important to us today. Why was it so important to Thomas More that he was willing to lose his head over it? The issue of divorce was just the outer issue. It was not the real issue, the higher issue which was the desire to take a stand against the abuse of power.
Jesus also took a stand against the abuse of power, refused to submit to power, and therefore, allowed himself to be executed. Many other people have done that throughout history, and every once in a while it is necessary for a person who has a certain level of awareness to take that stand and demonstrate the unwillingness to submit to the abuse of power, the unwillingness to cower to power.
This is really the dynamic that Thomas More attempted to expose in Utopia. There was in contemporary society – not only in England, but all over Europe – this ruling class that were blatantly abusing their power. Confessing to follow Christian ideals, but their actions were the opposite of the Christian ideals. You could say with today’s words that he was taking a stand against the power elite and the manipulators.
Taking a stand against the abuse of power
How is this relevant to higher awareness? Of course, this is not saying that everybody who attains a high degree of discernment needs to allow themselves to be executed. But there comes a point where you do take a stand against the abuse of power. You refuse to submit to it. There can be situations where you do not rebel in an outer way. Render under Caesar that which is Caesar’s and unto God that which is God’s. But you are taking a stand in your mind. You are refusing to submit to the abuse of power. You are refusing to submit to propaganda, to pressure, to lies, to all of this manipulation that is going on. Many of the more aware people have done this but there are, of course, always degrees of this that can be done.
How is this relevant to democracy? Well, in a sense, what is democracy? It is a form of government where at least a critical mass of the people have taken a stand against the abuse of power. How did democracies form? Look at the United States where the early patriots refused to submit to the King of England. How did democracies form in Europe? By a critical mass of the people coming to a point where they would no longer allow themselves to be abused by the king and a nobleman that had abused them for centuries.
How does this relate to the world situation? Well, it relates in the way that democracies must be the ones who take a stand against that ruling class that abuses power. And this happens in an outward way by taking a stand against these nations, such as Russia, China and others who are abusing power, or the Nazi Empire or many other examples. But it also has an internal component where the people, the leaders, the educated people, the media people, the politicians need to step up to a higher level of understanding of this, where they are willing to take a stand against those who abuse power.
This can in some nations be corruption. It can be the so-called ‘old boys’ network,’ of giving favors to those who are loyal to you and your political party. It can be in terms of the economy where those who are in charge of the economy are blatantly abusing power to siphon wealth away from the people. It can be in taking a stand against those who have been elected through a democratic process, but who are now abusing the democratic process to either stay in power or to limit the rights or the governmental (the democratic) processes and institutions. There are many examples of this, even in democratic nations, even leaders who have been democratically elected, but who have then abused their power – tightening control, limiting freedoms, limiting free press, subverting democratic institutions, such as the courts, or even Parliaments and so forth.
It is necessary for nations to step up and become clear about the fact that there are still, even in democratic nations, people who are willing to abuse power. When you look back at history, you see this tendency for a small elite who is willing to use power, because they are willing to take through force, and obviously, this is completely anti-democratic. Therefore, it cannot be allowed. But it has been allowed in most democratic nations.
This can be in a more malicious way as you, for example, see in the late 1800s. There was a formation of a class of monopoly capitalists in the United States who deliberately attempted to undermine the democratic process by using their money, by buying influence, by creating institutions that were anti-democratic, such as the Federal Reserve System, which is not federal and really is not a reserve, either. You see this in many aggressive ways. You see it in certain countries where a person has attained power and is now trying to consolidate power around himself, or his own party, by subverting other democratic institutions. But you also see it in more subtle ways.
Old-boys network in the democratic nations
The bigger the country, the more there is a tendency for the emergence of an elite that is willing to blatantly and forcefully abuse power. You see this in the United States, most prominently, because it is the biggest democratic nation. It has the most power. There is the most at stake. There is the most money to be made. Those who are willing to abuse power can get the most out of gaining power in the United States.
As an example, take Denmark, a small country. You cannot really say that there are people in the Danish power elite who are manipulators in the same class as what you see in the United States or Russia or China. There just is not enough power to be had in Denmark to attract these kinds of manipulators. But nevertheless, you still have a power elite in Denmark who are running the country. Not because they use force, but because they know people. And they have actually done studies of this mapping how a little over 400 people are, in all practical terms, running the entire country through their influence. This is not through deception or through force, it is through what they all see as a benevolent attempt to run the country in the best possible way, because these people think they are best suited for it. And it is not that Denmark is a non-functioning or dysfunctional country. It functions quite well. But that is not the issue.
The issue is what promotes the growth of the people. And that can only be done when the people are involved with government and when there is not this ‘old boys’ network.’ Because they are mostly old boys – and they are, of course, all white in Denmark – who are running the country behind the scenes and the people have little influence on it. Many of these people are not even elected politicians. They are leaders of finance and industry, academics. But they are, first of all, exerting their influence by knowing people, by having connections, by talking to this person and recommending this and recommending against that and so forth. You see, of course, the same in many other of the smaller democratic countries, and you see it also in the bigger countries, as well.
There is a need to become aware of this. It is not really what you would call corruption in an economic way. It is more corruption of the mind, because these people think they know best. They are absolutely convinced that they are right. And they all have this cognitive dissonance, even the ones who appear as a benevolent power elite, because they are not blatantly abusing power, lying or manipulating. They still have the cognitive dissonance that they think they have certain ideals, but they do not see that their actions do not follow their ideals. This is one of the next steps for democracy.
Honest self-examination: are we living up to our democratic ideals?
One of the next logical steps for democracies is to look in the mirror and say: “What are the ideals we have? What are the ideals that are the foundation for our democratic nation and constitution?” And then, we look at society and say: “Where do we see people, institutions, aspects of society that is clearly not living up to these ideals, these foundational ideals?” This is part of a democracy, this self-examination, honest self-examination, to bring democracy more and more in alignment with the ideals that cause democracy to be created in the first place.
It is clear that, if you go back to the United States, the founding fathers, a few of them, were able to tune in to higher awareness and receive certain ideals. But they could not really understand the deeper meaning behind them and they could not live up to them. You see how even some of the founding fathers still were slave owners, even though they had signed the Declaration of Independence that all men are created equal.
This is not blaming anyone. It is not saying that the democratic nations are behind and should have done this decades ago. It is simply saying that it is time to consider this, and many people who have higher awareness are open to considering this. Many are already doing so. Many are already looking at it. There are many people in the press and media. There are researchers. There are writers, authors who are open to these ideas.
You will see, for example, how one of the most Catholic nations in Europe is Poland, but in the last several years there are journalists who have brought exposures of the pedophilia in the Catholic church. Which is just one example of how you have a church that claims to be based on the ideals of Christ, but it is allowing systematic sexual abuse of children, which clearly cannot be in accordance with the ideals of Christ. At the same time, they are covering this up, denying it, which, again, cannot be in accordance with the ideals of Christ. What would Jesus have said to a Catholic bishop who is covering up the sexual abuse of priests and moving them to other parishes? Would he have said: “Good job, you are protecting the church.” Or would he have said: “Get thee behind me, Satan, for thou art an offense to me.”
As life progresses, as the collective consciousness is raised, it becomes easier and easier to live up to your ideals, especially in democratic nations. It is easier to live up to your ideals in a democracy than in a dictatorship, where you might end up losing your head for taking a stand for your ideals. Or ending up in a labor camp in Siberia, as happened to Navalny in Russia.
Looking at society without blaming
It is simply a natural development, a natural consequence of the raising of consciousness and a progression of the earth that democratic nations become more self-observant, more willing to look at themselves, evaluate themselves and not go into denial, not go into this refusal to look at oneself. There is a need for the emergence of a group of people who are willing to look at society without having that critical, analytical mentality where you are basically using the duality consciousness to analyze the problems of the duality consciousness.
Which means what? It means you always end up with the conclusion that the problem you are having, that society is having, is created by a certain group of people. And they are the ones who need to change and be forced to change, or be killed, if they will not change. You are, in other words, scapegoating. When you analyze a dualistic problem based on the dualistic consciousness, you always end up scapegoating.
And it is not a matter of scapegoating. It is not a matter of blaming and pointing the finger at others. There is a need for the emergence of a group of people – a movement, organizations, institutions, writers – who will look at society without blaming, without scapegoating other people. This is already, of course, in progress in all democratic nations to some degree. More so in the Scandinavian, Northern European countries than in many other countries. Canada is another example. There is some tendency for this in South Korea, although not quite as developed yet.
Unfortunately, again, the United States is behind in this trend. And it is behind because there are so many people, both on the right and the left, who have gone into this unbalanced state of mind where they are blaming, pointing the finger and appointing a scapegoat. As the obvious example, for those who have eyes to see and ears to hear, look at how Donald Trump from his emergence on the political scene was scapegoating, was blaming others, pointing out that these people were the problem. Trump is an example of a leader who was completely focused on himself, which of course, is what the power elite is. He was basically saying between the lines: “Anybody who does not submit to me is the problem. And those who do submit to me, they need to do something about those other people.” Well, this is not democracy! And this is not going to bring any nation forward towards the Age of Higher Awareness!
It is going to create internal conflict and strife that will only delay the growth towards the golden age. But what it will do much more is that it will create divisions between groups of people which very conveniently obscures the role of the power elite, the financial, economic power elite. And it allows the power elite to continue to siphon wealth away from the people, lowering the standard of living of the people. Because the people are so busy blaming each other that they cannot see that the real problem is the power elite that has distorted the economy to an almost unfathomable degree. At least, it is almost unfathomable that it has not been exposed for what it is. Of course, you cannot expect a person like Donald Trump, who has taken advantage of the financial system, to expose it or to do anything to stop it. This is, again, cognitive dissonance. You claim to be a president who wants to take care of the working class people, but you are doing nothing about the power elite, who is exploiting the working class people.