In the United States you measure your eyesight by saying that perfect vision is 20/20 and this has given rise to the saying: “hindsight is 20/20.” Because when you look back, you always have the perfect vision to see what should have happened, what could have happened, what did happen, why it happened and so forth and so on.
It is so easy to predict things based on hindsight. It is so easy to predict something when it has already happened. However, can we not take this saying and turn it around and extend it into the future? Can we not use the perfect vision of hindsight to also look at the future? Can we not look back at the past and instead of being focused on the outer events that actually happened, we look beyond the events? We look for tendencies and certain patterns that begin to emerge. Then we can see that if there is a certain tendency that has been repeating itself, that has been going on continuously for several hundred years, perhaps even thousands of years, then is it not likely that that tendency can be extended into the future and can therefore show us something fairly reliable about what must happen and what will happen in the future? Is it really impossible to do this?
Many, of course, have attempted to do this—many different kinds of historians, philosophers, scientists and so on. But can we not refine this activity to look for certain things that relate to the topic of the basic humanity and the essential humanity? When you look back at previous societies and previous civilizations, can you not see that these societies were much more violent, much more brutal at least in certain ways, than what you see today? You can still, of course, find violence and brutality in today’s world. But if you go back say 1,000 years or 2,000 years, you find much more widespread violence and brutality. You found hardly any society on earth that did not have this, at least if we talk about what we today call the Western world. Can you not see, then that in the Western world and in other parts of the world, especially in what we call the modern democracies, there has been a clear movement away from this very physical, very raw, very brutal violence?
The level of brutality has dropped, at least in these nations. Is it then so difficult to see that the reason for this is that there has been an evolution in these societies where people have become more and more in touch with their basic humanity? Therefore, they have started to see as self-evident that there are certain things you do not do to other people. There are certain things you do not do to human beings. You can point to all kinds of exceptions in the form of wars, crime and so forth. Still, if you look at the general population today and if you could, which you can to some degree do, compare it to the general population of say 1,000 years ago, you will see that back then most people had a far different attitude to violence. They considered violence to be normal and inevitable. Many of them carried around weapons such as knives or swords and were ready to defend themselves at any time. Many of them lived in a constant fear that they could be attacked either by robbers or by even bigger armies from the outside that would come in and steal and plunder what they had. There was much more of this fear of violence and fear of brutality. In today’s world, at least in these modern democracies, you can barely imagine what it was like to live back then. You can barely imagine that there was this constant fear of physical attack and physical violence.
You can point to certain places even in the more modern part of the world where in the inner cities, for example, there can still be a certain fear of being physically attacked. But in general, we can see that there has been an upward trend, there has been a clear improvement in that in many societies around the world people can live without this fear of brutal violence and it is because they have changed their attitude to life. They have become more in touch with this basic humanity. Therefore, when more and more people in a society begin to accept as self-evident that I am not using violence against other people, then gradually as that critical mass is built, there will be a shift and now this society will no longer be as violent.
This is not just because the laws are changed, although in many cases the laws will be changed. It is as if when the collective consciousness shifts beyond a certain point, then it is reflected in the laws of society. For most recorded history, people lived in dictatorial societies. There were some kings, some emperors, or some religious authority, who had all power in that society. His—and in most cases it was a he—his word was law, and whatever he did was what the people had to live with.
You may ask how democracy came about. How do we have a situation now where a large number of nations around the world have a functioning democracy where they do not have a dictator? They have a government that they have voted for that is supposed to represent them and, in many cases, does at least represent them to some degree. Why did this happen? Well, it happened because the consciousness of a critical mass of the people in the nation shifted, and they became in touch with another level of this basic humanity, namely that there are certain things you do not do to human beings. There are certain things a government should not do to its own citizens and therefore, they became open to this idea of a government that is of the people, by the people and for the people. Consequently, the political situation had to change.
Traditional historians do not acknowledge this, but certainly anybody who has any kind of higher awareness, any intuitive sense, can come to see that it was the shift in the collective consciousness that came first. Then the change in the laws, the constitutions and the political situation came afterwards. When you think back to how most of you were taught about history in school, you can say that this form of history is, in essence, an elitist history. You think that there was an enlightened or a somewhat enlightened elite of people in a certain nation that instituted the change to democracy.
This is not denying that in certain nations there were people who were more attuned intuitively to higher awareness and therefore, like the early American founding fathers, were able to see that it was necessary to create a new form of government. However, even the founding fathers of America had an elitist attitude and an elitist outlook on life. It was also the case in many other nations. When you step back from this, you realize that what drove the political, legal and constitutional changes that shifted from dictatorship to democracy was a change in the collective consciousness of the people. There was a rising of the awareness of this basic humanity, namely that there are certain things that a government is not supposed to do to its own citizens because the government is supposed to recognize that people have rights.
Now, the idea that human beings have rights is not necessarily basic humanity, it is more what we have called essential humanity. And what does it mean? Well look at this concept of human rights. Where does this concept come from? It is not necessarily an intellectually-reasoned concept. It is not that there was somebody who sat there and intellectually reasoned that people should have rights. It came from an intuitive sense, where people got in touch with this essential humanity and they realized that a human being is more than an evolved animal. A human being has something. Life has something. Life has value, and therefore it must be respected, not because of any outer political reasons, but simply because that is the way it is. It is obvious that there should be respect for life and therefore human beings have rights.
If there is no respect for life, then the concept of rights is meaningless. Now, if you extend this a little further, anyone who is open to a higher outlook on life can see that the idea that human beings have rights and that a human life has value is because you are not physical, material, mechanical beings. You are non-material beings. You came from somewhere beyond Earth. But why do you have rights? What is it that gives you a right? What is a right? A right, for example, is the right to live your life as you see fit without being the slaves of other people. What is the essence of such a right? It is that as a human being, you have the opportunity to improve yourself.
You have self-awareness, which gives you the potential to suffer. But self-awareness also gives you the opportunity to improve yourself. Which means what? Why is it that self-awareness has these two sides—it can give you an opportunity to improve and it can cause you to suffer. What causes you to suffer? It is when you are not allowed to exercise the opportunity to improve yourself. When something in the physical realm prevents you from improving yourself, that is what causes all essential suffering.
When you recognize that human beings have value and they have rights, you see that a government should not restrict people’s opportunity to improve themselves and improve their lot in life. Improving yourself can mean many things. If you go back to these early democracies that were created not so long ago, you see that it primarily meant that people who had lived as feudal peasants under the feudal lords were now given an opportunity to improve their physical living conditions.
They could own their own houses, they could own land, they could farm, they could get jobs in industry that was emerging and so forth and so on. Many of the modern democracies have gone through a period where the main focus of these societies was to improve the physical living conditions of people. In other words, they were pursuing what you can call material welfare. This was a natural and a necessary phase. There is no question about this. But the larger point here is that when you look back at societies, can you not see that there has been a clear forward progression on this planet, where there has been an increasing recognition of the basic humanity and the essential humanity? There has been an increasing recognition of people’s humanity, and that humanity means that first of all, there are certain things that individuals do not do to each other. There are certain things that a government should not do to its own subjects or its own people. But it also means that human beings have an intrinsic value.
This means that they have rights that no person, no institution, no society should violate because people should be given the biggest possible opportunity to improve themselves. Now, how do you improve yourself? Only if you have the freedom to make your own choices about how you live, how you look at life, what you believe about life, what you know about life and all of these things. You must not only have outer political freedom, you must also have knowledge and you must, as is beginning to be seen in the modern democracies, you must have psychological freedom to decide how to live your life.
When you look at all of this, when you look back and use this perfect vision of hindsight to see what has happened, is it so difficult to now turn from looking back at the past, to looking forward towards the future? Is it so difficult to project this tendency into the future and say: “The increase in the awareness of humanity will and must continue. It will continue. There is no question about this.” If we then look at societies on earth today in light of this increasing awareness of humanity, we can now begin to look at what this means. You could set up an index of humanity. You could create an index of which nations are the most humane in terms of recognizing the basic and essential humanity of their people, which companies are the most humane in how they treat their workers, how they affect the environment and so on.
With this in mind, could you not then also start to do something that is more obvious to people in modern democracies, looking at nations around the world? When you look at what has happened in for example, Europe over the last 500 years, you can see that going back 500 years in Europe, the leaders of society had a very close-minded, a fanatical attitude. They were unwilling to change because they did not want to let go of the position they had and the power they had in society. But they have had to let go of their power and privilege, at least to some degree. What caused this? Well, it was a shift in the collective consciousness where a critical mass of people acknowledged: “We do not want to live in these kinds of elitist societies anymore. We have certain rights and our society should recognize this.” Well, can you not then look at all nations in the world and see that the same must and will happen there?
You look at Europe in the Middle Ages. The mindset of Europe was dominated, to a degree that you can scarcely grasp today, by the Catholic church. In other words, religion was very, very important. The religious elite had such a grip on society that you can scarcely envision it today in the modern democracies, but even this has changed. Democracies have become secular nations that give freedom of religion, instead of allowing one religion to dominate. This is again a matter of recognizing there is a basic humanity that nobody should be forced to follow a certain religion and the essential humanity that all people have the ability to attune in their hearts to a higher reality and that they should be given complete freedom by society as to how they use that ability. Yet this seemed like an impossible development in Europe 500 years ago, but now it is there. Can you not project this upon the Islamic world and see that even though it has been said, and to a large degree rightly so, that many Islamic countries have the same attitude today, as people in Europe had 500 years ago or societies in Europe had 500 years ago. Nevertheless, Islamic countries must change and will change the same way European nations have done and it will not take 500 years for them to do so, for cycles have been accelerated.
If you look back at history, you can see something very simple. There can be a very long time span where a certain area of the world is trapped in a particular stalemate, a catch 22, a certain mindset. You look at Europe during the Catholic age where for over 1000 years, Europe had stagnated at a certain point, because the Catholic church did not give freedom to for example science. You will see that in that same time span, Muslim nations made more progress than European nations because at that time, Islam gave more freedom to society for experimentation than the Catholic church did. So, you see, it is entirely possible that a society can be trapped at a certain level, but then there comes a point where somewhere in the world, some nations begin to break through what is holding the world back, they become the forerunners.
Now in these nations there can be tremendous opposition to this shift. Therefore, there may in some cases be wars, as you saw with the American Revolutionary War. There may be various upheavals and it may take a long time for these nations to break through. But once a group of nations have broken through a certain mindset, it will not take as long for other nations to break through. Therefore, if you look back at history with perfect vision and now project into the future, you can see Islamic countries must and will become secular democracies. They may still have the main religion of Islam, but it will not be the only religion and it will not be having the influence on the state that it has today. You can also project this will not take 500 years, this will not take 300 years, it will not take 200 years, it will not take 100 years, it will only take a few decades, barely a generation. It will happen. It is inevitable because there has already been reached on a world scale that critical mass where so many people have recognized this basic humanity, this essential humanity that societies of the construction that you see in Islamic nations cannot survive for very long.
The question is not will Islamic countries change, the question is how big of an upheaval is necessary for them to change. Will it happen very violently, because there is still opposition to it or will it happen in a more peaceful way, like you saw in many of the European nations where, after the French Revolution and the American Revolutionary War, it was seen by the rulers of society, that they needed to changeThere were kings in European nations in the 1800s that were able to look back at the American Revolutionary War and the French Revolution and say, this is coming in our country if we don’t change. These kings then decided that instead of opposing democracy, they would embrace democracy and allow it to happen so there was a peaceful transition.
You can hold the vision, if you feel so moved, you can do higher awareness work, so that the same thing will happen in Islamic countries. If there is to be a peaceful transition in Islamic countries, how can it come about? Well, it is very simple. If men are the driving force, there will be violence and revolutions and bloodshed and wars. The only way that a peaceful transition can happen in Islamic countries is through women in those countries. They are the only ones when you look at this realistically, even when you look at history, who can drive a peaceful transition. Women did not have to use violence to be given the right to vote and the right to run for office in democratic countries. This proves to you and again, you can look back at history and find other examples, that women have the ability to create revolutionary change in society with peaceful means, whereas men have a far lower ability to do this.
There are women who have embodied in Islamic countries precisely because they made it part of their Life plan to drive this peaceful transition. They an impetus to awaken and realize why they are in embodiment and why they are in embodiment in those particular societies. They need to, so to speak, come out of the closet or out of the burqa, and stand forward and work for change as they have the capability of doing, not by creating this violent movement, but by creating a revolution from within, a revolution that starts in the home that starts with their own husbands or significant family members where they simply start talking to these men in a different way.
You may look back at the movement in the West, where women gradually worked towards the point where they have got the right to vote, you may see that they created an organized movement. You may see that they demonstrated in the streets, they demonstrated in front of parliaments, they did various things to make their cause public. This is of course, what also needs to happen in Islamic countries. But do not overlook the fact that this revolutionary shift started right in the home with women becoming aware of who they are, their own basic humanity, their own basic rights. Once they had made that shift in their own consciousness, they were able to talk to men in their lives in a different way and they were able to help those men shift and gradually this spread like rings in the water.
When you create an organized outer movement that goes out and challenges those who are in power in society, they will feel threatened and they will use whatever means they have in power to oppose you. When you create an inner movement that starts in the home, that starts in the family, that starts in local communities, where you change the dialogue, you change the way people talk about these issues, the way they look at these issues, this is much more difficult for the powers that be in a society to oppose. It is virtually impossible for them to eradicate because even the most dictatorial nations find it difficult to go into people’s homes and control everything that is being said. You see that what they often do is they try to use, for example, the Islamic religion to basically brainwash and program people not to talk about these things such as human rights. But when that outer programming no longer works, because women have liberated themselves from it, then what can the authorities do? How do you oppose this movement? How do you in essence as a man who is in power, oppose your own wife or wives in some cases? How do you do this?
Does there not come a point where you start to wonder if you are opposing yourself and your own interests? Many men in Islamic countries would like to see a change so that both their wives and themselves have greater freedom. Once you create this kind of a shift in the way people are talking about an issue, then the authorities have very few options for stopping it.
Women in the West have an opportunity here to show solidarity. Again, what do you see has happened historically? When you go back to these medieval societies, what do you see back then? You saw that you had a small elite, and that small elite was made up of primarily men who were what we today would call narcissists. Now narcissists can in some cases cooperate, but it is not really a true cooperation, because a narcissist only thinks about himself and therefore, has only his own interests in mind. But when it is in his own interest to work together with others, he can do so for a period of time, so the elite was divided. But what you saw among the people is that even though they were also downtrodden and had limited options, they were, most of them in the same boat. They still were divided. They were also self-centered and so focused on themselves that they could not cooperate, they could not form a unified movement. So, what have you seen happen over the past thousand years to a high degree, because of the influence of certain ideas that were put out there by Jesus?
Well, you have seen a growth in this coming together of people that had a certain solidarity with each other. But what is this solidarity? What is it that helps people shift from looking only at their own interest to looking at the interest of a bigger group, to saying we must stand together and demand our rights? Well that is also an increase in not only the basic humanity, but also the essential humanity. You recognize that even though we may be downtrodden peasants, we are still human beings and we have a basic humanity, there are certain things that our rulers should not do to us. We should not be slaves of the noble class. When that shift begins to happen, then again, the rulers must change.
What do you see historically has happened over the past thousand years or so? An increase in the solidarity, where people have become more and more aware of what is happening to other people, and the need for people to stand together and show some solidarity and say we demand a change in society. This is what can be taken by women in the modern democracies and extended as a solidarity with women around the world where you can then look at all nations around the world and you can create this index, this humanity index of how women are treated in those nations.
What are the factors that are suppressing women that are holding them back? Identify these factors, clearly spell out what the factors are, what the effect is on women, what the effect is on men, what the effect is on society. It is not a matter of blaming. It is not a matter of placing blame. It’s a matter of simply saying, from a purely humanitarian viewpoint, we recognize there are certain things that should not be done to human beings. We, the women in modern democracies, would never do this to ourselves, we would not do it to each other, we will not accept that our society did this to us. We would not accept that we cannot have a driver’s license, we cannot drive a car, we cannot move freely around, we will not accept if we have to cover our faces, we will not accept that we cannot hold a job, cannot get an education, cannot pursue a career, cannot become self-sufficient, but must be dependent on men for everything. We will not accept that we cannot vote, we cannot run for office, we cannot be represented in the government and so forth and so on.
We, the women in the modern democracies, would never accept this for ourselves and therefore, we cannot accept it for our sisters in other nations. We must first of all extend that solidarity and support. We must also demand that our governments do what can be done about this. Again, not something violent, but something peaceful. First of all, of course, you can create these indexes and say this is what is happening and these are the consequences, there is no blame. You do not need to blame these societies and call them names or call them medieval, old fashioned or this or that. You simply need to state: this happens, this is the consequence and then you can leave it at that.
You can of course, also take this further and say, should we as a modern enlightened nation, should we trade with a nation that treats women this way? Should we buy oil from the Middle East? Can we not as women, say if you are selling oil at your petrol station that is from Arabic countries, we are not buying at your station. Just imagine the impact this one thing would have. How many oil companies do you think, could continue to sell oil in your nation if all women in your nation boycotted them? Do you think the men can buy enough gasoline that they could keep these companies afloat and doing business as usual, or do you think these companies would say we have to change we have to find a way to move with this trend in society? If our customers are leaving because we’re selling oil from the Middle East, we have to find oil elsewhere. There are of course, other sources.
Obviously, oil is precisely one of those things that can be difficult to deal with because so much of it is concentrated in the Middle East, but it can be dealt with, there are alternatives. This can of course, go further and further and further, as some of the more aware people might have in your Life plan to take physical action to create this. It will start slowly, but it can spread as rings in the water and it can gain a momentum so that by the end of this decade of the 2020s, there will be much more of an awareness, even more of an organization that is dedicated to spreading this awareness, which basically is this: Women are also human beings. We cannot discriminate human beings based on their sex. Women are not sub-humans, they are not secondary citizens. They are in all ways fully as humane, as worthy as men and therefore they deserve not only the same rights, but the same opportunity.
It is truly, when you look at the world today, amazing in some sense that this has not already happened. Many of these western democracies reached a stage back in the 1960s and 70s, where material welfare had been dealt with to the point where most people had spare time. They had attention left over from doing physical work and you see many, many women in these modern nations who have the opportunity to look beyond their own personal situation, look beyond their own nation and look at the rest of the world and say, “How can we use the material welfare, the free time, the free attention that we have to help other women around the world? How can we do this?”
Why hasn’t it happened? Well, there is a multitude of causes that we really do not necessarily need to go into, but the fact of the matter is that we have now gradually moved to the point where this awareness is ready to break through to a larger degree. That is why higher awareness has dedicated this coming decade to the cause of women, to the liberation of women and when the more aware people do the work, you will see a tremendous impact here. You will see that there will be these shifts where, even in these nations where women are still treated very, very poorly, there will be a different awareness. There will be a different debate. It has already started to some degree but it will be accelerated greatly.
Female genital mutilation, female circumcision, the attitude towards this has begun to shift but this will accelerate in this decade. There will be more of an awareness that it is not enough for a country to outlaw this but that they must take active measures to stop it where it starts, which is, unfortunately, in the attitude of mothers who feel pressured by their society to do this to their own daughters. They themselves experienced this as a very traumatic event in their lives but they are still under such pressure from society, from religion, from their culture that they feel they have to expose their own daughters to the same trauma. This is because these women have been forced to suppress their most basic humanity, which is that when I have experienced something unpleasant, I do not want my own children to experience the same thing. I want my children to have a better life than I do. This is one of the most basic aspects of humanity.
There needs to be an effort made in these countries to go out there and reeducate these women and also take active measures to remove this pressure. You will see in this coming decade that there will be this enormous magnetic pull from the collective consciousness on these nations where these practices are still taking place. You will see for a time in some of these nations, where, as often happens when a change is imminent, there will be a polarization. There will be some who are violently opposed to change and who will resist it with all the power they have. But you will also see that this will only cause them to become more and more extreme, until their resistance to change becomes more and more absurd.
This is another thing you can learn by looking back at history. Take a look back. You can see today how the breakthrough of democracy in certain nations was inevitable. You can see this in hindsight. If it could have been stopped, it would have been stopped. The fact that it was not stopped meant that it could not have been stopped. It was an inevitable development but you can also see how in some nations this was resisted so violently that it led to a violent revolution. You can look at the French Revolution and you can say, well, the revolutionaries who beheaded the noble people, the noble class, they were obviously extremists. But why were they such extremists? Because the noble class had resisted change in an equally fanatical way. One thing led to another. One dualistic polarity led to the opposite dualistic polarity and this is what you can learn from history.
When there is resistance to inevitable change, the polarizations will become more and more pronounced until, at least in hindsight, you can see how absurd it was. You look back at the French Revolution. You look at how the kings and the noble class isolated themselves in their elaborate castles and palaces, how they lived a hedonistic lifestyle, not caring about the peasants and the fact that they had no bread to eat while you were eating cake. You can see that this was an absurd situation in that they completely ignored the humanity of the majority of the people in the country. Completely absurd. What did it attract? It attracted this class of revolutionaries, and when there is an established power elite, if they resist change, they will attract an aspiring power elite who would be willing to overthrow the established power elite with violence. That is exactly what happened in the French Revolution, a textbook example if there were any textbooks about this, which of course there isn’t in current history, but nevertheless there will be in the future. You saw here that what the noble class did in resisting this change that you now see is inevitable was truly absurd. What the French revolutionaries did in beheading all of these people, was equally absurd and the society they created, where everyone now lived in fear of the revolutionaries instead of in fear of the noble class, was also absurd.
You can see the same thing in the Bolshevik Revolution. The czar’s denial to promote change in Russia was completely absurd. But what the Bolsheviks did was also absurd and the society they created in the former Soviet Union was extremely absurd. You see how this absurd creation of the Soviet Union led to Stalin, who was even beyond the other revolutionaries in taking the absurdity to such an extreme that anyone who looks back at it with humanity in mind must wonder, how could one person have such a lack of humanity that he created a society where there was so little respect for the humanity of the people? How could this even happen?
When you look at history, you can see that there are certain changes that are inevitable. When there is resistance to this change, there comes a point where the change has gained critical mass, critical momentum and now a society can no longer postpone it, can no longer ignore it. It is forced to react to it. If the established power elite react with resistance, they must attract an aspiring elite who forms an opposite polarity and their resistance or their willingness to use violence is just as great. In other words, the established power elite is willing to use force to suppress change and the aspiring power elite is equally willing to use force to overthrow the established power elite. But what also can be seen from history is that when you have such a polarized situation, none of the two power elites fighting for domination represent the positive change that is inevitable. None of them represent this. Therefore, if a society loses one power elite and is taken over by another, it does not lead to the change that is inevitable. It leads to another polarized situation that then must be allowed to evolve into the absurd until people can see it and there is another change.
This is how some societies have changed. Some societies have been stuck in this pattern for some time. The Islamic nations are an example of this. Russia under Putin is an example of this. After the absurdity of the Soviet Union became obvious to a critical mass of people, the Soviet Union collapsed. There was a period where there was a beginning democracy in Russia but then Putin stepped in and he became the new czar who has opposed the change towards a truly democratic Russia. Now you can look at history and you can see it is inevitable that Russia will become a modern democracy that has the same rights, the same freedoms, the same respect for humanity that you see in European nations and other democracies around the world. This is inevitable. Putin is resisting it. How absurd does his rule have to become before a critical mass of the Russian people see it and demand change? That is really the only question right now, not only about the situation in Russia, but also about the situation in Islamic countries, in African countries, in Central America, South America. When will they have had enough of the Catholic influence? The same thing in many other nations, where you see this outplaying of these very dualistic leaders, polarized leaders and the question is simply when will a critical mass of people acknowledge this basic humanity and essential humanity of themselves and each other? When will that happen?
This is an entirely different look at history. You may go out there and you will find that there are historians, philosophers, who have glimpsed aspects of this, who have seen it, at least to some degree, who have written about it, talked about it, but they have not fully grasped the dynamic. They have not seen the fact that what drives history is the collective consciousness. What drives progress in history is a raising of the collective consciousness which leads to a recognition of the basic and essential humanity, which therefore leads to a point where people, a critical mass of people, in the society say enough is enough. Things cannot continue as they were. We demand a positive change. And then the change must happen. If it does not happen peacefully, it must be acted out in greater and greater absurdity of these dualistic polarities, until again, there is a shift in consciousness and now the people can finally see a nonviolent way to create positive change.
Again, you can look back at history and you can see that you were all brought up with an elitist view of history. You were also brought up with a male dominated view of history, so that it was often the men who were the rulers and it was the men who were driving change. But even in the Middle Ages, women were part of what drove the change. What was one of the major factors that caused Europe to make this shift where it was not dominated by the Catholic church? It was women. The Catholic church made an all-out effort that with hindsight, truly is one of the most bizarre and absurd periods of history, to stop women from having an influence on society. It is called the witch hunts but there was also the Inquisition. There was an all-out effort made by the Catholic church to prevent women from having a positive influence on changing history. Why did they persecute the witches? Because they were scared of them. Why were they scared of them? Because even back then they realized that women can drive change in society. Why else would they be scared? They were scared of losing their power. What was the cause? Women. That is why they persecuted them, so you see that the male dominated view of history is completely skewed, is completely inaccurate.
Can you not then, in hindsight, look back at the history of the last hundred, two hundred years where you have democratic nations? Can you not then see that what democratic nations have done, have been forced by evolution to do, is to give more rights, more freedom, more opportunity to women. And can you not see that this means that in the age we are moving into, women will gain a greater and greater influence on society to the point where they will drive a change in history. How can anyone fail to see this if they look back with perfect hindsight at historical developments? How can you fail to see the tendency and project that this tendency must continue in the future? What will that mean?
The more aware people can see this but there are many, many women in society who are also ready to see it. Through the work of more aware people, they can be suddenly awakened to what they already knew when they made their Life plans. Many women who are in embodiment today knew about this before they made their Life plans, because they had the potential, the opportunity, to drive this change. So many are ready for it. The breakthrough will accelerate and you will see that more and more women will wake up and bring these changes.
Higher awareness does, as part of the efforts to awaken humankind, intend to rewrite history or at least inspire human beings to rewrite history. It also intends to change the way history is written, so that it is no longer written by the winners, meaning the power elite, but by the real winners, the people who are inspired from higher awareness and recognize their humanity. Higher awareness also aims to change the course of history. Higher awareness is not interested so much in writing history as in helping human beings in embodiment make history.
History, it has been said, is the prologue to the future, the past is prologue. Well, it often means that history repeats itself. But higher awareness has very clear plans for the Age of Higher Awareness. Those plans do not incorporate that history will repeat itself but that history will become an upward spiral that will lead to a greater and greater manifestation of the golden age that higher awareness has planned for this planet and that millions of people have taken embodiment, knowing at inner levels that it is part of their Life plan to help make it a physically manifest reality.
You have awakened. You can do the higher awareness work so that others will be awakened. People WILL be awakened and you will see changes that you could scarcely believe today are possible. They are not only possible, they are inevitable.