Mentally, take a step back, look at this area of Eastern Europe, look at this area that was under communism for those many years, whether the nations were part of the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact. Let us begin by simply observing. We can observe that many of the nations, in fact most of the nations, in Eastern Europe, have chosen to become part of the NATO alliance. Others have chosen to also become part of the EU and so what does this signal? Well, it signals in a certain way that you are saying that you want to be free of Russian dominance.
Naturally many of the nations, one could say all of the nations, who were dominated by the Soviet Union, were dominated involuntarily. They did not choose to voluntarily enter the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact but felt forced to do so partly because of Russia under Stalin but partly because they did not feel that there was any help forthcoming from the West. They felt they were, as the saying goes, “between a rock and a hard spot.” They saw no way to escape and therefore they chose to submit in order to maintain some kind of continuity of existence for their nation and the people in them.
The fact that these nations have chosen to draw a line by entering these alliances with the West, demonstrates that there is a certain desire to be free from this dominance that you naturally associate with Russia and the Russian people. However, you can take this a step further because one of the things that really could help Eastern Europe move into the golden age consciousness was to come to a greater analysis and understanding of what actually happened with the Soviet Union.
It is natural that if you are in Eastern Europe, you are feeling that communism was something that was forced upon you by Stalinist Russia. If you are willing to step back, you could begin to consider: “Was communism also forced upon the Russian people?” Then, you would, of course, as many people have realized already, see that it was indeed forced upon the Russian people. There was by no means a majority of the Russian people before the Bolshevik Revolution that wanted a communist nation. They wanted a better standard of living but there were very, very few people who actually believed that they could achieve this through communism.
Communism does not appeal to human nature
In just about every nation that has become communist, it has always been done through a violent revolution and the simple reason for this is, of course that communism is not something that appeals to human nature. Therefore, it cannot really be brought through a free choice. It must be forced.
We can, of course, go into an analysis of the elements of the communist philosophy, the Marxist philosophy, and we can begin to look at these single elements and see what it is that goes against human nature, how it is using force. It would be valuable to have an open discussion about this. However, if we step back even further, we can say that the real issue here is not actually communism. We can see that communism was simply a tool whereby a small elite suppressed, first the Russian nation and then many other nations. This then can lead us to consider: “Who are these people, who are these forces?”
Then, we can see that these are the manipulators but we can talk in more general, universal terms. There are nations in Eastern Europe who could begin to have a debate or have writers and journalists write about the fact that there always seems to be in history a tendency for a small elite to dominate the population. Then, of course, we can see that for a democratic society to function, we cannot allow a small elite to dominate the population. Then, we can begin to consider how a power elite can dominate the population. How is it possible that a few people, a small percentage of a population, can dominate the vast majority of the population?
How the elite dominates
The power elite cannot do this entirely through force. You may say that Stalin had an entire apparatus that was willing to go out and hunt down and kill or take to Siberia anyone who opposed his rule. Yes, he did but how did he create this apparatus? Did he personally have the power to kill all of the people in his power apparatus if they did not obey him? Did he, with force, force them to do this?
Then, you will see that there never has been a leader who could rule the people through raw physical force. There has always been a certain mindset, a certain consciousness, and the leader may in many cases not have been the originator of this mindset, this consciousness. He simply took advantage of it and used it to put himself into power.
You will see in Russia, of course, that Stalin was by no means an intellectual giant and that he did not create the mindset, the consciousness. Lenin was one of the architects, but, of course, going all the way back to Marx. You can see that whenever there is a dictatorial rule, or an elitist rule, there is some kind of overlay. It can be an ideology, it can be a religion, it can be other ways, but there is always a set of beliefs, a certain consciousness and there are some people who accept this consciousness and they make themselves tools for forcing this consciousness upon the rest of the population.
Again, it could be valuable to go into an analysis of what makes certain people accept this. What was the mechanism that caused, for example, a few people in, say the nation of Estonia, Poland or Romania, to make themselves part of the party apparatus and be willing to go out and actually arrest, execute, torture or export to Siberia their own countrymen? This would be a valuable analysis, but again we will not go into this here because there is another issue we need to consider.
Regardless of how much physical force that Stalin and his henchmen were applying, or were willing to apply, it was not the physical force alone that caused the suppression of the nations of Eastern Europe. It was that there came a point where the broader population accepted the inevitability of Soviet dominance and submitted themselves to it.
It is not the intention here in any way to blame anyone for doing this. There was, in practical terms, no real way that any of the nations in Eastern Europe could have opposed Soviet dominance because the West was not ready to back them up. They did not want to go into a war with Russia and so there is no blame here. There is simply a realization of the fact that behind the Soviet dominance of Eastern Europe was a general tendency that goes beyond communism and is what could be called elitism. Behind elitism, and all the many examples we have seen of it throughout history and see today, there is a certain state of consciousness. There comes a point where the broader population submits to this state of consciousness.
The psychological cost of submission
You may say: “But many of us, when we lived under communism, we just submitted on the outer. We just did the practical things that we had to do in order to be able to live in our countries and we thought whatever we wanted to think inside of us.” Here is where you need to be more discerning. Many people who were under the communist yoke did, of course, think many things inside themselves that would not have been acceptable to the regime, to the party line. Yet you cannot physically submit to an external force without this having a psychological effect on you. It is not that you, in your mind, accept the doctrines of communism. It is a much more subtle level where there are certain psychological mechanisms that come into play. Again, there is no blame here.
Human nature has a survival mechanism. There is a sense in most people that we need to physically survive as long as possible. They may not have a clear conscious idea of why, but this is what you popularly call an instinct. It is something programmed even into the physical body, but also the four lower bodies, that you need to survive. That is why there were people who were able to survive even the concentration camps, whether they were the Nazi camps or the Soviet camps, because there is this drive to survive. What you need to recognize here is that part of this survival mechanism allows you to submit yourself to certain outside, external circumstances that you normally would never accept, but in order to physically survive, you submit yourself to these external circumstances.
Now again, no blame. This is simply a built-in mechanism that is programmed into your physical bodies. If people will step back, they can say: “When our nation physically submitted itself to Soviet dominance, this was an expression of our basic survival mechanism. We had to do this, we did do this, but what we have so far not recognized is that in doing this there was a psychological price to pay. It was necessary for our physical survival but there was a psychological cost because in order to submit ourselves physically we had to suppress some of our inner psychological drives, desires and natural urges. One of the things that had to be suppressed was the built-in creativity.”
There were many others, including as we have already mentioned, this drive to do better and to see a direct reward for your efforts. This sense that life is an opportunity and there is something I am here to do, but I cannot do it because of these physical circumstances. Now, it is not that this is necessarily so absolutely terrible or so absolutely only a phenomenon you find in the communist countries. In many nations you have had situations where people have had to suppress some of their inner desires or their higher desires because they did not have the outer conditions. Poverty, for example, is one of the most powerful and insidious ways to suppress people. It is actually, in a psychological sense, worse than the suppression of communism and the threat of being killed.
The suppression of creativity
All we are pointing out here is that all people, all nations, can have these periods where there are certain physical, outer conditions that means people have to set aside their inner desires, their drives, their feelings of what life should be about. It could be a major step forward for the nations of Eastern Europe if this could be recognized and if those who are the most creative people would begin to debate this, to write about it, to think about it, to analyse what actually happened: “What was it that we suppressed in ourselves as a people during those fifty plus years of Soviet occupation?”
It would be very valuable if the most creative people in Russia would debate the same thing for the nation of Russia, but now we are talking Eastern Europe, so the primary thing to address here is that when you physically submit yourself to a repressive regime, like Stalin’s communism, you are saying subconsciously: “My physical survival is more important than my creative expression so since the government, the system that I am living under does not allow any creative expression, I have to suppress my creative drive.”
Do all people have a creative drive? Well, no, not in the sense we are using the word “creative drive” here. There is in all countries a certain part of the population who simply want to live a comfortable, secure life, however they see and define it according to their background and culture. You can look at each nation in Eastern Europe and you can see that there was a certain percentage of the population who simply wanted security, they wanted a safe lifestyle. They were the ones that would most readily submit themselves to the communist rule.
In some cases, the communist rule was not so much worse than what they had before. Nevertheless, there is a certain percentage of the population (and it varies from nation to nation and so we will not put a figure on it) that really do not have a creative drive. They just want to have what they consider a comfortable living and then they want to maintain status quo. Maintaining status quo is more important to them than actually improving their lives.
Now, if you look at a society, you will see that these kind of people (with this attitude) can be found at all levels of society. We are not talking about here that these are the poorest or the workers. You can find people among the rich people or the political elite that are exactly like this: Status quo is more important than improvement because you know what you have, and what you might get instead could potentially be worse than what you have. That is how these people feel and that is why we can say, they have no creative drive.
In every nation, there is a certain percentage of the population and in most of the nations of Eastern Europe it was (at the time of the communist takeover) the majority. These are the people who have the basic creative drive where you are willing to make an effort as long as you see that when you work harder you will get a bigger reward. If you make an effort and you are rewarded, then you are willing to make that effort, even make a greater effort. For most of these people this does not mean that they will go on making an effort indefinitely and therefore end up being billionaires. It means that they are willing to work to have a better life than their parents had but there will usually come a time where they feel: “Now, we have achieved our goals and our dreams and now we want to be comfortable after this.”
The creative elite
Then, there is a certain part of the population that have a stronger drive. This is usually a smaller percentage. They have a stronger creative drive that is still centred around effort and reward. They want to make an effort and they want to get a reward and there is really no end to how much of an effort they are willing to make if they think the reward is big enough. These are the people that in a Western country you see become the financial, economic elite, the business elite. They are the ones who in the extreme end up being like Bill Gates or John D. Rockefeller who expand their business indefinitely and never seem to get enough. This is still an expression of the creative drive. It is, of course, unbalanced but this is still the basic creative drive: make an effort; get a reward.
These kind of people were, of course, completely suppressed during communism unless they went into the party apparatus. Then, they could get somewhat of a reward where they could get either better material conditions or they could get a sense of power. You need to recognize that for some of these people, their creative drive has become unbalanced to the point where they can actually have a fulfilment of their creative drive by having a sense of power. This is what caused some people to then not only submit to the political apparatus but become part of it.
What you now have left is what you, in a certain sense, could say are the real creative people, the people who have the highest form of creative drive, which is that they have a desire to express creativity but it is not completely self-centred. They realize that creativity is about bringing forth new ideas that help society evolve and grow. These, of course, were the people where most of them were severely suppressed or even killed or deported during communist rule. Communism has no need for such people unless, of course, they in rare instances are willing to submit themselves and create the kind of art that the system can approve of. In most cases, the people who make this kind of art are not the really creative people, they are people who simply see another way to take advantage of the system and get a more free lifestyle by doing the kind of paintings that the party wants to have done, or by doing sculptures of Lenin in the way that the party can approve of.
What we are talking about here is the real creative people who can very easily take their creativity to the point where it is not self-centred. They are not doing it to make money, they are not doing it to become famous, at least not exclusively. They are doing it because this is an expression of who they are. These are the people who drive a society forward.
When we talk about creative people, you might in your mind’s eye use the stereotypical image of a painter who is standing there with his palette and painting on a canvas while having long hair and beard and a somewhat Bohemic style of dress, or a sculptor who is chiselling away at a block of rock. This is not what we are talking about. There are, in fact, painters and sculptors who are not particularly creative. What we are talking about are people who in some cases are dissatisfied with status quo but in other cases they are not even driven by dissatisfaction. They simply have this inner drive to always improve conditions, to always do things better, to look at any aspect of life and say: “How could we improve this?”
To give a very basic example of this, there was a person who came up with the idea of toilet paper. It was a creative expression because it greatly improved upon what people did before. You see that many of the everyday things that you take for granted have been brought forth through a creative effort. Someone looked at a particular condition (that the vast majority of the population took for granted and did not think could be changed or needed to be changed) and this person said: “Why are we doing things this way, isn’t there a better way to do this?” Then that person created what is the essence of creativity: an opening in the mind, a stillness in the mind. The person could then tune in to the realm of higher awareness and receive an idea from this realm of how things could be improved. This is the essence of creativity.
Why communism failed
Now, most of the people who have done this throughout history have not been aware of higher awareness and societies or creative people today do not need to be aware of the existence of higher awareness. You can, of course, become more of an open door for new ideas if you are aware of higher awareness and willing to tune in to it consciously. Nevertheless, it would be a great, a decisive step forward if the nations of Eastern Europe would begin to look at this and say: “What actually happened, what was it that was suppressed during the communist era?” Of course, one of the things that was suppressed is the basic creative drive to make an effort and see a reward, but more importantly, it was the higher creative drive of wanting to improve certain conditions.
In a certain way and from a certain perspective, what caused the collapse of the Soviet Union was precisely the suppression of this higher creative drive. There was always a status quo approved by the party and it was always assumed that the status quo, approved or defined by the party, was the highest way or at least the way things should be. Once you have created this from the party (that here is the status quo, this is how we do things, this is what we can have in a communist society), then what happens automatically? Well, the people who live in that society, they are suppressing their creative drive so nobody considers: “Why are we doing things this way, was there a better way to do things?”
Those of you who have travelled to various countries that were part of the Soviet Union or the Warsaw Pact will have seen, as you can see here in Estonia, these apartment buildings built out of concrete, grey-brown concrete. If you have been inside of them, you will know that they are very poorly built that there is really no sound insulation between the apartments. You can hear what those above you and below you are doing, even what they are thinking. This, of course, is part of what the party wanted because they wanted people to feel that even when they were in their own homes, somebody was listening. They were not free to express themselves. You will see that this kind of apartment building is found throughput the Soviet Union and Russia.
Again, you can you say that when these buildings were built, they were in some way an improvement over what people had before, but the party defined that this is considered a suitable dwelling for the workers of the Soviet Empire. Therefore, there were no creative people who used their resources to say: “Could we create a better way of living for our people, could we improve upon this?” Instead, you saw people who felt lucky and grateful that they even got an apartment, sometimes having to bow to the local party leader to even get a place to live. They lived in these apartments for thirty, forty, fifty years without even considering that this could be improved upon. There are, of course, thousands and thousands of other examples throughout society where you see that there was a certain design created and that design was just repeated and maintained over and over again. Whereas if you look at the West, where there was greater freedom of creative ideas, you will see that the very same things were improved upon greatly in that timeframe, simply because there was room for people’s natural creativity to be expressed.
Restoring the natural creativity
It would not be so difficult for the nations of Eastern Europe to make this switch in the mind and realize: “We have in an outer way signalled that we want to distance ourselves from what was forced upon us during Soviet communism.” But it would be a great step forward if you could realize: “This was not really forced upon us by Russia, and especially not by the Russian people, because they were simply suffering under that same yoke of a power elite. But the power elite could only suppress people through a certain mindset and this mindset caused the suppression of people’s natural creativity. If we truly want to leave the Soviet past behind us, it is absolutely necessary that we make a conscious, determined effort to restore creativity, the natural creativity that is in all people. That means we must look at our society, we must look at the political apparatus, we must look at our economy and businesses and how they function, we must look the educational system from the university level to the kindergarten level. We must look at the media and we must simply make a determined, conscious effort to restore and encourage creativity.
There are still many nations of Eastern Europe, and Estonia is only one of them, where the school system is very much still affected by Soviet times. You have to learn facts and memorize and this was considered a sign of intelligence. Well, it may be a sign of intelligence but it is not a sign of creativity. You have a certain percentage of the students who, already in their school years, learn to suppress their creativity in order to fit into the school system and get good grades. Well, why would a nation uphold a school system like this if it wants to distance itself from the Soviet past? It makes no sense. This is just one example but many, many other examples can be found.
How do you look at government? In many of the Eastern European nations there are people in government, who are in government today, but they were also in government or bureaucratic positions during communist times. They are still there. They are not openly communist anymore, but that is because they have no advantage of it. They are what you might call not truly idealists in any way; they are bureaucrats, they are politicians who do this for a living. This is their way of making a living and they are willing to adapt to whatever system is there. If it is communism, they will adapt and say and do the right things to fit into that system. If communism falls, they will do or say the right things to maintain their positions.
Many of these people have exactly the same mindset today as they had during communist times, and just one example of this is that they look at the people in a certain way. They look at: “Maybe we now have a democracy and maybe the people are allowed to vote but the people are not able, they are not capable of making decisions about society. They simply don’t know, they need to be ruled.” This is, again, the kind of mindset that wants to suppress creativity because the bureaucrats and the politicians who have this attitude, they are not creative people. Therefore, they are per definition wanting to maintain status quo so they can maintain their position. This means they are afraid of creative people, for they can do something unpredictable and that is a threat to status quo. Many of these people actually have a negative attitude towards “the people.” This, of course, is not the golden age consciousness, it cannot bring a society into the Age of Higher Awareness but likewise it cannot free that society from the Soviet-dominated past.
Likewise, you have people in the media who have not shed the attitude that the people are only supposed to know certain things, the things that the media elite judges is for their own good. Do you have a truly free press in Eastern Europe? That is a question to debate. Of course, it would be a question to debate in most Western countries as well, but that is beside the point for now.
Creativity and business
Again, you can look at the business people of today in Eastern Europe, and you can see that there is actually a certain percentage of truly creative people who have gone into the business world and it is for a simple reason. When communism fell, the creative people looked for a creative outlet. They looked for the area of society where there is the most room for improvement, for doing things in new ways. They could see that it was not in the educational system, it was not in the government, it was not in the bureaucracy, it was not truly in the media (although to some degree there was room there), but it was in business. So, many creative people went into business.
Unfortunately, what has happened is that many of these people have been seduced by the business philosophy that has come to dominate the West. This means that they have become self-centred and self-focused where they are only concerned about making as much money as possible for themselves and their company. This is partly because they do not see how they can take their business knowledge and creativity and make it for the benefit of society because there is not that openness. In some cases, they have not reached that level of personal development where they can take their creativity to an altruistic level.
In most Eastern European nations, you have a small group of business people who have gone into business whole-heartedly, who have applied all of the creativity they had, all the drive they had. Some have been driven more by the desire for a reward than the desire to be creative. Right now, they are at the point where you have a business community that has grown but nobody can really see (or very few people can see) how can you take the growth in the business community and apply it to society so that other areas of society could grow also.
How could you take the creativity that has been developed in the business world, and take these people and put them in positions where they could again express their creativity in a way that was for the benefit of society? This would be a very important topic to debate: “How can we do this? How can we integrate the creativity in the business world in other areas of society so that those areas can grow as much as the business segment has grown?”
Now of course, in this context it would also be absolutely valuable if there could be a more open debate about: “How do we actually want to have the business world function in Eastern Europe? In other words, it is fine that we want to distance ourselves from communism but does that path mean that we have to become capitalists in an ultimate sense? Does that mean we have to become mini United States where capitalism rules everything? Or can we find a more humanitarian form of a free economy where it isn’t just a matter of profit, and where it isn’t that we allow a small group of people to now become a power elite through the business world so that they in a sense become the next power elite ruling society, replacing the communist party elite that used to rule us before.”
Creativity and basic humanity
In that respect you may look to, for example, the Scandinavian countries where you have a certain free enterprise model but also have a certain welfare society based on the sense that we need to raise up all people in society. Here is where, again, there could be an area that needs to be debated. If you look to the Scandinavian countries and ask yourself how they have created the welfare society, it is because there are many people in those countries who have a recognition of a basic humanity. When you connect to the basic humanity in yourself, you can connect to the basic humanity in others.
Therefore, you can see that the ultimate expression of creativity is not that you are being creative in order to enrich yourself, or in order to make yourself famous, or in order to make yourself feel better than others. The ultimate expression of creativity is that you are seeking to raise up your entire society, raise up all life. This gives a certain sense (in these countries that have this) that: “We cannot allow people in our country to live in poverty or have no health care or whatever the issue may be.”
There is a desire, a social awareness that we need to raise up all, and this is where (when you look at the Scandinavian model) you could actually, from a certain perspective, say that naturally not everything that was said in the communist philosophy was false or untrue. There were certain aspects of communist philosophy that appeal to people, for example, the dream of a more equal society where people have equal opportunity, where they were working together. You will see that communism set up certain ideals that were actually an expression of the basic humanity. When you also look honestly at communist societies, you will see that no communist society has actually manifested those ideals—on the contrary. Therefore, you could look to Scandinavia and see that in these particular areas, Scandinavia has actually realized the ideals that were espoused by communism. They were, however, not communist, Marxist ideals. They were universal humanitarian ideals.
Then, you need to look at your own societies and you need to recognize that communism suppressed creativity but communism also suppressed the basic humanity, the sense of basic humanity. First of all, it inserted the element of fear and, second of all, the suspicion, the distrust. Whom can you trust? What can you say to somebody you don’t know, for they might report you to the party elite? There might be a knock on your door at four o’clock in the morning. So you have a situation where many people dared not talk openly, except maybe with their family members, but many more people decided that there were certain things that they never even talked about with anybody. When you have a society based on fear, based on this basic survival mechanism, then you cannot have the sense of basic humanity that connects people.
Suppressing higher discernment
You may say that there can be a certain common desire to help each other and stick together, because you have an oppressor and you are helping each other get along in society. This is not the same as a basic humanity because the basic humanity is a raising of awareness. You begin to look beyond your narrow self-interest and recognize that all people have something in common and that behind all the divisions that you see on earth, there is oneness. The Alpha and Omega, you might say, is that the Alpha is the creativity, the reaching up for higher ideas, and that was suppressed by suppressing creativity. The Omega is the sense of unity and oneness on a horizontal level between people here on earth, and that was equally suppressed by communism.
The Father and the Mother element are two sides of the coin but each of them can become unbalanced. What balances them is the element of the Son, the Christ Consciousness or higher discernment. Again, it is not necessary that the Eastern European nations begin to recognize higher discernment, but it could be very valuable if they would recognize that the most creative people have the ability to sense inside themselves what is right and not right, what is valid and not valid, what is a higher truth and a lower truth. Many people, of course, had this during communist times in the sense that they clearly sensed that there was something wrong with communism and something wrong with the way society was functioning. They were longing for an improvement, longing for freedom.
You could realize today that one of the most important aspects of bringing society forward is to allow people to express this inner sense of what needs to change. It is not necessarily a matter of what is right and wrong, but it is a matter of the sense that here is something that needs to change. “We cannot continue doing things the way we have always been doing them. We need to come up higher, have a greater awareness and we need to improve.” This is the element of the Christ but it does not have to be described that way.
The end of the era of ideology
It can simply be said that people have a sense of what is right, what is creative, what needs to change and this needs to be acknowledged. This is where you can recognize that the collapse of the Soviet Union signalled the end of the era of ideology—ideology in a broad way.
It can be political ideology, it can be Catholic Christianity or Protestant Christianity and it can be scientific materialism. It signalled the end of the era where you allow a small elite in society to define a thought system, an ideological system that says: “This is how the universe works and because of this, here is how people should behave and how our society should be organized.” Instead, you can embrace a new approach where you say: “Instead of having an idea of how the universe should work, let us look at how it actually works. Instead of having an ideology that defines how people should behave, let us find those people who have an inner sense of what is the higher way and let it come from within the people instead of being forced upon them by an external authority.”
If there was one lesson that the Eastern European nations could learn from fifty years of Soviet suppression, would it not be that you have had enough of being suppressed by an external force? Well, then recognize that an external force is a state of consciousness that tells you what you should do and therefore attempts to make you overrule or ignore your inner sense of who you are and how you want to express yourself.
In other words, Eastern Europe could, within a matter of decades, make a shift from being a region where there was no room for creativity to becoming a region where there is much room for creativity. This would mean more progress than could be achieved in any other way. It would mean that Eastern Europe could quickly catch up to where they would have been if they had not been suppressed by Soviet communism. It would mean that Eastern Europe could actually leap ahead of many Western European nations where they are not able to make this shift. Of course, some Western nations are in the process of making this shift and will make this shift but there are nations in Eastern Europe who could very quickly go beyond some of the Western nations and manifest a much more advanced society so you no longer need to feel that you are behind.
Why are you behind the West? Because there has not been room for creativity. How do you get ahead of the West? By making room for creativity. It is really that simple.
You, who are the more aware people, can also express who you are and to find out: “Where is my place, where is the place where I can express my built-in, my inherent, creative drive?” Why are you here? Why are you aware people? Why are you open to a higher teaching? It is because you are creative people. You may never have had a desire to be a painter, a sculptor, an actor or whatever, but you have a desire to understand new ideas or you would not be here, and that is the higher definition of creativity.