There is an assault on democracy that is going on in Ukraine (Russian invasion of Ukraine 2022) and there are assaults on democracy that are happening in many other parts of the world as well. The reality of what is happening is that regardless of what people might fear, the Age of Higher Awareness is progressing with an unstoppable momentum.

As part of the unfoldment of the Age of Higher Awareness, democracy will continue to grow, increase and rise throughout the world. More and more nations will become democracies, and the ones that have been democracies will continue to evolve towards more and more democratic forms of democracies.

Naturally, there are forces on earth that are working against any positive development. Certainly there are forces that are doing everything they can to thwart or delay the manifestation of the Age of Higher Awareness. These forces are not happy with democracy. They never have been happy with democracy and they have, from the very advent of democracy, been trying to do everything they can to destroy this development, to delay it, to distort it and to distort the democratic nations into something that is not really a democracy.

The question that democracies need to answer

It has been said by experts that all democracies have to answer certain questions. For example: What kind of democracy do they want? Which kinds of people should be allowed to vote? Should there be representatives? How should it be organized?

It has also been said by these experts that the most important question that democracies need to answer is: Why is democracy a better form of government than any other form of government? This is a question that, from a worldly perspective, when you do not know anything about higher awareness, is difficult to answer.

Why is democracy a better form of government than, for example, an autocracy or a dictatorship? Well, let us for a minute put aside the higher awareness, and let us look at this from a purely worldly perspective, given what people know. The key here is to ask yourself a further question, a clarifying question, because you might realize, as some people have realized, that it is very, very important how you formulate the question you are considering. Why is democracy a better form of government than any other form of government? What is the key word in that sentence? It is “better.”

Why is democracy better? Well, everything hinges on how you define “better.” What is better? What is worse? 

Better and worse are dualistic terms. But even for those who do not know about this, one can ask a simple question here: Who gets to decide what is better and what is worse? In other words, in a given society, who are the people who are deciding what the better form of government is? And is democracy better than a dictatorship? Who gets to decide?

Unless you have all of the people decide whether democracy is better, you do not have a democracy. If the people are deciding that democracy is the better form of government, then you have a democracy. But what is the alternative? What has happened in most nations, even some which are democratic? It is always a small elite who decides not only whether democracy is the better form of government, but about many other things in society.

Democracy is a form of government where the people decide. In any other form of government, no matter what you call it, it is not the people who are deciding. And if it is not the people who are deciding, who is it? Well, it is not Santa Claus and it is not the tooth fairy. It is some elite or other. There is always an elite who decides what is the better form of government. Look at history. When have you ever seen the elite decide that democracy was a better form of government than a dictatorship?

Well, you have seen it. You have seen it in cases where you had an established elite that had become so oppressive of the people’s freedoms that the people had a desire to be free from that elite. And then an aspiring power elite came in, took advantage of the people’s dissatisfaction and established a form of democracy where they thought that they could set themselves up as being in control of that democracy.

Again, what is the “better” form of government? Well, that depends on what you want. Do you want the people to rule or do you want a small elite to rule? And this of course is a central question in human history. You can look at history and see that for the largest part of known history, societies have not been democracies. They have been ruled by a small elite, sometimes by one person, but there was usually always some elite of noblemen or party bosses or whatever you want to call them that were supporting the ultimate ruler.

There are many people, even experts in history and politics, even those who have grown up in a democratic nation, who will say that it is better to have an elite that rules. But is it? Take a look back at history and ask yourself: Was it better when there was an elite that ruled? Did it turn out well? Well, you can ask yourself another question: For whom was it better when an elite ruled? It was always better for the elite because they not only had power, but they also had a very privileged position where they in most cases could skim off the fruits of the people’s labor. Therefore it was always better for the elite and it was practically never better for the people. The people were or became virtual slaves of the elite. Is it better for the people to live as slaves?

The fate of empires

Now look at what has happened to nations. Was it better for the Roman Empire that they engaged in all of these conquests of other regions, until the force-based cycle ran itself out and suddenly other armies came and attacked the Roman Empire, sacked Rome and overthrew the Roman Empire? Was that better for Rome as a nation? Or would it have been better to have a more sustainable government?

During the 1930s, most German people felt that they were the master race and that they were the most advanced and powerful nation on earth. But how many of them felt that in 1945? Was is it better for Germany what Hitler did? Many people thought so up until 1943, 1944 or 1945. But was it better? From what perspective could Hitler’s reign possibly have been better? It was not even better for the elite that supported him. For they, too, lost the war, even though some of them still came out with plenty of money and privileges.

What is the measure you use if you look back at history and say: “Oh yes, the people cannot rule themselves, it is always better to have an elite do it.” What is the measure? When you observe history, what basis do you have for saying that it is better that the elite rule? Where are we now? We are at a point where many people will say: “Well yes, there have certainly been some disasters that have been precipitated by dictators, but the people would not have done any better. There are examples of where nations have gone downhill. Some will say the problem is not the elite. The problem is not that an elite ruled the Roman Empire or the Soviet Union or Nazi Germany or any other number of nations. No, it was that it was the ‘wrong’ elite. If we had only had the right elite who were better at ruling than these dictators, then that would have been a better form of government than a democracy.”

Now we are back to where we started. Who defines who is the right elite? Oh, yes, the elite defines that it is the right elite. The ruling elite, the established elite that is at any point dominating a society, according to their definition, are always the right elite and are always the best people suited for the job. How long does it last? Until another elite comes along who says: “No, the established elite are the wrong people for the job, we are the right people for the job. We Robespierre, I Lenin, we are the right people for the job.” Those who fail to learn the lessons of history are destined to repeat them. The question is: How long do you want to repeat these mistakes?

If you look at what has gone “wrong” with countries where they have been defeated and self-destructed like Nazi Germany, the Roman Empire and the Soviet Union, if you look at what has happened to these nations that have self-destructed, it has always been because there was an imbalance. They became imbalanced. They went too far towards one extreme, and then they suddenly could not keep going anymore and they started a downward spiral that eventually led to a collapse.

Now, if you look at this even from a worldly perspective, you can look back to the Roman Empire and see that for several hundred years the Roman Empire was in an expansive phase. They conquered more and more territory, and more and more people. Why did it stop? Well, because at the time communications technology simply defined a limit to how far from Rome the Roman Empire could extend and still be controlled from Rome. There came a point where there had to be two emperors, one in Rome and one in Constantinople. But then what happened? Well, like it happened with Cain and Abel, they started not agreeing. And all of a sudden, you had an internal strife in the Roman Empire that was a big factor in leading to its demise.

There was a limit to how far the Roman Empire could be expanded before it started contracting again. This is the expanding force and the contracting force, the two forces that you see at work in the universe. When you become unbalanced in the expanding force, you reach that limit, that dead end where you cannot continue to expand any further through force, which of course the Roman Empire was entirely based on. So now the contracting force becomes stronger, and your empire starts falling apart.

Look at Hitler. He took on the Soviet Union, Russia, Western Europe and the United States all at the same time. You can look at this from a purely worldly perspective and say that the very mindset that caused Hitler to take on everything at once was what guaranteed his defeat because there was a limit to how much he could keep expanding before he reached that wall, so to speak, where the contracting force started pulling back. You could say that from the very outset, Hitler’s defeat was guaranteed. From the very outset, the collapse of the Soviet Union was guaranteed. From the very outset, an unbridled capitalism is guaranteed to be defeated.

You can say: “But we have so much better communications technology today, maybe one empire or maybe one nation could take over the world.” No, it could not. The earth is designed with the size of the planet, the continents and the oceans balancing everything, so that a force-based empire cannot take over the entire planet.

There is another factor that is part of this equation – for those who are open to higher awareness  – which is the densification of matter. Since humankind went into duality and since the manipulators brought their force-based approach to everything, matter has become densified. Yes, the trend has now been reversed and matter is gradually becoming lighter. But still, a force-based attempt to conquer the world densifies matter, and the densification of matter creates a resistance to force. There will always be a limit to how far a force-based empire can go because its mindset is mirrored by the densification of matter. Regardless of technology, there will always be an absolute limit to how far any force-based empire can go. And therefore, again, force will self-destruct.

Can you have an elitist society that is not based on force? Do you see it anywhere in world history? You do not see any force-based empire that did not, at some point, self-destruct because it is against the laws of nature, as you call them (which are really the laws of higher awareness) and the entire design of planet earth. It cannot happen. It has never happened. It will never happen. How long do you want to chase this impossible goal, or rather allow a few manipulators to cause you to chase this impossible goal before you realize that the best form of government never will be an elitist form of government?

Plato and the philosopher king

There are those who will say: “What about Plato and the philosopher king? Was this not an ideal to have this wise ruler who had absolute power, but who was benevolent, beneficial and could therefore bring his nation into the best form of government? Was Plato not right in pointing out the philosopher king?” The problem with the idea of a philosopher king is that there is rarely a philosopher king around when you need one. Point out one that could live up to Plato’s ideal of a philosopher king. Oh, yes, some will point out: “Well our ruler surely, was that way.” But was he, when it came right down to it?

Even from a worldly perspective, you can look at history and say: How likely is it that one person could be wise enough to rule a nation in a sustainable manner? What do we mean by wise? Well, it actually means balanced enough not to take the nation too far. And you can say there have been some. There have been some that have been fairly balanced, so it is not a completely impossible goal. But the problem is that in most cases these rulers sooner or later become too unbalanced because they become blinded. They drink their own Kool-Aid. They become so sure that they are right that they stop listening to input from their people or their advisors, or they stop observing how it is actually going. Is what I am doing working? This happens to virtually all of them, so that they may be fairly balanced for some time, but sooner or later they become unbalanced.

Now, the other problem with the idea of a philosopher king is that Plato, despite his wisdom, did not know about manipulators and did not understand the equation of the power elite. How do you find and appoint a philosopher king and be sure that he is not a manipulator? Surely when a new king is needed, there will always be a manipulator who wants the position. What is the manipulator willing to do to get the position? Anything – lies, deceit, power plays, even killing the other candidate. How would you make sure that you appointed a philosopher king? You would have to have the people elect him, would you not? But is that not a form of democracy then? Even if you had a wise ruler, he would have to be elected by the people. And how could you then prevent that wise ruler from suddenly becoming not so wise? Well, only if the people still had a way to depose him if they wanted to. Is that not also a form of democracy?

If you look at history, you see that the fewer people who are in control of the decision-making process, the bigger the mistakes that were made. Anybody who is willing to look at history can see this. It is simply an observation of how life works and how history has unfolded. What does this mean? It means if you want to avoid a nation becoming so unbalanced that it goes into a self-destructive spiral, you have to broaden the decision makers and the decision-making body. What is the ultimate broadening of the decision-making body? All of the people. 

This is as far as we can go with the worldly observations. Talking about manipulators is not really what the world is aware of, but surely the world is aware of dictators, tyrants and those who have had disastrous consequences like Hitler. Everybody is aware of this. Everybody is aware of the need to avoid such rulers. So how do we do it? We do it by broadening the decision-making body.

Now let us go into a little more of a higher awareness perspective. Again, we go back to the question: What is the “better” form of government? Well, many standards have been applied. You could say it is a government that can create certain physical results such as prosperity for the people. It is a government that can protect the people from an outside invasion. It is a government that can do this and can do that–whatever criteria you define in your society. But is that really what is best?

The expansion of people’s capacity of the mind

If you look at history, what has happened over the last several thousand years? What is the basis for the progress you have seen? After all, very few people would say that the world has not progressed compared to the Stone Age. What is the basis for this progress? Well, it can be said to be an expansion of knowledge. We know more today than we did in the Stone Age. But is that really all? And for that matter, what does an expansion of knowledge mean? How can people know more today than people did in the Stone Age? 

According to biology, anthropology and evolutionary theory, scientists surmise that the human brain was about the same size in the Stone Age as it is today. Why did the Stone Age people not know as much as you know today? Why were they not smart enough to find a way to improve their daily lives rather than living this very difficult existence they lived?

Is it just a matter of the brain size that determines human intelligence or is there more to it? Well, if you are a more aware person, you realize there is more to it because the mind is more than the brain. The reality is – as all awarer people know and as many people are beginning to realize – that the mind is more than the brain. You cannot explain human behavior and human psychology by these physical processes in the brain. It is not enough. What has happened is that there has been an expansion of people’s capacity of the mind.

If you had taken a Stone Age person and attempted to teach him to count, you would have found it impossible to teach him to count to more than ten. His mind could not have comprehended it. If you had taken a Stone Age person and said: “Well, his brain is the same size as mine, and since I can read, he should be able to read” you would have found it impossible to teach him. There was not among Stone Age people the ability to think in abstract terms, as you have to be able to do in order to read – in order to see that this little squiggle on a piece of paper corresponds to a sound, and that several squiggles correspond to a word, that corresponds to an object.

You would not have been able to take a Stone Age man and teach him to read the word “stone,” let alone “age,” because he knew what a stone was, but the concept of an age would have been completely impossible for him to fathom. Why do people fathom it today? Well, there has been an expansion in the individual minds of people, but there has also been a huge expansion in the collective mind, the collective consciousness.

The collective consciousness on earth today is so different from what it was in the Stone Age that you could barely fathom the difference. That is why people have no problem learning to read today. There has not only been an expansion of knowledge that has driven progress, but there has also been an expansion of the capacity of the human mind, both on the individual and the collective levels.

The purpose of society

Now, if we acknowledge that there has been an expansion of the mind and go back to the question: What is the “better” form of government? Well, what is the purpose of life on earth? You look back at history and the purpose, according to the Christian religion, was basically to avoid burning forever in hell and instead be taken to heaven after you were done with your life on earth. But life on earth really had no other purpose than securing this avoiding hell and securing heaven. And how could you do this? By obeying the church. And what was the church? Oh yes, an elite. What did they support? The kings and the noble class, another elite.

For the people who lived during the thousand-year Dark Age that was dominated by the Catholic church, how much expansion of the mind was there? Well, there was some, but not very much, and certainly it was not because of the church, but only in spite of it. You see then, what was the purpose of society back then? Was it the expansion of the minds of the people or even of the collective mind? No, it was to keep the elites – the clergy and the noble class and the kings – in their privileged positions. That was the purpose of that form of government. Well, what is the purpose of any elitist government? It is first and foremost to keep the elite in their privileged positions. There is no other purpose or at least there are only secondary purposes to that overall purpose. The purpose of society in an elitist society is defined by the elite, revolves around the elite and keeps them as an elite.

What is the real purpose of society from a higher awareness perspective? It is the expansion of the individual minds of the people and the expansion of the collective consciousness—not only because this brings progress, but because this is the purpose of life on earth from a higher perspective. But even if you do not look at the higher perspective, but you look at it only from a worldly perspective, is it not a worthy purpose for a society to promote the growth in awareness, the growth in the minds of its citizens and the growth in the collective consciousness that leads society forward towards more and more material affluence, more and more freedom, and above all, more and more psychological well-being for the people?

Could it not be said, from a purely worldly perspective, that the purpose of a society is the welfare of the people and the well-being of the people—all of the people? Well, it certainly could, although many would argue against it. But those who argue against it, what are they then arguing for? They are always arguing for the privileges of the elite. If you are arguing against the well-being of the people, you are always arguing that there is an elite whose well-being is more important than the broad population, and therefore the broad population should be the servants or the slaves of the elite. There really is no other way. What is in between there? Yes, you can come up with all kinds of fancy theories. But it is always this dynamic – an elite versus the people. Either you want what is best for the broad population or you want what is best for a small elite that takes advantage of the population.

Consensus democracy

Look at history, what else is there? Yes, there are a few examples of societies that have been focused on the broad population. There has not always been the kind of democracies that you know today where people vote on things because there is actually a kind of government that might be said to be beyond democracy, at least beyond representative democracy. And that is a kind of government where you do not need to vote and let a majority decide because instead you reach consensus, where it becomes clear that a vast majority of the people want the same thing and therefore there really is no point in voting on it.

So far, however, this has been achieved only in very small localized societies such as tribes. And you have some North American Indians who had something like this kind of society. You have had various city-states around the world through different historical periods that have had this kind of society, where it was not necessary to vote in representatives—it was not even necessary to have a direct democracy where everybody voted. It just became clear that a consensus emerged. The problem is how to do this on the larger scale of, for example, a nation. And this is of course where technology could be – and will be in the Age of Higher Awareness – used to create this sort of communication where, eventually, after debate, a consensus emerges. But then, the question would be: If you have such a society that involves all of the people participating in the debate, is that not also a form of democracy? Certainly, it is not an elitist society, is it?

The first stage of democracy is that people vote for representatives. And this is an interim stage. It is sort of a concession to the consciousness – the idea floating around in the collective consciousness – that there are some people who are more suited to making decisions than the average person. And it was not necessarily completely wrong in the beginning days of democracy because the average person did not have the knowledge, or could not read, and so forth. With a representative democracy, people vote for representatives, and the representatives make most of the decisions.

Then you can have another stage which is a more direct democracy where, at least in bigger decisions, all of the people vote on it. You see that in referendums about this and that, such as you just had in Denmark. They voted on whether to continue the exceptions to the European Union defense policy, or to join it on an unrestricted basis. Many other nations have these kinds of referendums. But what you see here is that this is still a majority rule. In many cases with a majority rule, there is still the question: Is this the best form of government? It is one of the questions that democracies need to grapple with. Should we allow one person to decide for the majority and therefore decide the issue if all of the other people minus one are against it? Or do we need a larger majority to decide certain issues? And this of course can eventually lead to the point where holding a referendum almost becomes a formality, because gradually a consensus emerges where at least a vast majority of the people see that it is in their own best interest, in everybody’s best interest, in their nation’s best interest, to go in this direction.

The ability to adapt

Democracy, in one form or another, is the form of government of the Age of Higher Awareness. It is the government of the future. You have many, many people on earth who still do not agree, or who do not believe, that democracy is of the future. But if you look at most of the people who disagree with this, they live in nations that are ruled by a small elite who have made people believe that this is better for them. You see in China, for example, how the current government of China has, under the leadership of Xi, become more dictatorial than it has been at any point since Mao. And they have declared, as just one example, that their zero-Covid policy was the right decision, not only the right decision, but the superior decision, and certainly superior to that of the decadent democratic West. Well, obviously what you see with the Omicron variant is that for anybody who takes an objective look at this, it is not the best policy, it is just one policy. This is not about whether it is the worst, and that the Western response is the best. There is no best policy in a question like this because if you look at any issue, there really is no best policy because things change constantly.

The best policy in any issue is to look at conditions and adapt to changing conditions. What is one of the lessons of the entire Corona pandemic? It is that there will always be things in the world that nobody can control. There will always be things that come up that surprise people. The question is not what is the best policy. We always need to adapt. As situations unfold – such as the Corona pandemic has clearly done with new variants springing up – we need to adapt to them. And those who can adapt will be those who do best, whereas those who become rigid and inflexible will not do as well. You can see here that in the beginning of the pandemic, China’s policy worked. But the Western response also worked in a certain way. Then came the Omicron variant which is so much more contagious, and now China’s policy did not work as well as it did in the beginning. But could they adapt? Could they change? No, because it is a government that has set itself up as basically being infallible. And when they have declared that their response is the right one, and it is superior to that of the West, then changing their policy to adapt would mean admitting that they had been wrong before.

But why did you have to come out and say that your policy was the only right one and was superior to all others? Why did you have to say this? Well, this is one of the features that is built into an elitist rule. An elite is always suppressing the people. They live in a constant need to justify this. And that is why they tend to set themselves up as being infallible or having the superior or ultimate policy. And what does it automatically mean? They cannot change policy because that would be admitting they were wrong, which means they cannot adapt to changing circumstances. And since circumstances are constantly changing, and have been constantly changing throughout all of history, how can an elitist society avoid going into a negative spiral that can lead to their self-destruction? It cannot be done, it never has been done and it never will be done.

Inflexibility cannot secure survival. Inflexibility will lead to death and demise and destruction and disaster and deterioration and any other “d” you can come up with. What is the “best” form of government? It is the one that secures the most rapid and sustainable growth in the minds of the people, the capacity of the minds of the people, in the consciousness of the people and of the nation and of humanity. And such a form of government must be flexible. It must be flexible.

NEXT: There is no democracy without higher awareness