Higher awareness has no particular judgment, as you would call it, a human judgment about any nation on earth. Naturally, there are certain nations in the world, especially the United States, and some European nations who have a certain judgment about what should or should not happen in these nations. They want to, so to speak, spread freedom and democracy, but at what cost?
Higher awareness is not looking to spread freedom and democracy with any means. Higher awareness is of course looking at the people all over the world, and it is seeking to bring them all forward to higher levels of awareness. And it is quite frankly a natural development that as you raise the collective consciousness in a group of people, be they confined to national boundaries, or their race, or whatever divisions you have, then they will gradually become open to a democratic form of government. Let there be absolutely no doubt that dictatorships have had their time on earth. And the kind of government that you have had in Russia, in Belarus, in Ukraine, they have had their time. The only thing that has kept them, and is keeping them in place, is that the people have not yet broken through—the collective consciousness has not yet broken through to a higher level.
In a sense, you could say, are you not then saying that higher awareness wants what these people in the West want, when they talk about spreading freedom and democracy. But, actually higher awareness is not saying that the development from a dictatorial form of government to a democratic form of government has to follow the same pattern in every country. It is not saying that it is a Western form of democracy, or a Western mindset that needs to be spread around the world.
Higher awareness is looking at people, looking at groups of people, looking from a higher perspective, what is their history, going back, maybe in some cases, thousands of years, in most cases, hundreds of years, where a certain group of people have started to form a collective consciousness as a group. This can be across national boundaries, but they have formed a certain collective consciousness. Higher awareness is looking at the history of this, of how people have embodied in this culture, this consciousness for perhaps many lifetimes, perhaps centuries. And it is looking at where is this group at, what is the level of the collective consciousness, and how can we then raise that level and bring people forward?
It is clear that there can be many differences based on different cultures and background. But it is also clear from a higher perspective that there are certain common trends, certain universal elements. And there is one that is important in this context. The Ukrainian nation needs to have an open and neutral debate about what kind of nation we are, what kind of people we are, how we see ourselves. Can we, when we recognize that there are certain differences, can we move forward together, or do we need to separate? This is, of course, a completely necessary debate to have, but the question is, how could the Ukrainian people, at their present level of awareness, have such a debate? And you see, for example, the very clear demonstration of division and fear, namely, the war in eastern Ukraine, the civil war. You have seen previously how even in the Ukrainian parliament there are sometimes where the parliament members who are elected through a, at least somewhat democratic, process, have had to resort to fistfights instead of debating just with words.
You may not see a direct connection between fist fights in Parliament, and a war in eastern Ukraine, but it is actually the same mindset behind it. When you look at a group of people and see how they are gradually raising their collective consciousness, moving towards a point where they can have a form of democracy that suits them. You see that there are certain universal elements that need to gradually happen—there are certain shifts in the collective consciousness. The collective consciousness, so to speak, has to turn certain corners in order to reach a higher level.
What is democracy, as a form of government based on? It is based on resolving conflict with words only, not with physical means. Whether it is your fists, the sword, or mortars and artillery shells, you are not using physical means of conflict resolution. Why is this? Because you recognize actually, perhaps not consciously, but at least at some level, that physical means have never actually resolved conflict. You may look at the past, and you may see that there have been certain times where there has been a war between two nations, for example, and one nation won. You can look at the Second World War, Germany and Japan being defeated, and there has been peace since, was that not bringing peace, was that not resolving conflict? But it was not resolving conflict.
You cannot have a war fought with physical weapons that truly resolves conflict, because the resolution of conflict can come about in only one way. And that is through the raising of awareness, a shift in awareness. You may look at again, the Second World War. And you may say, but there was peace in Europe after the Second World War, and Germany has not, even after their reunification, become a threat to the peace of Europe. Yes, but that was not because Germany was defeated with weapons. It was because the German people, as a result of the entire experience of the Second World War, were willing to shift the collective consciousness. There were two shocks that caused this in the German population. And the first one was that they were actually defeated, and that Hitler’s armies were not invincible. The second one was, of course, the exposure of the Holocaust. And this caused the German people to look at themselves, and realize that the kind of nation they had been living in from 1933 forward was not the kind of nation they wanted to live in anymore. And therefore they were willing to shift their consciousness.
This is an example of how a nation shifts the collective consciousness through the school of hard knocks, in this case, some very, very, very hard knocks that caused tremendous suffering. But nevertheless, there was a shift. Now, if you look at the Soviet Union, you could say that there was also some very hard knocks in the way people were living during Soviet times. But as said before, especially about Russia, there has not yet been the shift in the collective consciousness. Because there has not been a willingness to look back at Soviet times, and say, what can we learn from this? What does the Soviet Union say about us as people, about our level of consciousness, and is this how we want to live in the future, do we want to live in this kind of a nation?
This is not to digress into a discourse about Russia. But this is exactly what needs to happen in Ukraine, and also to some degree in Belarus, even though it will be a longer process there. But Ukraine has at least moved somewhat away from a police state, a dictatorial form of government. So there is the possibility that you can have an open debate. But for this to happen, there needs to be a recognition, there needs to be a shift in the collective consciousness, that in order for a democracy to function, we cannot resort to violence when we cannot agree with each other.
When a nation becomes truly democratic, there is a shift, where people realize that principles must override the desire to get your way right now. There are certain principles we cannot violate, just in order to get our way in the present situation, which will always be temporal. You learn to think more in long terms. We have a conflict now, we want to have a certain outcome. But these other people don’t agree. But keeping the nation democratic, keeping the nation peaceful, keeping the nation united, is more important in the long run, than our short term desire for a particular outcome of this situation.
You would be surprised, if you looked at this, how many people in what you call the Ukrainian nation would not agree with what was just said. They would not agree that there are certain principles that are more important than getting your way right now. Democracy can only work if a critical mass of people are willing to think ahead, are willing to let some idea, some principle be more important to them than their personal short-term gratification and fulfillment, or, as we say, getting your way. There are many people who have misunderstood one of the principles of democracy, which is often called the dictatorship of the majority. But a democracy that functions is never a dictatorship, neither of the majority or anything else. And the reason for this is that the majority realize that principles, peace, cooperation, unity is more important than getting your way. And therefore, there is a fundamental respect for other people, for the minority, and for their rights to be different, and have different opinions. Now, when you have this, there is also a willingness to compromise. And certainly there are many people who will say that a democracy is just an endless process of compromise, until nobody gets their way and no principles, no ideas can hold sway. But this is not a correct understanding either.
It is true that certain of the Western democracies have gone through a phase where there has been compromise upon compromise. As one politician once said, politics is the art of the possible. And many times you have a temporary situation, but two groups of people want different things, and none of them are really willing to give up, so you need to look at what is possible to move the situation forward. And often it is some kind of compromise that may not be a very good solution at all. But what would be the alternative? Well, if the alternative would be civil war, or the fracturing of the nation, then perhaps the compromise is still better. Because the compromise can then lead people to get to a point where they realize that if there was a willingness to step back from one’s own position, to look at the bigger picture, perhaps it would not be necessary to compromise. A compromise is necessary only when you have two groups that are locked, and that will not let go of their position. A compromise is sort of a deal where you say, I know I cannot get my way 100%, but I definitely want this, and if you let me have this, you can have that. And the other group says the same thing, because they also have one thing they will not let go of, and another thing that they can let go of, and so they can agree to disagree. But nevertheless, there is a higher potential for democracy. And that is to come to a point where you can have a free and open debate. And instead of coming to a compromise, you come to a consensus. You actually have a debate, where you can freely debate all aspects of the issue and you come to a point where everybody sees what is best for the whole, for the nation, for the population.
Right now, in the Ukrainian nation, there is such division, where you have certain groups that are looking at the nation from their particular perspective. They believe they have this absolute truth about how the nation should develop, and therefore, they cannot, they will not, see the whole. You have another group that looks at it from a different perspective and are sure they are right, and they cannot see the whole either. And if no one can see the whole, but they only see their own self-interest, how can you ever come to a policy that is based on the vision of the whole instead of a fight between separate groups? These are very important topics for you to do energetic work on, those of you who want to see your nation move forward towards the golden age matrix for Ukraine. Because rest assured that higher awareness has a golden age matrix, a golden age potential for this nation. But it is not something that the different groupings that you have right now could even fathom.
It is not so that, oh, there is one group in Ukraine who has a vision that is in alignment with higher awareness. There are none of the groupings right now that have a vision of what higher awareness would like to see for this nation. And for people to begin to have that vision, they need to be willing to step back from these narrow perspectives and look at the whole, look at certain principles. First of all, we cannot use violence to resolve conflict. Now, if you are brutally honest, you can look at the recent developments in Ukraine, starting in 2014. The so-called Maidan revolution, or “revolution of dignity”. It is difficult for higher awareness to see the element of dignity that they claim. Because the reality is that in the beginning, the uprising, the protests, were driven by the people. The people wanted to express, or at least a large group of them wanted to express, what they felt about the decision by the president not to pursue a membership of the EU. This was what we might call a popular expression of their dissatisfaction with the government and the direction of the nation.
But very quickly, the protests were taken over by certain elements, primarily from Western Ukraine, although not exclusively. And they had a more nationalistic agenda. You all know that some of these groups were basically fascist organizations, they had a paramilitary organization, they had a very clear agenda. Some of them were, despite being anti-democratic, supported by certain forces in the West. This is not saying Western governments as such, but certainly certain organizations that had a clear agenda of regime change, and again, “spreading freedom and democracy” with any means necessary. As soon as we went into that phase, it was not a popular uprising or discontent, it was not a democratic process. What eventually happened was that this forced the president to resign. And whatever you think about the president, he was democratically elected. There had been a democratic process as the nation was able to have it at the time. And he was, after all, elected through that process. Whereas the people who took over after the president left had not been elected. And you also saw that when an election was held, they could not gather a majority. This was not, from the view of higher awareness, a democratic process. It was simply another expression of: If you cannot get your way through democracy, well, then, never mind democracy, we are going to use whatever means necessary to get our way.
You can always say this was a necessary experience. But the reality was that because the nation was taken over by people who did not have a democratic agenda, and did not have a respect for those that they considered their enemy, that was why the nation was punched into the civil war-like scenario in the East. It was not only the people in the East who created the situation, there was naturally an influence from the West on the part of those who took over government, and influence from Russia because Putin did not want to lose Ukraine to NATO, and so on. But nevertheless, the point is that this was an example of how there was not that respect for the basic principle of democracy. We do not use violence to get our way even if we think we are right. Because using violence is not right. And therefore, if we use violence, we are no longer right.
Throughout the ages, the vast majority of the people who have used violence and warfare to get their way, they have been convinced that they were right. But the basic principle of democracy says, if you use violence you are never right. Something several American Presidents, recent American Presidents, have not understood. But that does not really help you much in Ukraine does it? What helps you is to recognize that this is a shift that needs to happen. And this is a shift that is ready to happen. And that is why the more aware people can have an impact on making the calls and shifting the collective consciousness.
Higher awareness is encouraged by the election of Volodymyr Zelenskyy. This is not saying that higher awareness sponsors him 100%, or agrees with everything that is his policy. But here was clearly an expression that a majority of the Ukrainian people have had enough of the violence, enough of the war, enough of the fighting and the arguing and the disharmony and the lack of peace, and they want something different. What do they want? They want what people everywhere want. A good personal life.
Everywhere in the entire world, both now and in the past, you can look at any group of people. And if you look at the normal, “ordinary” human beings, (higher awareness does not consider anyone ordinary). But if you look at the people, the population, they all want the same thing, a good personal life. In the Soviet Union that was all they wanted. But they had allowed themselves to become ruled by a group of people who did not want them to have a good personal life. Because they had an agenda. They had an idea. They wanted to mold the world, mold the population according to an idea, an ideal. And as a result of that ideal, they did not want people to have a good personal life. Why? Because then they would be satisfied, and they would be peaceful.
What does it take for any group of people to have a good personal life? It takes that you live in a place, call it a nation or something else, where there is peace, where there is law, where there is consistency in how the law is interpreted and enforced, where there is no corruption, so that those who have money can buy favors or those who know the right people can get favors. It takes a peaceful nation that is not ruled by a minority who are willing to enslave the population, to enforce some kind of idea, or to get special power and privilege.
Look to the East. What do you see in Putin’s Russia? There is a concept in English of “the perfect storm.” The perfect storm is where many different conditions come together at the same time to create a condition of very bad weather. What you saw in Russia, after the fall of Communism, was the perfect storm. You had a nation that had been under a very repressive communist rule for so long that nobody could remember when there was anything but communists. Everybody had grown up in communism, some could remember Stalin, others could not. But they had all grown up in the communist mindset. This meant what? It meant there is a clear division between the population and those who are the authorities in the government apparatus. Despite the fact of talking about the classless society, the Soviet Union had a clear division in two classes. Those who had absolutely no power, and had been beaten down, so they would not dare to take any initiative, and those who had power. Yet, in the Soviet Union, you had at least a certain idea that was holding back the government apparatus from crossing certain lines. Because after all, you had to live up to their Marxist ideals, at least on the surface, you had to at least pretend.
What happened when the Soviet Union was dissolved? Well, in the beginning, shock and chaos, “what do we do now?” But then gradually, a class of people began to emerge. And when Vladimir Putin became the president, they were emboldened because they knew exactly what kind of a person he was, and what he would allow them to do. They realized, we have a population here who has been beaten down by communism all of their lives. And we can step into the position of the communist rulers. Many of these people were the same people that have ruled under Communism. And we can still get the people to accept anything we throw at them, because they will not dare to revolt. You now have a situation where, basically, what has happened in Russia is that the government apparatus has been turned into the world’s largest organized crime syndicate. The corruption is so severe, so widespread that you must consider this an organized crime syndicate, not a free democratic government by any means.
The thing is, you no longer have any ideals you need to live up to. Anything goes. There is no limit to how rich people can become through what is basically extortion. And everybody knows this. How many members, officers, generals of the FSB have become richer than they could ever dream of during communism. Yet they are supposedly the servants of the people. So naturally, you see that that same tendency was there in all of the former Soviet republics, it was there in the Warsaw countries, there was that class of people that have been used to having power. And there was the general population that just wanted to live normal lives without running the risk of being shipped off to Siberia or executed.
But when you in Ukraine look to other nations, you can see that some of these other nations that even were former Soviet republics have made more progress than you have. And the point is simply this, you can learn from their example. You can look at the Baltic nations, former Soviet republics, and how they also have a large Russian minority, and how they have still managed to make the progress and become members of the EU and increase their GNP to the point where most people have what they want: a good personal life. You can look at Poland which is not quite as large as Ukraine, but certainly up there. After the fall of communism, Poland and Ukraine had almost the same GNP per capita. Now Poland’s is three to four times larger than Ukraine per capita, because of EU membership, but also because the Polish people were willing to look at their past and decide what they did not want. And this is what has not happened here in Ukraine. If this could happen, and of course it can with your work, then there might be a growing awareness. That could have many different ramifications.
You have two opposite polarizations in Ukraine, you have other groupings, but you have two main opposites, the very nationalistic, almost fascist people who may be thinking that they are working towards a western style of democracy. But that is not really what they want, because they do not understand what that means. And then you have the people in the East who are leaning more towards Russia. And if there is to be a more peaceful development, you need to get to a point where these two extremes are becoming seen as extremes by a larger majority of the population, where they see that it is possible to bring the Ukrainian nation forward.
But the way to do this is not to create a completely western style democracy in Ukraine, but nor is it to emulate what is happening in Russia. You have to find what is Ukraine’s unique way to move forward. And this is what you are, of course, able to do. The creative people in Ukraine are able to see that way. If they can just get away from this fog, the fog of war between these sharp polarizations that absolutely do not want to see anything else than their positions.
There is only one way to move away from fear. And that is through dialogue. What always happens when there is conflict is that you have two groups of people, and they stop talking to each other. This can go for relationship and marriage, relationship between children and parents. It can go for nations or groupings within a nation. When people stop communicating, it does not take very long before they forget that those on the other side are actually people just like us. And we have a lot of things in common with them, not just differences. But this you will forget quickly when you get into this polarized state of mind where you see those other groups as an enemy. Now you are only focusing on the few differences and not the many similarities. It is entirely possible that there could be a dialogue where the government of Ukraine, even the present president and those in his new party, could take a different approach to the people in the East. Call them in, say: “Can we sit down and have an open talk about what you want, what you see as your future? Do you see yourselves merging into Russia or becoming an independent republic supported by Russia? Or do you see yourselves as part of a united Ukraine?”
Because you recognize, do you not, that the people in the East, why are they fighting their own government, their own army? Out of fear. They are afraid that they will lose something. Do the people in the rest of Ukraine know what they are afraid of? Do they even know themselves what they are afraid of? Has anyone really seriously attempted to articulate this and get them to say: “What are you afraid of in the future? If we move towards a Ukraine that has a better economy, where everybody can have a better material life, are you afraid of this? What is your fear?” Again, what do the people in eastern Ukraine want? A good personal life. Do they have that right now? Not at all. Do they think they might get it if they joined Russia? Maybe they do. But this cannot be based on a serious look at what is happening in Russia. It must be based on a fear relating to the future of Ukraine. Would it not be possible to simply sit down and talk about this, perhaps even give them a vision that they could be part of a united Ukraine, instead of fearing that there is no room for them?
This is not beyond what your present president is capable of doing. He is able to have that kind of a dialogue, but he needs support. He knows. He has not a conscious awareness of this, but he has a sense of the collective consciousness and the need to move it, and also the realism—the realism that he cannot, as president, go beyond what the collective consciousness is willing to accept. Because then he could again be facing an angry crowd at the square. Or even worse. It is a balancing act to be the president of Ukraine in its present situation. And you who are the more aware people in Ukraine, and those elsewhere who feel like making the calls for this, you can bring the nation to that tipping point where the collective consciousness shifts, and there is a willingness to try something new.
What did the people say when they elected a new president who was not part of the political establishment? Did they not say: “We want to try something new, because it couldn’t get much worse?” Well, you can make the calls so that not only will it not be much worse, it will actually be much better. Because there will be a new approach and new willingness to try what has not been tried before.