Is it possible to preserve American democracy?

Will America be a democratic nation or an undemocratic nation? Is it possible to preserve American democracy or to preserve America as a democratic nation?

First of all, let us briefly look at the public discourse in America. If you step back from all of the rhetoric, from all of the things being said, if you do not focus on particular viewpoints, if you do not try to decide what is right and what is not right about what is being said; in other words, if you step back from the contents of the public discourse, but focus on the energy behind the public discourse, the vibration behind the public discourse, what do you feel? What do you sense intuitively? What is the dominant feeling behind the public discourse in America exemplified in this debate that goes before the presidential election?

Well, the dominant energy is anger. There is a rising anger in the public discourse of America and there has been a rising anger now for quite a long time. This is not an anger that is directed against some outside force or group. It is not even an anger directed against the power elite. It is an anger directed by normal Americans against other normal Americans. There is an anger from conservatives directed against liberals, there is an anger from liberals against conservatives. This is what has been called the culture wars.

But if you step back again, and do not focus on the contents of these wars, but just on the energy, you will see this rising tide of anger and the rising tide does not lift all boats, but unfortunately it has lifted an awful lot of boats in America where people have been lifted you might say, or even sunk into this anger. They have been pulled into this maelstrom of anger energy that is becoming stronger and stronger in the collective consciousness of America.

If you look at history you will see many examples where nations, not necessarily democracies, but different nations have also had a rising anger in the collective consciousness. If you were to look for a situation of a nation that had the same intensity as the anger you find in America today, you would actually have to go back to the 1930s and look at Germany.

There are naturally some clear differences. In the 1930s, Germany was not a democracy, it was a totalitarian nation with a fascist regime and the anger was not as such, directed against another group that could be said to be normal Germans, it was directed against a group that could more easily be construed as not being normal Germans, but being an outside group living in German society, namely the Jews.

Many will resent any comparison between Nazi Germany and America today but this is not about these outer things. It is about the anger energy, the intensity of the anger energy. If you look beyond these differences, if you look beyond your desire to distance yourself from Nazi Germany (which of course all nations have, even Germany itself today), then when you only look at the intensity of the anger, the level of anger, there is a reasonable comparison. The level of anger directed by conservatives against liberals and by at least some liberals against conservatives, is very intense.

This is not talking about the total amount of anger energy. There is far more anger in America today than there was in Germany in the 1930s but because the population of America is so much larger. Back then, it was much more difficult to create that level of anger in the German population because communication wasn’t as effective as it is today. The Nazi leadership had to go through a much greater effort of using what mass media was available back then, in order to generate the level of anger in the German people. Today, this is much easier because of the Internet. Why is it easier? Because the Internet makes it possible, or at least makes it easier than before, to create this self-perpetuating momentum that moves through the collective consciousness.

If you look back to the 1930s of Germany, you see that Hitler had these mass rallies where he would speak in front of tens of thousands of people, work them into this hypnotic state and then they would go out from there still carrying with them the energy that they had taken in during the mass rally, the anger energy. They would then go out and meet with people they knew and they would in many cases, be able to spread that anger energy to these people as well.

So there was also back then this self-perpetuating effect, where the anger could spread from that original event. People carried it with them and spread it to other people who might even spread it to others and so on. But today, this has reached an entirely new level with the Internet where people can take these posts created by a few people, share them, endow them with more anger energy and it just keeps spreading and spreading not only in America, but even around the world.

Now, the question simply is, can a democracy be preserved if the level of anger in the population goes beyond a critical level? Can there come a point where there is so much anger in the people of a democratic nation that it effectively aborts or destroys democracy? It distorts the democratic process to a point where the democratic process cannot function and now you have something that is not actually a democracy, even if it still is from a legal, constitutional sense and even if people still vote. But if they vote based on this anger, can the democratic process actually work?

To contemplate this question, we need to go back to the US Constitution and the Declaration of Independence. What is the foundation for the United States’ Constitution? Well, it is of course, the ideas, the principles, the ideals set forth in the Declaration of Independence. What does it say? “All men” (and today it would have said), “All men and women are created equal.” In other words, all people in a society, all people in the world are created equal. What does this actually mean? You can look at people today in society and say, “But they are not equal, they are very different. One person has abilities, another person does not have any abilities, one person is lazy, one person is willing to work hard. One person is this, one person is that, one person has this color skin, one person has that color skin and so on. So you observe that people are very different. What is the real essence, the real idea behind this statement “all humans are created equal”?

Well, this is difficult to understand for most Americans. The more aware people can realize that all people started as a conscious self that had a point-like self sense of identity. In that sense, you were created equal. You started out with the same point-like sense of identity and you have then over many incarnations, many lifetimes, expanded and built the sense of identity you have today. What you have today is not equal. But what you were created with was equal. Now, of course, those who received these ideas that were incorporated in the Declaration of Independence did not have this awareness. So how did they look at it? How did the Founding Fathers look at this idea?

Well, some of them were Freemasons and they actually had an awareness of reincarnation. Some of them did realize that originally people were created equal but what it really meant for them was that people were by God, by their Creator, created with the same value, with the same rights, with the same freedoms. In other words, God did not create two distinct classes of human beings, the ruling power elite and the majority of the population. The Founding Fathers were well aware of Kings that were based on this belief in the “divine right of kings.” Where the King and the noble class were created differently by God, they were created to rule. This was the belief that created the feudal societies of Europe. It was, of course, a false belief and the Founding Fathers were well aware of this.

God did not create two classes of people. God created all people equal, of equal value, with equal rights and freedoms. Therefore, the Founding Fathers realized at least to some degree that the new society they wanted to create in America had to be a society that recognized that essential equality of all human beings, and therefore was dedicated to making sure that a ruling class could not form, and that you could not have a power elite that would set itself up to rule America, dominate the population and essentially turn the majority of the people into slaves of the elite, as had been the case in the feudal societies. This, the Founding Fathers, most of them, understood quite clearly. In a sense, they wanted to create what we could call a classless society.

Now, the Founding Fathers were also well aware that they, most of them, were property owners, had what Thomas Jefferson called the “gentleman farms” for many of them. They had reached a certain position in society, in many cases due to their own hard work, and they of course wanted a society where people could still do this, they could still work their way up. But what they did not want was a society where certain people could work their way up and then once they had reached a certain position in society, they could turn this into a privileged position that other people could not threaten. In other words, they did not want a society where a privileged elite could enjoy a certain position that no one else could rise to, no matter how hard they worked. This was quite well understood by the Founding Fathers, at least most of them.

Now, you find in the Declaration of Independence, a rather peculiar wording that many people have not really considered and it is the words “nature’s God”. Many, many people in America believe that America is a Christian nation. They believe that America is founded upon Christian principles and therefore they think, if they ever bothered to think about this, that when the Declaration of Independence talks about “nature’s God”, well, surely it must mean the Christian God, because there is no other God in their worldview. But this is in no way the case. The Founding Fathers, most of them, fully understood that America was not meant to be a Christian nation and they had some understanding that nature’s God was not the Christian God, the Old Testament God, the angry, remote God in the sky.

Now they had various understandings of what is meant by “nature’s God”. Some of them did not have a very deep understanding of this. Even Jefferson himself had a limited understanding of it, but he had some awareness that it was not the Jehovah of the Old Testament. It was not the Christian God. It was not the angry being in the sky.

What is actually behind this need to use the expression: “nature’s God”? Well, it is a need to define that the United States of America is based on the recognition that there is an authority that is beyond anything on earth, any human authority. There is a certain authority figure, which deserves the word “God”. But it is not the Christian God. We might instead of “nature’s God” say: “the natural God”, meaning, the God that is not created by human beings and influenced by human opinions. It is, so to speak, the real God, the original God, the original Creator, who is beyond any religion on earth, any image created by any religion on earth— any idol ever created by human beings.

This is, of course, where Christians will say: “But the Old Testament God is not an idol. All the other Gods were idols, but the Jews had the only true God”. And this is where most of the Founding Fathers would disagree with these Christians, because they had the awareness that the Old Testament God was not a natural God, it was not a God that was beyond human idiosyncrasies. And why is this so? Because this god had a chosen people on earth, this god favored one group of people. In the Old Testament worldview, you do not have a classless, egalitarian society, where all human beings were created equal. In the Old Testament view, the Jews were created in a special category from all other people.

The Founding Fathers were aware that as long as you have a partial god, you cannot actually have a truly democratic, free society. Because if you have a God that is partial, then there will inevitably be the emergence of an elite, who claims to represent this god and will therefore attempt to take on to themselves a certain authority, which means their words are more important than the words of the people. They have an authority that the people do not have. They have an authority given by God, and they will claim that the population should follow them.

The Founding Fathers were aware of the connection between the Catholic church and the kings and noble class of the feudal societies. They were aware that the Catholic church, by its worldview, encouraged the creation of a power elite that would rule the people. They knew that if you allow a religion like that to attain dominance in a society, then it cannot be fully democratic.

Now, what else do we have in the Declaration of Independence? “All men are created equal. They are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienable rights”. The importance here is that an authority that is completely beyond the human level, the earthly level, has endowed all human beings with rights. This means that there never should be, in these United States, based on this Declaration of Independence and Constitution, an authority that thinks that it can define the rights of the people.

In a fully democratic society, the government does not define the rights of the people. They are defined by an authority that is beyond the government. The church, a particular religion does not define the rights of the people. They are defined by an authority that is beyond any particular religion on earth, for that matter, beyond all religions on earth. When you see the emergence of a power elite (whether it is supported by a religion directly or not) that thinks they can define the rights of the people, then you do not have a free democratic society.

In the Soviet Union, the Communist Party believed that they could define the rights of the people. A number of years ago the Chinese Prime Minister visited the United States, during Bill Clinton’s presidency. They had a discussion about human rights. And the Chinese Prime Minister said matter-of-factly, because this is what he truly believed: “Surely the Chinese people have rights, but it is up to the government to define those rights.” But this is not the view of the Founding Fathers of America.

However, it is the view of many, many people in America today, including many of those who call themselves conservatives, and many of those who call themselves Christians. They do believe that the government should define the rights of the people, and that it should be done based on Christian values—the Christian worldview, whatever those values are, and whatever that Christian worldview is, given that there are many different churches in America that all claim to be Christian.

Nevertheless, there is a certain collective consciousness that says that there is a Christian traditional set of values and that this should be the foundation for defining the rights of the people. But this viewpoint would make the Founding Fathers rotate in their graves as the saying goes, because most of them recognized that if you allow any authority on earth to define the rights of the people, you no longer have a free democracy. Because those who define the rights of the people will inevitably form a power elite, who has special power and special privileges compared to the population.

In the feudal societies of Europe, they believed they had the right to define the rights of the people. King George in England, that the Founding Fathers opposed, believed he had the right to define the rights of the people living in the colonies. He believed even that this was given to him by God, because surely, the people could not define their own rights. And surely, he recognized no real authority beyond him, in the sense that he used God to give himself authority in the eyes of the people. But in his own mind, he thought he was the highest authority as the many Catholic Pope’s have believed throughout the ages and some even today, among the Catholic clergy believe that the Catholic church is the highest authority on earth.

The essence of this is, again, you cannot allow any human power to define the rights of the people, if you want to preserve a democracy. What does the Declaration say further: “All humans are created equal, they are endowed by their Creator with inalienable rights. And among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness”. Life is fairly straightforward. No institution in society has the right to go out and kill the people.

Simple enough, it can of course, be complicated, as you see in many societies, where certain police forces, secret police have taken onto themselves or have been given by the government, this right to go out and kill people, even without a trial in the court of law. You could look at today how certain government agencies in America believe they have the right to kill people, you can even look at the police force and see how they believe they have the right to kill people when they feel threatened, or when these people resist the power of the police.

You can always have a debate about this, and whether it is being understood and respected. But this is not the main purpose of this discourse. So let us move on to liberty. What does it mean that people have the right to liberty? How far can we take this? What do they have the liberty to do?

Well, most Americans today would say that liberty is something that needs to be defined, what people have a right to do. And it needs to be defined by the laws of society. This is a reasonable enough starting point when you are considering liberty. But it is not the final word here. Because who defines the laws? Well, you will say ideally that the elected representatives of the people define the laws. And again, this is reasonable enough. But what is their basis? What is the worldview from which they define these laws? It is whatever is the dominant worldview at the time. And this may be more or less out of alignment with the principles, the ideas behind the Declaration of Independence.

In other words, if the right to liberty is given to people by their Creator, who is nature’s God, does it not stand to reason that the liberties that the people have are also defined by God? Does it not then stand to reason that the laws of a society, if it is to be fully democratic, should be in as much alignment with these ideas and principles of nature’s God, rather than some manmade worldview or authority. In other words, again, Liberty cannot be defined based on a Christian worldview, or a  communist worldview, or a conservative worldview, or a liberal worldview. It cannot truly be defined on any human worldview. But human beings should strive to transcend all manmade worldviews, and tune in to, connect to, experience the Creator’s original vision and intent.

What is the Creator’s original intent? All people are created equal, in the sense that all people have been given free will. You know the old joke that all men are equal, but some are more equal than others. Well, most people, most Americans today, many other people in other democratic nations believe that maybe we should have free will, but some people can make better choices than others. And therefore, their will should be more free. And those who are prone to make bad choices, should have their free will restricted.

But this is not coming from the Creator. This is coming from human beings, a human interpretation. The Creator gave all human beings free will. That means you have a right as an individual to do whatever you want, based on your current level of consciousness. But there is one restriction of free will defined by the Creator: You do not have the right to take away the free will of any other human being. This is the only restriction of free will. It does not mean you cannot attempt to take away the free will of others because you have that opportunity once you are an embodiment on earth, but you do not have that right from the Creator.

In other words, all men are created equal, meaning the free will of all people is of equal importance. And this means that no person has the right to use his or her free will to take away or limit the free will of another human being. This also means that no authority on earth, no government, no religion, no power elite has the right to take away the free will of the population. How many people have truly acknowledged this?

Many people will say: “But how can a society function if everyone does whatever they want to do, regardless of the consequences that it has for others?” But you see, you are all created with a point-like sense of identity. That means you start at a certain starting point, a certain self-awareness and you express your free will, you exercise your free will based on the vision you have. You cannot do anything else. But as you express your free will based on the consciousness you have, the awareness you have, you experience a consequence of your choices. You experience that your choices create certain consequences. And when you experience those consequences, you can expand your awareness.

In other words, as you exercise your free will, you refine your free will. You voluntarily limit the choices you make, based on knowing what the consequences will be. This is the basic process defined by the Creator of this world. This is the basic liberty given to all people. You exercise your free will based on your current level of awareness. And as you experience the consequences, you have the opportunity to refine the choices you make.

What are those consequences that you experience? Well part of it, a big part of it, is how your choices affect other people and therefore affect your ability to get along with other people. We could say that one of the basic principles behind free will is that no human being is an island. You do not live in a vacuum, you live in a social setting, a group setting with other people. You are dependent on those other people for many, many things, in many cases your very survival depends on other people.

So, naturally the process that people go through of exercising their free will is to learn to balance your individual free will with the individual free will of the people around you. But this is not a forced thing. It is a voluntary thing where people raise their awareness by experiencing the consequences of their choices. So, one person can express to another person how their choices affected them. Thereby, the first person can then have a chance to refine the way they make choices in the future. This is the process, whereby people learn from each other and where they can grow together towards higher awareness.

A community of people living together, can ideally raise their awareness together, refine the way they use their free will, so that they gradually expand their awareness from the point-like starting point to a spherical awareness. Where they realize that, at least these people that I am living with in this community, we are all connected, therefore what I do to others actually affects myself. This is the basic idea found in most religions on earth: “Do unto others what you want them to do to you.” This is, what we might say, a commandment that is stated after people had lost the awareness of how free will ideally works.

In the ideal scenario, the original scenario, people grew together, expanded their awareness of each other, grew into a greater and greater sense of connection and oneness and harmony with other people, so that this group of people voluntarily, as a result of their raised awareness, began to make choices that raised the whole rather than one individual at the cost of the whole. So, this is the original scenario designed by the Creator.

Now, what is the next right after liberty? The “pursuit of happiness”. Well, what does this mean? It means that you have the right to pursue what you think will make you happy, based on your present level of consciousness. What does this mean in a society? It means that people should have the right to pursue happiness as they see it, as long as it does not take away other people’s rights to pursue happiness as they see it.

This is a difficult ideal to attain. But why is it so difficult? It is difficult because the natural process that was initiated originally has been aborted, has been distorted. It has been distorted by the duality consciousness. The duality consciousness is part of the equation of free will. It is the inevitable companion of free will, where in order to have a truly free will, you must be able to go into a state of consciousness where you define yourself as being different from, as being separated from other people.

This then gives rise to the illusion that what I do to others does not affect myself. This is what has aborted the entire natural growth process, where people expand their awareness together. This separation has been heavily reinforced by the manipulators who were allowed to embody on this planet, who have then created many of these dualistic polarities that divide people into two factions that see each other as enemies, often engaging in an all out war to destroy the enemy. It is not an easy ideal to live up to. Yet these are the ideas, these are the principles behind the American nation, the American Constitution and the American democracy.

In 1776, virtually all human beings on earth were completely blinded by the duality consciousness. It is therefore, from a realistic standpoint, completely impossible that American society, even though it hThere is no claim that America should have lived-up to these ideals from the beginning. It was completely unrealistic to expect this. But the reason why this was given as the starting point of the American nation, was that America has the potential to grow into living up to these ideals. Even though the founding fathers had some understanding, none of them had the understanding given here. Most people, of course would not be able to grasp what is said here, but at least many of the more aware people will be able to grasp it.

So, what was it that higher awareness inspired upon these founding fathers of America? It was a set of ideas and principles that could set a direction for the American nation—a direction that America could gradually become, or grow closer and closer to living up to. In other words, this is an ideal for what America can become. It is of course not exclusive to America, it holds true for all democratic nations on earth.

Now, why hasn’t America lived up to this? Well, for two reasons: partly because the people of America have been blinded by the dualistic state of consciousness. Partly, because from the beginning there has been a power elite who never accepted democracy. There was a clear power elite in feudal Europe and they were the ones who had the privileged positions in society. These souls, many of whom incarnated again and again as the feudal Lords and as the Kings, did not want democracy, the manipulators do not want democracy. They did everything they could to destroy the American nation in its inception, using King George and the British but they were not successful. So, America was created as the first modern democracy and many other democracies followed.

What have they done ever since? They have attempted to make sure that America could not follow this ideal course towards living up to the ideals defined for this nation. They have also tried to undermine, even destroyed the democratic process, so that America has less and less of a functioning democracy. Their intent is very, very clear, there is no two ways about it. They will do everything they can to use the freedom that the American system gives them, to destroy democracy in America. They will do, and they are doing and they have been doing, everything they can to destroy democracy in America.

What are the means they have used? Well, any and all means that they thought could achieve the desired end. The ends can justify the means is their modus operandi. What does this mean? Well, it of course means many, many things.

They have attempted to use the economy. They have used the economy to attain these monopoly positions. They have attempted to use the political process, they have attempted to create this entire phenomenon of lobbying, where those who have money can buy political influence.

But to reach back to the starting point for this discourse, one of the means that these anti-democratic beings have used is to create more and more anger among the people. Divide and conquer, divide the American people into opposing factions. But what they really attempt to do is to build this self-perpetuating spiral of increasing anger.

Why do they do this? Well, because they know that if you get people to be angry enough, you can make them do things they otherwise would never have done. You can make them agree to things they otherwise never would have agreed to. If you had been a professional, for example an attorney or someone in the law enforcement system, who has spent your life dealing with people who commit crimes, you would have been able to see that there are two major reasons why people commit crimes.

One of them, is what you might call professional or career criminals who do it as a way to make money. The other big group is what you would call normal ordinary people who commit a crime. These people are not really criminals, they have gotten themselves into a certain situation where they committed a crime. They were always pressured into committing that crime, because in their normal state of awareness, they would not break the law.

One of the things that is most common for getting people into this state of mind where they break the law, is precisely anger. When people get angry enough, they will kill somebody, even though they normally are not violent people and would never dream of killing another human being. But when the anger reaches a critical level, their minds are taken over, are clouded by the anger. Professionals in the law enforcement field realize that people’s minds are clouded by the anger, so that they will do things they normally would not do.

This is precisely what the power elite knows. This is precisely why they have very carefully now over several decades, used any means available to them to build this increasing anger. They know that sooner or later the anger will erupt like a volcanic eruption. Well, a volcanic eruption is a physical thing, but at the emotional level there is the equivalent of a volcano, where anger can become intensified to where it becomes like hot magma that burns everything in its path. This is what you can see in a mob of people that are rioting, there is a group mind that takes them over and now they do something that they would never have done as individuals.

So, these power elite people, they know that when they generate this anger, it is just a matter of when it will erupt.

Now, you may say: “Why do they want this anger to erupt? Because they want to create chaos. Why would they want to create chaos in a free democratic society? Because chaos quickly leads to a crisis situation that the population cannot endure, and now they will look for a way out of the crisis. What is the way out? Well, it is always that the power elite comes in and says: “In order to stop this phenomenon we need more authority, we need more power. Law and order must be upheld. So, we need to do whatever needs to be done to stop this, whether it be demonstrations, riots, whatever you have.”

This means you strengthen the government apparatus, which essentially means it becomes more and more totalitarian. And even though the excuse might be to protect the people, or uphold the law, the reality is that it undermines the democratic process and the democratic freedoms. It turns a society into something that is no longer a free democracy, but a midway stage, a halfway house, between democracy and totalitarianism, or at least authoritarianism.

What is the principle behind giving human beings free will? It is that a community grows together, expanding their awareness to where they all realize that what is best for the whole is what is best for the individual. This is based on raising awareness, not force. This is not something that is forced upon the people from above, from some authority in society. It comes from within, through people’s raised awareness. It cannot be forced.

Oneness—a sense of community, cannot be forced. What can be forced is separation, animosity, the creation of enemies, anger and hatred, this can be forced. Oneness, community, co-operation cannot be forced, it can only be based on raised awareness.

So, of course the manipulators do not want the population to raise their awareness, because they know that when the people raise their awareness, they can no longer be controlled by a small elite. So, they will do everything they can to abort this process. What did the manipulators have to do to distort life on earth? They projected that there is a standard for right and wrong and they projected that people should live up to it. If they did not, they should be forced.

So, you create a standard that is dualistic because it has two opposite polarities, then you label one of them as right and one of them as wrong. Now, the people who belong to the ‘right’ polarity, you project that it is not only justified, it is necessary for the good of society or even the survival of the human race that they force those people who are wrong to come into alignment with what they have defined as right. Labeling is the foundation for conflict. The value judgment of right and wrong is what makes that conflict erupt like a volcano.

What are the labels you see in American society today? Well, many, many, many labels but of course chief among them, Republicans and Democrats, Conservatives and Liberals, Christians and non-Christians. You have seen over the last several decades, the emergence of this belief that the Christians in America represent traditional values, and that these values must be upheld or disaster will be the result. You have seen this willingness to force others to come into alignment with these Christian values.

You have seen a belief that this is based on the teachings of Christ and would be sanctioned by Christ. But according to the Bible, Christ said: “Turn the other cheek, do unto others, love your enemies, do good to those that hate you.” In other words, what did he say? Don’t force other people. Don’t force your will upon other people. Don’t force other people to come into alignment with your will.

So, how do these people construe that this could be sanctioned by Christ? Well, they don’t because they don’t think, they are not aware. Why do they not think? Well, partly because they are in the dualistic mindset, they believe that this is absolutely right that their viewpoint is the only truth, but also because of their anger. They are so angry, have become so angry, with the way things are going in America that they are not thinking, they are not aware. There is no real thought process here, where they attempt to look at themselves from outside the perception filter of their consciousness.

There is no willingness to step outside and look, where is this going? Is it really in alignment with what Jesus told us? What will be the result of this? Is it really logical that we can solve all of America’s problems by forcing this set of vaguely defined Christian values and tradition upon the nation?

Look at history. For  a thousand years in Europe you had societies that were dominated by Christian values, as they were defined by the Catholic church back then. Did it create an ideal society? Maybe some people think, but that was the Catholic church, or that was the church in the Middle Ages, but we today in our fundamentalist churches, we have the real interpretation of the Bible, so we could create what the Catholics could not create.

You cannot create an ideal society by taking any man-made view, any man-made religion or ideology, or political theory, or philosophy and forcing it upon society. The very purpose of life on earth is the growth in consciousness, the growth in awareness. The very reason, the cosmic reason for the emergence of democracy, is that democracy is the (at least for now) ultimate way for people to exercise their free will, and grow in the awareness that what is best for the whole, is what is best for the individual.

The very process whereby people voluntarily expand their awareness, to feel a connection with others, to have a vision of the whole, is best facilitated right now at least, by democratic societies, and that is the entire purpose of democracy. The purpose of democracy is not to produce a particular result, it is certainly not to produce a society that is dominated by a particular religion or ideology, or theory.

The purpose of democracy, is to produce a society where the vast majority of people have raised their awareness to the point where they feel a sense of community, a sense of unity, a sense of harmony, a sense of oneness. They see the connection between the whole and their individual interests. They work together, and by working together they multiply their talents. As in the early communities where they had this greater sense of connectedness.

What these people who are driven by this anger have failed to grasp, is the real purpose of democracy. One side is the religious right, or the Conservatives. There are also in recent decades this group of people who call themselves Liberals and who also believe that by imposing their vision upon society, you could create the ideal society. They also have a certain anger that they are often expressing against the Conservatives.

So, none of these two polarized groups can really bring America out of the gridlock that America is in. Why is that? Well, because the simple fact is that none of these groups respect democracy. The manipulators, the power elite have never respected democracy and have done everything they could to destroy it. But what the power elites have gradually created and reinforced over these last three or four decades, is that there is now two major groups emerging in American society that also do not respect democracy.

Many among those on the Christian right do not actually want a democratic society, they think that the reason America has gone astray, the reason for all of the problems is that we have a democratic society. They want a society that is based on authority, the authority of the Bible as they interpret it through their so called literal interpretation. They actually want the kind of society that you have had during the Middle Ages. The kind of society that produced the massacre of the Cathars, the Inquisition, the Crusades, the witch hunts and other atrocities. This is the kind of authoritarian society they want, based on so-called Christian values, the Christian values that did not come from Christ but from a human interpretation imposed upon Christ. The kind of human interpretation that Jesus would have said what he said to Peter, ‘Get thee behind me Satan, you have nothing to do with the reality of Christ, because you are based on the things that be of men and not the things that be of God.’

So, what needs to be seen here is that there are now two groups in America that dominate the public discourse. Neither of these groups have respect for democracy. Some among the Liberals will claim that they are liberal, they want to give everybody freedom, but it is still based on a certain worldview that they want to force upon society by using political means. This is not respect for democracy.

Respect for democracy means what? You allow the democratic process to work. You allow the people to vote based on their present level of consciousness and experience the consequences.

Higher awareness does not want to force certain things upon society so we can manifest the Age of Higher Awareness as soon as possible. The Age of Higher Awareness must be a voluntary process, it cannot be forced upon society. It can only be based on a raising of awareness, and raising of awareness must be, can only be, a voluntary process.

How do people raise their awareness? By making choices and experiencing the consequences. That is why higher awareness is not concerned ultimately about the American people electing this or that President. Right now you look at the upcoming election, it is clear from higher awareness that if this person is re-elected, it will have certain consequences. If the other person is elected that will have other consequences. None of them is the ideal scenario. There can be some rather dramatic differences in the consequences. But the view of higher awareness is simple. If the American people want to elect a certain President, they must be allowed to do so and experience the consequences, so they get an opportunity to learn from those consequences.

Higher awareness has a long-term view of America. The only solution is the raising of awareness and that must come gradually over a long term. Naturally, it could go faster if the American people were not in the school of hard knocks. But this is not something that can change overnight.

The American people must be allowed to make the choices they want to make and experience the consequences. Now, why is it that some people cannot accept this? Well, first of all it is easy enough to see with the manipulators that they do not want to give the people freedom to make any choice they want, to choose any representatives they want, or even to vote directly on issues, because they want to control people.

But what about these groups that have emerged and that are part of the American people? Why can they not let the democratic process work? Well, because they have been trapped in this epic mindset, the dualistic consciousness, where they believe that there is one result that should be achieved. If it is achieved, there will be an ideal society, if it is not achieved, it will be the end of civilization as we know it. This is the black-and-white thinking, the epic thinking of an epic reward or an epic disaster or punishment. It can be no other way.

Whatever happens in this presidential election, or in the next 10 years or 20 years, America will muddle through, as America has been muddling through since 1776. It may, for a time, take a more authoritarian turn as it already has started doing, but this will not last forever. The pendulum will swing to one extreme, the momentum will stop and then it will start swinging back towards the other extreme.

But because of the rising collective awareness on the planet, the swings of the pendulum will eventually start becoming less and less, until it is more centered in the middle. Not the middle between the two dualistic extremes but the Middle Way of higher awareness, which is beyond duality, beyond the extremes. This is the long-term vision for America, it is a matter of how long it takes, how many extreme consequences the American people need to experience.

You could very well have something like a civil war, or mass rioting and violence before the American people wake up and realize that this is not what democracy is about. And that a democracy cannot function when two groups of people see each other as enemies, and are using democratic and undemocratic means to fight each other and to force their vision upon society.

When will this happen? When the anger becomes intense enough and the consequences severe enough that some people begin to say: “No, this has gone too far, this is too much. We cannot continue down this road. We must stop”. This has already happened several times in American history. It happened in the 1960’s with the conflict between black people and white people. Even though there was turmoil, there eventually emerged a higher awareness that people with dark skin were created equal by their Creator and therefore, had the same inalienable rights as those with white skin.

This is not saying everyone accepted this, many people still do not accept this, but there was a raising of awareness and this is what led to a new status quo. This was not an ideal status quo in terms of equality between the races, but it was better than what was there before. So, you see that there was a period of tension and anger that was released, and that was replaced by a higher awareness where people simply said: “This has gone too far.” Most people will come to that point where they say: “This has gone too far, we cannot continue like this”. The majority of the people will come to that point. Some will never come to that point but the majority of the people will and this will shift the equation upwards and there will be a new awareness.

What is anger? It is the antithesis of tolerance. What is one of the founding pillars of democracy? It is tolerance. If you recognize that all men are created equal, all humans are created equal, and they are endowed by their Creator—they are all endowed by their Creator, with the same inalienable rights. If you truly recognize what this means, you realize that the very basis for American democracy and all democracy is tolerance. Tolerance of what? Tolerance of differences. If you do not have tolerance of differences, a democracy cannot function.

What you see today, is that those on the one side of the culture war have no tolerance for those on the other side and vice versa. This is completely anti-democratic, it is directly undermining the democratic process. What is the inevitable outcome? Tension and conflict will continue to intensify, until more and more people start coming to the point where they say: “This is enough, this has gone too far. We need to drop the animosity, drop the anger, drop the focus on differences, focus on the similarities and a connection between us and tolerate each other.” Of course, it is the hard way to learn this, but again if this is the only way the American people can learn it, then so be it.

Now, many people in Canada, many people in the European democracies and in other democracies around the world, have already learned that lesson to a far higher degree than the American people have. The American people like to think it is the most advanced nation, the most advanced democracy, but there are some serious questions to be raised about that.

One measure for how advanced a democracy is, is the populations’ tolerance for differences. Do you blow up differences and use them to create animosities and conflict between groups of people? Or do you find a way to tolerate the differences so that you can coexist? Ultimately, the differences can be a source of growth for all involved when you transcend the dualistic mindset. But you can still find a way, a state of mind where you tolerate the differences.

This is what many of the other democracies in the world have achieved, to a higher degree than America has achieved. America can and will achieve the same, it might take a few years, it might take a decade, it might take several decades. But if you look forward in time, based on having understood what has been happening in time, you will see that the result will be greater tolerance.

You can go back to the founding fathers and you can glorify them and think they had some kind of higher awareness or maybe even an ideal society. But if you do go back, you see that there were some very big differences, very big conflicts and there was a clear lack of tolerance even back then.

In a sense, you could say it is a wonder that Americans could ever stand together to create a new nation. But they only did it because they had a common enemy. The Civil War was the extreme outplaying of intolerance that you have so far seen in American history. But since the Civil War there has been several shifts in the population, where it has led to greater tolerance. A major milestone in this process, was that women were given the right to vote. What an incredible intolerance on the part of men that they would not tolerate that women could vote in a democratic nation. If you look at the deeper trends, if you look behind all of the outer conflicts, even the culture war and the conflict between conservatives and liberals, you see that there is an undercurrent of increasing tolerance in America.

Now, some of those who call themselves democrats or liberals, have tuned in to this undercurrent to a greater degree than most of those who are republicans or conservatives. But you still have the culture war, where the Democratic Party has been captured, has been hijacked by those who are extremists on the left wing or the liberals, and who see themselves as the enemies or the opponents of Republicans. What those who have understood and locked in to the increasing tolerance have not yet done, is to free their party from the extreme views. There are of course, also some Republicans, even Senators in Congress, who have locked in to this, but they also have not managed to change the equation in their party.

If you look back and understand the trends, American society as most societies around the world, have been moving from lesser tolerance towards greater tolerance. This movement will continue, the manipulators cannot stop it. It will have the inevitable consequence that at some point in the future, Americans will have had enough of the divisions, enough of the warring, enough of the culture wars, enough of the anger and they will rise to a higher level of tolerance. It is not a matter of if, it is only a matter of when.

What can the more aware people do to speed up the process? Work on yourselves. Look at whether you have been pulled into these spirals of intolerance, then free yourself from it and be the forerunners for raising the collective consciousness. 

What is the basis of tolerance? It is the basic humanity, at least the first level of tolerance. The higher level of tolerance is the essential humanity, but then you are really moving beyond tolerance and moving into Oneness, where tolerance is no longer needed. There is no longer a need for tolerating differences, because you do not see them as a source of conflict but as a source of growth. If all people had been created the same, there would be no growth. The very basis for growth is diversity. When a society or a group of people in a society, begin to see diversity as a threat and build up intolerance for diversity, then growth will slow down and democratic processes will be undermined.