Modern democracies must move beyond fanaticism 

Listen to a recording of this dictation (subscribers only)

Ascended Master Mother Mary through Kim Michaels, June 7, 2019. This dictation was given at a conference in Amsterdam, Holland.

I AM the Ascended Master Mother Mary, and it is my privilege to open this conference and bid you all welcome here to this place. What is a place? Does it really matter where you have a conference? Well, yes and no. It does not matter in the sense that the right place to commune with the ascended masters is always in the heart. On the other hand, it is of course important to have conferences in certain places where we can shatter certain energy matrices that are not of the light, or we can have an impact on the collective consciousness.

That is why we are grateful to have a conference here on the European continent that has, in the past, been the cradle of so much fanaticism. Naturally my beloved, the concept of fanaticism is something that all people on earth are aware of but that hardly anyone understands. If you search on the Internet or look up in a dictionary to find the meaning of the word fanaticism, you will often find a definition that says something like “fanaticism – the act of being fanatical.” What does that tell you exactly? Well, not very much, does it? You will see that even psychologists who have studied this phenomenon for some time have difficulty in defining exactly what fanaticism is.

Many people reinforce fanaticism

Now, the first thing that I want to bring to your attention here (for you to make calls on, and be aware of) is that there is a tendency, in worldly psychology or in all fields of society that deal with fanaticism, to look at the extreme manifestations of fanaticism. Here on the European continent, you naturally always have psychologists reach back to Adolph Hitler as the example of a very fanatical person, and how he managed to get so many among the German population to go into the fanatical mindset. The problem with taking this approach is that it actually reinforces fanaticism. It does this in a very subtle way that few people are aware of.

You see my beloved, going back to Sigmund Freud, he set a tone for modern psychology, for what became known as the “Science of Psychology” by focusing on studying abnormal psychology. So many psychologists have then looked at the topic of fanaticism, looked at the more extreme manifestations of fanaticism (such as Hitler) and they have studied this from the same vantage point as traditional psychology. This is abnormal, fanaticism is something abnormal, something extreme. The problem with taking this approach is that you then automatically create a division where you say: “Certain people are in such an extreme state of mind that they are fanatics. But most people are not in such an extreme state of mind, and therefore, they are not fanatics. They are not in a fanatical state of mind.” If you look at this, including how many of the nations of Europe look back at the time of Hitler, you will see that there is a tendency for many people to feel: “We are normal but these people are fanatics.”

Many, here in this country of Holland, look at the German people and Hitler as clearly being fanatical. They think that because the people here in the Netherlands are so open, so tolerant, certainly we are not fanatics. Many people would be greatly offended if they were told that they were fanatics, which of course is what I intend to do later.

Dividing human beings into groups

The problem here is simple. You create a division of humankind into two groups, and then you say: “We are the normal people, they are the fanatics.” You are pointing the finger at somebody else. What was the essential dynamic of Hitler’s Germany? It was exactly the same. We are dividing humanity into two groups, the Aryan Germans and the Jews. They are the bad people, and they are the ones we need to get rid of. The mindset behind this is very simple. There is a problem in the world, but the problem is not with us, the problem is with those other people. In order to solve the problem, we need to change those other people.

Now, grant you, Hitler’s solution, final solution of killing all the Jews, was extreme and was fanatical. Certainly the actions of ISIS of blowing up people and killing them is also extreme. What needs to be recognized is that fanaticism does not start in the extreme. It starts in what many people call “normal” and then it gradually becomes extreme. If you are totally honest and looking at Germany in the 1920’s and 1930’s up until the rise of Hitler, you cannot say that the majority of Germans were in a fanatical state of mind. There is no way you can say this and be honest and objective. You can of course see that there was a certain psychological mechanism in the German people, which had the potential to evolve into the fanaticism you saw after the rise of Hitler.

If you are honest and objective, you cannot say that this state of mind or this psychological mechanism was only found in the Germans. There were special circumstances, in the sense that the Germans were very upset over the conclusion of the First World War and the Treaty of Versailles. Nevertheless, if you are looking at just the mindset of the people and not the outer circumstances, you will see that many other nations in Europe and around the world had a very similar mechanism in a majority of the population.

Identifying the problem as “out there”

It is precisely this mechanism, you see, that is a problem. You are not taking responsibility for the problem and saying: “What can we do? How can we change ourselves to solve the problem?” You identify that the problem is out there with other people and they are the ones who have to change. If you look honestly at history, you will see how many examples there are of people that you would call “normal” from a psychological evaluation, but who (when there were certain circumstances that manifested) they became willing to kill other people. Before these circumstances manifested, they were what you call “normal human beings.” They are not necessarily aggressive and certainly not willing to kill others. But when certain circumstances changed, then all of a sudden, now people are willing to kill other human beings.

I know that there are people out there, my beloved, who want to define fanaticism by saying that when you are willing to kill other human beings, you are in a fanatical state of mind. If you are not willing to kill, then you are not a fanatic. That is too simplistic of a definition. It certainly is not a definition that will allow you to ever remove fanaticism from the earth. As I said, the essence of fanaticism is that you point the finger at somebody else and you say: “They are the problem. They are the ones who have to change.” You can never remove fanaticism if you are in that same state of mind. If you isolate certain people, label them as fanatics, point the finger and say: “They are the ones who are the problem, they are the ones who have to change,” you will not remove fanaticism. Not only will you not remove fanaticism, you will reinforce fanaticism.

There are people, here in Holland and certainly in other nations, who think that they are being so open and tolerant that what they are doing is the opposite of fanaticism. When they then look at the people who are extremists, and label them as fanatics, by this very mental act (and emotional act) they are reinforcing the consciousness of fanaticism that exists.

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


Copyright © 2019 Kim Michaels