Elitism is incompatible with democracy

Listen to a recording of this dictation (subscribers only) 

Ascended Master MORE through Kim Michaels, October 25, 2019. This dictation was given at a conference in Washington, D.C.

I AM the Ascended Master MORE, or as I was known in the past, El Morya. What does Morya stand for? More to You All. So why not just MORE? For MORE I am, and what else could I be dedicated to than becoming MORE myself, and helping all people on earth become MORE? For as Mother Mary said – as Mother MORE said – you come to a point on the path where you connect to that basic humanity, or basic spirituality, the basic identity, the sense that we all came from the same source, and therefore you want to raise up all. You want all to experience what you have experienced, of overcoming all of these limitations that are burdening people, that are keeping them trapped in all of these patterns that they are trapped in, that constantly cause them suffering.

Let us take a look at planet earth, and let us confine ourselves to known history. You go back and you see that there was a time when there were only primitive societies: hunter-gatherers, small groups of agricultural communities here and there. But then, at a certain point, at least in some parts of the world, there emerged what we call a civilization that had a greater level of organization, and a greater level of a centralized command structure, a centralized leadership. As soon as you see the formation of such societies, you also see the formation of an elite. You may have had the beginnings of elites even in the hunter-gatherer cultures, as you can see in some native peoples where they had a leadership structure, but it was not really until you saw these more organized civilizations that you see a very clear division of the population into two classes: a ruling class, and a class that is being ruled, that is following the leaders.

Is an elite necessary?

What is the basis for this formation of an elite? Is it really necessary? Well, if you ask that question of many people in today’s world, they would say: “Yes, it is necessary that there is an elite that rules the majority of the people because the majority of the people cannot rule themselves.” This is what many, many people here in Washington, D.C., both those who are elected representatives and those who work in the bureaucracy, will say: “The people are not capable of ruling themselves.”

Let us examine that statement. Is it true that the people cannot rule themselves? Or do people believe this because for millennia they have been conditioned to believe this? This is the question very rarely, if ever, asked by anybody who is involved with society, or who is a philosopher or writer. The reason this question is not asked is of course that most people have been programmed by this belief. They have been programmed to accept this belief, not only in this lifetime but over many, many lifetimes on this earth where they have lived in societies where there was a ruling elite. There was an elite that had power and that exercised power over the population, therefore there was a power elite. It is not difficult for people to see that there is a power elite today, and that there always was, at least from these more organized societies and forward. There was a power elite ruling the population.

The philosopher king

You go back even to the ancient Greek philosophers, such as Plato, whose ideal was the philosopher king. Well, at Plato’s time, 2,500 years ago or so, it was not necessarily that he was wrong in coming up with this concept. At the time, society was so programmed to think that there had to be an elite that was ruling. The question is: If you have a society where there must be a leader, a supreme leader, would it not be better to have the kind of leader

that Plato described as the philosopher king? The ideal for the philosopher king described by Plato would be that it was a person who had overcome so much of his ego that he was not an egomaniac, he was not a narcissist, but he was actually an intuitive person who had good intentions and had some intuitive attunement with the ascended masters. This was, at Plato’s time, an important ideal to put out there. You can ask ourselves whether it was ever achieved, either before or after Plato, but nevertheless it was important to put out the ideal that there could be a leader who had some higher guidance.

You also saw, in the whole myth that was created around King Arthur, that there was also that ideal of the philosopher king who had pure intentions and had some guidance, whether through Merlin or through his own inner guidance. Of course, this was a myth. There was never – and let me state this unequivocally – there was never a physical King Arthur and a physical Camelot, regardless of what some of our students of previous dispensations like to believe. It was a mythological kingdom. This does not make it any less important because at the time when the myth or the legend of King Arthur was created, society was very different. People did not have the linear, analytical mindset that you have today. It is very difficult for you today to actually understand how people were thinking 1,500 years ago or so because they were much more into symbols. They also did not take the Bible as literally as many people do today. So, raising up this symbol of a king that had some higher purpose than the kings people saw around them was important.

Now, of course the fallen beings are always quick to take any idea and abuse it. They very quickly created the idea that you see through the feudal societies and medieval times of a king that was anointed by God, that was appointed by God, and that was approved of by God’s representatives on earth, namely the Catholic church and its hierarchy. Therefore, you saw that fusion of church and state where the king gained part of his authority from the church, in return for therefore also supporting the church. You can look at these kind of societies, and you can actually ask yourself a relatively simple question, which of course most people out there are not capable of asking. The question is: “Why was it necessary to create this idea that validated the power of the king and the church?” Why was it necessary? The king had the raw force to suppress the population. Why not just create a rule based on raw force?

Power elites always use ideas

This is where you can then begin to help people see that there must be a certain element of the power elite that recognize the limitations of raw force, and therefore always seeks to come up with some kind of idea to support their existence and their power over the population. There are examples of societies that have been ruled by a power elite that based their rule exclusively on power, but they are relatively few, and in most cases they were short-lived. When you actually look back at various civilizations (and you can go back, as an example, to the ancient Egyptians), you see that they also had the idea that the king either was a god or was supported by the gods, was working with the gods, was representing the gods on earth. Thereby, you see that there was always a need to create some kind of idea (a religion, an ideology, a thought system) that makes the population accept that they need an elite. It gives legitimacy and authority to the elite.

Why is it important to recognize this? Because when you recognize that a power elite always, or at least in most cases, supports its existence and power by an idea, you can begin to critically examine the ideas that the power elites of history have used. If you begin by looking back in time, you can see that very few people today would believe that the Roman emperor was a literal god on earth, that he was God in embodiment. Or that some of the Egyptian pharaohs were God in embodiment. Or the Sumerian leaders, or the leaders of the ancient Vedic Indian societies, or other societies in East Asia where you also find this belief that some people are either gods in embodiment, or God’s representatives, are anointed by God, have been given authority from God. You find this over and over and over again. When you see that you do not accept the claims made in these ancient civilizations, how difficult is it then to zoom up through history and see that even today, you look back at medieval times (even as recently as 1500s, 1600s in some areas) and you see that the divine right of kings is not something you accept today in the modern democracies.

Can you not then also take that leap and say: “What are the ideas that the power elite today is using to support its existence?” Can we not then examine those ideas and see: Do they actually make sense? Are they consistent? Or are they an expression of cognitive dissonance? Are they contradictory? Do they make any kind of sense to us, really, or is it just something we have been brought up to accept and never really question?

The rest of this dictation, along with an invocation based on the dictation, is found in the book: Ending the Era of Elitism

Copyright © 2019 Kim Michaels