TOPICS: Those who break new grounds are often risk takers - need for balance - in golden age nothing will be hidden - the greatest threat to freedom - the elite cannot hide - computer technology released to make it easier to share information - the dilemma of the power elite - akashic records make it impossible to hide anything - the basic dynamic between the power elite and the population - the golden age cannot be brought through violence - progress happens in two ways - non-violent change is brought about through information - the truth about the cold war - the basic weakness of democracy is related to information - capitalism is NOT a free economy - getting a democratic government to withhold information - artificial tension between democracies and totalitarian states - the power elite won the cold war - from cold war to war on terror - freedom knows no opposition - old democracies have become elitist societies, which is anti-democracy - the greatest fear of the power elite - find ways for people to leak information anonymously -
Dec. 2, 2010
Channeler: Kim Michaels
Question: Is Wikileaks founder and figurehead Julian Assange a tool for the Golden Age?
Answer from ascended master Saint Germain through Kim Michaels: (December 2, 2010)
I am not here going to comment on any particular person or that person's actions. What I will say is that when you look at history, you will see that people who have broken new ground in terms of challenging the establishment have often had a particular personal psychology, and that psychology can in some cases have certain side-effects. If you are a risk taker, you might easily take – or be led to take – risks that a more balanced person would not have taken. And this can often become – or be used as – a means to limit your efforts to challenge the establishment. That is one reason Jesus on this website wisely advocates balance in all things.
In terms of an organization such as Wikileaks and bringing in the Golden Age, let me make it quite clear that in the Golden Age, nothing will be hidden. Thus, there will – as we move towards the Golden Age – be many ways in which it becomes more and more impossible for governments or corporations to keep things hidden from the population.
Let me make a clear statement: There is no greater threat to freedom than the exercise of power without accountability.
The dream of all power elite groups seen throughout history has always been the exercise of power without (personal) accountability. Now for another clear statement, that might be called a law, similar to the popular "Murphy's law":
Whenever power is exercised without personal accountability, there WILL be misuse of power.
It has always been so and it will always be so, as long as people have egos. The ego can exist only in the shadows, where it can remain unseen. The same holds true for the power elite.
So as society moves towards the Golden Age, there will be other initiatives that will make it more easy to disseminate secret information, and thus make it more difficult for a small elite to withhold information from the public. What you are seeing right now is the culmination of a calculated effort by the ascended masters. We deliberately released computer technology in order to make it easier to disseminate and share information, thus giving the people the most powerful weapon possible for securing their freedom from any elite group.
The information technology that we have released presents the power elite with an undeniable dilemma. On the one hand, if the elite does not embrace information technology, then governments and corporations will limit their growth and will inevitably fall behind. Yet as the world is now beginning to realize, digitized information is much more difficult to keep secret than information in a non-digitized form.
This is essentially the dilemma that brought down the Soviet Union. If the Soviet Union did not allow its scientist to have access to computers, it would inevitably fall behind the West. Yet in allowing access to computers, the state could not control how people used and disseminated information. And thus, either way, the appearance of information technology would have taken down the Soviet Union. China is facing the exact same dilemma right now.
Likewise, the free dissemination of information will take down every monolithic corporation, every dictatorship and every so-called democratic government apparatus that is misusing its power. What you have seen with Wikileaks and other leaks of secret information is only the beginning. There is far more to come, and the breakthrough has – not surprisingly – happened in this the year of the Son. The Son, of course, representing the Christ mind in which nothing is hidden.
Let me give you a brief glimpse of what is in store for the Golden Age.
As you all know, everything is energy. And as all spiritual people know, there are forms of energy that are beyond what materialistic science currently sees as the boundaries of the material universe. One such non-material form of energy is what has for a long time been called "Akasha." This is an energy field in which is recorded everything that has ever taken place on earth. As an example, you can go into Akasha and focus on a particular person. You can then "play back" a "movie" of everything that person has done in this and all previous lifetimes. Likewise, you can focus on an organization or country and play back all meetings held by the people involved—including meetings taking place behind closed doors.
Nothing human beings could ever do can be hidden from Akasha, so once you have access to these records, you can expose everything that has ever taken place. Well, as we move towards the Golden Age, technology will be released that will make it possible to access these Akashic records. Yet releasing this technology is a delicate balance. Obviously, the technology could be misused by a government to expose and then eliminate any individuals that could be a threat to its power. The power elite would love to have this technology and monopolize it, so they could use it against anyone opposing them. So the technology must be released in such a way that it cannot be monopolized, but will indeed take down the power elite groups before they can use the technology to consolidate their power.
Given the current state of the collective consciousness, the release of this technology is some time off, but I want you to hold in your vision that it will quickly become more and more difficult for elite groups to withhold information from the public. And as you can see, leading the world into digitizing information has been an important step in the right direction.
Let me give you a teaching on why it is so important that information cannot be kept from the population by an elite group. As I have said in many places, the basic dynamic in human society is the tendency of elite groups to seek power and privilege versus the tendency of the population to seek freedom.
At any given time, the power elite groups think they can use current conditions to maintain control, but a look at history shows that society is inevitably moving towards greater and greater freedom for the people.
The question, however, is how the people win this freedom: with violent or non-violent means? You must understand that the Golden Age cannot be born in blood. You can never bring a Golden Age by a violent overthrow of a power elite group—that is why we have given teachings on non-duality for some time now. Any time – and I mean ANY TIME – one power elite is overthrown through bloodshed, the established elite will be replaced by an aspiring elite. This might still move society towards greater freedom, but it will also set the stage for another violent struggle.
You can see this pattern in history, where the French revolution did overthrow the established elite of the monarchy, but it only created a new elite that was in some ways even more oppressive. The same, of course, happened with the overthrow of the Russian Tzar and the creation of the Soviet Union. So the point is that progress can happen in two ways. One is that the second law of thermodynamics causes an increasing tension that will eventually create a violent explosion that destroys the old order. The other is that there is an awakening in the population, so that progress can be brought through non-violent means.
You have seen many violent revolutions. They did in some cases bring progress by overthrowing the old order, but it also often led to new struggles. You have also seen some non-violent revolutions, such as the enlightenment, the renaissance, the abolishment of slavery and to some degree the emergence of democracies. Unfortunately, you can see that the birth of democracies did involve some bloodshed, and you can see that there is still the potential that democratic nations – or at least the ones who call themselves so – can be involved in wars.
So do you see my point? The question is: what will drive progress? Will it be an increasing tension that leads to a violent explosion, or will it be an awakening of the people that leads to a non-violent revolution? What determines whether it will be one or the other? It is information. A non-violent revolution can ONLY be brought about when there is an increase in awareness among the population. What brings about this increased awareness? That more information is available to more people! If the people do not have the information to bring change without violence, they will inevitably bring it through violence.
The power elite is quite aware of the crucial role of information, and that is why you will see that every single dictatorship has had to restrict or distort the information available to the people. Even the most brutally repressive regimes, such as Stalin's Russia and Mao's China could not subdue the population through violence alone. They had to restrict information, rewrite history and engage in a far-reaching propaganda effort to re-educate the people. And China is doing so to this day, Russia to a lesser degree—although Russia is quickly moving backwards towards control of information.
Yet I am only using these dictatorships as examples because to most people in the West, they are obvious examples of regimes that withhold information from their own people. Yet let us now turn to western so-called democracies.
You have all been brought up to believe in the Cold War, and you have been told it was a struggle between totalitarian societies – based on communist ideology – and free, democratic societies based on free-market or capitalist ideology. You have even been told that freedom and democracy won. So let me now tell you what really happened.
The Cold War was NOT a struggle between totalitarianism and democracy. The Cold War was the power elite's most widespread and sophisticated attempt ever to stop the emergence of democracy—a form of society in which the people will ultimately be governing themselves without needing an elite.
How did they do this? Well, the emergence of democratic nations was the biggest blow to the power elite so far. They tried to stop it in all ways possible, but they were not successful. This, by the way, was largely due to another piece of technology for disseminating information, namely the printing press. So what did they do? They tried to create – as they have always done – a struggle between two polarities. They tried to create a new form of society that would form what seemed to be a threat to the "free world."
During the late 1800s several capitalist business men had attempted to set up monopolies in order to accumulate maximum wealth and thus be able to buy power. Yet they realized that as long as democracies and their economies were functioning freely, there would be a limit to their influence. What is the basis of a democracy? It is that each person has only one vote, and thus the elite can never outvote the population.
What is the basic weakness of a democracy? It is that each person can only vote based on what he or she knows. If you can control what people know, you can control how they vote. Thus, you see clearly that in a democracy, information is essential. If there is not the free dissemination of information, then a democracy cannot function (optimally). In other words, here is another law:
If a democratic government starts systematically withholding information from its own people, then it will inevitably stop being a democratic government.
If the elite can control what the people know, the elite will control the people. It really is that simple.
Now, in the early decades of democracy, the elite was helped along by the fact that the dissemination of information was still restricted by technological and economical factors. So they attempted to control the news media and publishing, and they were somewhat successful. Yet some among the elite soon realized that as long as the economy was somewhat free – and anyone was free to start a business to compete with the established businesses – then they could never truly control the economy or society.
So they started realizing that the only way to get a monopoly in a free market economy was to turn the free market into a capitalist system. And this could be done only by getting the government to limit the free market through various laws. Obviously, this was against the principles behind democracy, so they realized this could only be accomplished through deception. Which means the elite realized that they had to turn free democratic governments into institutions that saw it as a necessity to withhold information from their own people.
Now, how could this be accomplished? How could you get a government that knew it was there to secure the freedoms and equal rights of all people to withhold information and thus give special rights and privileges to a small elite group—that could hide behind the veil of secrecy?
It was accomplished by creating new totalitarian states, which is why the big financiers financed and encouraged both Lenin's revolution is Russia and Hitler's ascent to power in Germany. What was the result? It was that the democratic governments now started thinking that they were locked in a to-the-death struggle against totalitarian forces, forces that were based on withholding information. And thus, the democratic governments soon began thinking that in order to survive against this threat, they had to become as secretive as the totalitarian regimes.
So what was the first and second world wars and the Cold War all about? It was about secretly transforming free democratic societies into elitist societies, societies that are ruled by a small elite, an elite who thinks it is legitimate and in the nation's best interest to withhold large amounts of information from their own people.
Do you see that freedom and democracy did not win the Cold War? The forces who want to rule the people through deception won the Cold War. In order to "defeat" totalitarian nations, democratic nations became as secretive as their totalitarian counterparts.
As Jesus reveals in his groundbreaking discourse, you have two types of fallen beings, corresponding to two factions of the power elite. One group are the beings who appear directly evil, and they represent the power elite groups who want to rule the people through direct – and thus obvious – force. The other group are the ones who appear to be "good," and they represent the power elite groups that want to control the people through deception—so that the people do not even realize they are being controlled.
It was this second group of fallen beings who won the Cold War. Yet this was not actually their plan. As I said, the collapse of the Soviet Union was brought about by information technology, especially computers. The power elite watched in dismay as their proudest creation crumbled before their eyes, and for some years, there was actually quite a bit of turmoil in power elite groups. Various initiatives were tried, but none truly accomplished the goal. Yet then came the breakthrough on September 11, 2001.
What was accomplished in this one incident was to create a replacement for the threat represented by totalitarian communist regimes. Instead of the Cold War, you now had the War on Terror. And what has been the result? Well, in a country such as the United States, the government now had a new – and even increased – power to withhold information from its own people because of "national security."
So my point is simple. What will bring the Golden Age is that the elite will no longer be able to keep anything secret from the people. Thus, initiatives such as Wikileaks are indeed necessary steps towards that goal.
What will begin to happen is that the democratic nations will be forced to rethink their approach. As governments begin to realize that eventually all of their secrets will be exposed, there will be a gradual shift. And this will at least begin the process of steering democracies back towards the only state that can secure their survival, namely that all people have equal access to information. And this just might prevent violent revolutions that could otherwise happen. You see, freedom knows no opposition, so if a nation is to be truly free and democratic, it cannot have a veil of secrecy. For the elite will always have more to hide than the people.
If you look at the United States right now, you will see that the distrust and dissatisfaction that the people have towards their government is growing rapidly. In fact, the United States is rapidly approaching one of these tension points that can trigger a violent upheaval of some kind. Yet what has brought about this is precisely that more and more people are beginning to realize that the United States is effectively ruled by a small elite. The very government that is charged with securing the freedom of the people is now the greatest threat to that freedom, partly through physical force, but especially through the withholding of information.
So there are two potential ways forward for the United States. One is that the government keeps holding on to the need to withhold information, by seeking refuge in "national security" interests. In that case, tension will keep building and it will eventually lead to some form of violent uprising by groups of people, similar to what you saw with the civil rights protests in the 1960s.
The other option is that more and more information comes out, so that the decision makers behind the government eventually realize the futility of seeking to withhold information that is likely to be exposed anyway. And if the people will indeed respond by educating themselves and seeking more information, we might see a peaceful revolution in the pattern of the enlightenment and renaissance.
I can tell you that the future of the United States is right now quite precarious. Thus, I hope the spiritual people will hold the vision and invoke the light and intercession that can bring a true revolution—a revolution in higher consciousness.
As a final remark, what has become obvious with Wikileaks is that there is a need for a better way in which the people who work for governments and corporations can disseminate information and remain anonymous—and thus unpunished. The leaders of the power elite know that they cannot themselves do all the work that keeps them in control, so they must rely on others. Their greatest fear has always been that the very people that they depend on in order to stay in power will be the very people who become instruments for taking away their power.
You have seen how dictators in the past relied on mercenaries from foreign countries for their personal defense, because they knew that their own countrymen might have loyalties towards family or country, and this made them less dependable than people who had loyalty only to money. So there is no better way to shake the confidence of the power elite than to make it easier for the people who work for them to disseminate information.
Why do you think whistleblowers are often treated so harshly? It is because the power elite wants to scare potential whistleblowers into remaining silent for fear of personal retribution. Just look at how the American government – supposedly charged by the Constitution to uphold free speech – is trying to shut down Wikileaks and personally punish its founder. You don't think this is only because some of the leaks were embarrassing to the Secretary of State, do you?
So my point is that those who claim that they are committed to freedom of speech and freedom of the press need to seize the day. They need to form a new international organization, which can set up a website that functions somewhat similarly to Wikileaks, but which is backed by so much money, technology, lawyers and governments that nothing can shut it down or go after the individuals running it—or their sources. Only by doing this can they prove that they really are as committed to freedom as they claim they are.
Copyright © 2010 by Kim Michaels