A democratic nation simply does not have the ruthlessness to use military power to suppress those it considers to be dangerous. If a democratic government seeks to take such power, it transform itself into a totalitarian regime. My point is that in a democracy, freedom of speech – no matter how it is executed – must never be seen as a threat to peace. On the contrary, it is the primary safety valve that can preserve peace.

Let us look at a concrete example. Most European nations have not healed the wounds left by World War II and the Holocaust. It is therefore understandable that such nations do not want to see the emergence of a Neo-Nazi movement that openly encourages the killing of Jews and the destruction of the state of Israel. Yet let us now recognize the fact that a small number of people in some European nations have become fascinated by the Nazi ideology. What is the best way to respond?

Some nations try to do nothing, but history has proven that ignoring a problem will not make it go away. Others try to actively suppress Neo-Nazis, but the inevitable effect is that they simply become more determined and organized. This has been proven by the resistance movements seen in many totalitarian regimes around the world. And when people are suppressed, society cannot as easily keep track of what they are doing. Furthermore, when you suppress people, tension grows and sooner or later you have a flash point.

The wiser course of action is to realize that it is a free government’s responsibility to help all of its citizens come to a higher understanding of life, meaning that they give up extremist viewpoints of any kind. So if some people begin to espouse a Neo-Nazi ideology, a government should try to understand why they are attracted to such a belief system. Obviously, they must feel dissatisfied with their society and its form of government yet powerless to do anything about it. Yet while the Nazi’s in WWII Germany might have been your enemies, these people are your own citizens and a free government should never see its own citizens as enemies. Since a free government cannot violently suppress such people, it needs to help them voluntarily give up their extremist views. One aspect of this is to allow FREE speech to do its work.

Allow such people to operate openly and say whatever they want to say. At the say time you allow those who oppose them to say what they want to say. The result is that the Neo-Nazis will say things that will offend many people. This gives these people an opportunity to consider why they are offended by such statements. And as people freely express their opinion about the Neo-Nazis, they get the opportunity to consider why they are so abhorrent to most people. The free expression of ideas will not actually create tension but will bring out whatever tension is already lurking under the calm surface. And by making it visible, people can easier see what they need to address in their nation. At least, this raises the potential of long-term progress for everyone. Seeking to suppress what is already there will only increase the lurking tension until an explosion occurs. Incidentally, such unresolved tension is what lead to the Nazi’s coming to power in pre-war Germany.

My point is that allowing free speech to work has the potential to lead to open dialogue, and this can lead to mutual understanding. People generally take extremist views because they feel they are not understood by their society. When people feel such understanding, they often moderate their views and enter the political process in a peaceful and more balanced way.

Kim: Yet some people say that if you allow Muslims to stage public demonstrations where they incite violence, they will gradually build a tension that will lead to actual violence. So they say a government’s only option is to suppress all demonstrations that incite violence and hatred.

Jesus: Most Europeans clearly see that Muslim extremists are fanatical, so they need to be very careful not to engage in any kind of fanaticism themselves. The core of fanaticism is black-and-white thinking. LINK You think that in any given situation, there are only two possible options – one bad and one worse – and you have to choose one. In other words, either you prevent Muslims from having free expression – which is bad – or you have mayhem and chaos – which is worse. Such beliefs are always based on blindness, where people are blinded by the beam in their own eyes and thus do not see what would otherwise have been obvious. They do not see that there are always more options than bad and worse.

In this case, many Europeans subconsciously realize that the influx of Muslims has created a need for THEM to change. Yet because they are unwilling to do so, they simply want the problem to go away. Once again, the problem is that you cannot serve two masters. You need to decide that you either do not allow any Muslim immigrants into your country (and deport those already there) or that you will do whatever it takes to help these Muslims integrate peacefully into your society. Most European nations are trying to allow Muslim immigrants without truly integrating them, and that is why you see mounting tension.

So how can you overcome this? By encouraging Muslims to take part in the political process, the public debate and every other aspect of a free society. Encourage Muslims to organize and create organizations that can interact with the government, with the media and with other organizations. These organizations can then voice immigrant concerns and negotiate solutions in cooperation with the government. They can put on a face to the press and this will help Muslims clarify their viewpoints while getting feedback from the media and the people in the host country.

Why do people stage demonstrations and shout for violence? Because they are frustrated and feel they cannot be heard or understood in any other way. So by encouraging dialogue, you will get the moderate, open-minded Muslims to join this process. And by allowing free expression, you will allow the extremist Muslims to make themselves visible. Thus, the moderate Muslims will separate themselves from the extremists, and you can now deal with the extremists without lumping the moderates in with them.

Incidentally, most of the Muslim extremists in Europe are NOT political refugees fleeing suppressive governments. They are violent, fanatical extremists, and if they are not willing to join a peaceful, democratic process in their new country, that country has a right to deport them. You can’t deport your own citizens, but you CAN deport immigrants who have no desire for peaceful integration in your country.

Kim: Some Muslims have pointed out that several European nations have defended the publishing of the cartoons as a free speech issue, while these same nations have made it illegal to make anti-semitic statements or say the Holocaust did not take place. The Muslims say this is hypocritical. Would you agree?

Jesus: Certainly, although hearing a Muslim accuse others of being hypocrites is an example of seeing the splinter in your brother’s eye while ignoring the beam in your own. You will indeed see Muslims who say that western governments should have restricted the newspapers from publishing the cartoons, because that is what would have been done in most Muslim nations.

Nevertheless, if the messenger be an ant, heed him and there is truth in such statements. You cannot allow people to speak freely on one issue while restricting their speech on another issue. There can be no restrictions to FREE speech in a FREE society. If speech is not free, the society cannot be free either.

Kim: So what do you think about the fact that in many nations people cannot speak freely about Jews, homosexuals, blacks or other minorities. For example, if you say anything remotely critical about the state of Israel, some people will immediately label you as anti-semitic. How does that affect free speech?
Jesus: It obviously restricts free speech, and people need to be on guard against ALL such taboos, no matter how subtle they are or how well-founded they might seem.

You know very well that I have made some remarks on this website that some people have labeled anti-semitic. You know I have made some remarks about homosexuality that some have labeled homophobic. If such labels become widely accepted in a society, they will undermine free speech in a very subtle and very dangerous way.

As one example, let us look at the Jews. It is perfectly true that the Jewish people have been subjected to much persecution, culminating in the Holocaust. Yet the fact that the Jewish people were persecuted by the Nazis in the past does not mean that all Jews have been elevated to the status of infallibility for all eternity. Jews are still human beings and are subject to the same laws and standards as all other human beings on this planet. If you set Jews apart, you simply continue the consciousness that caused the persecution of Jews in the first place and this will only lead to more persecution.

My point is that Jews are as prone to making mistakes as are other people. So if the politicians in Israel make mistakes, such as by continuing to respond to violence with more violence, then the international community has a right and a duty to criticize them. If nations refrain from doing so because they are afraid of being labeled anti-semitic, you create a dangerous situation. If people can exercise power without accountability, you will inevitably see the abuse of power and this goes for the state of Israel as well. There is no doubt that the state of Israel has gotten away with things because the international community is reluctant to criticize it. This is a major factor in making it impossible to create true peace between Israel and its neighbors—who clearly see what many nations in the West are unwilling to see. Thus, many Arab countries are correct when they point out that many western countries have a double standard in dealing with Israel.

However, there is a bigger issue here that goes to the very core of free speech. If you look at history, you will see that there is an ongoing battle between a small elite and the general population. This can be seen in every culture and in every historical period. There is always a small elite who is seeking unlimited power and privilege, and they do so by using whatever means available to suppress the general population. For those who want to know the spiritual cause of this, I explain it elsewhere.

In a totalitarian regime, the power elite can use physical force to suppress the population, but knowledge is still power. That is why every totalitarian regime on this planet has attempted to keep the population ignorant by suppressing the free flow of information and freedom of speech. Ask yourself why a regime with the formidable military power of the former Soviet Union and present-day China finds it necessary to suppress information. The reason is that the power elite always fears the truth, because the truth WILL eventually set the people free from the power elite.

It is extremely naive to assume – as most people do – that in a democratic nation there is no power elite. The democratic world still has a power elite, but because it no longer has military power, it has been driven largely underground. It can now operate only by staying hidden from the general population. I am going to make it very clear that I do not support most of the conspiracy theories out there. There isn’t one worldwide conspiracy to suppress the population—at least not in the material world.

Instead, there are a number of power elite groups who are fighting with each other to attain power and privilege. And it is an undeniable fact that a free, democratic society also gives freedom to such groups, because it assumes that its citizens have good intentions and support the democratic freedoms. Therefore, a democratic society is inherently vulnerable to those who seek to misuse democratic freedoms to gain power and privilege. Ignoring this fact will eventually threaten the survival of a democracy.

How can a power elite gain power and privilege in a democratic society? By misusing its freedom to undermine the freedom of the general population. For example, all people can vote, but they can only vote for the candidates that are running. If a country has allowed a system where only people with a lot of money can wage an effective political campaign, the power elite can select who can run for office. Another example is the ownership of the media. The press in a democratic nation is supposedly free to print anything it wants, but how free is it? If a commercial newspaper depends on advertising from large corporations, how willing is it to print something damaging to one or more of its essential advertisers? How willing is a paper to challenge the power and privilege of those who own it?

Yet there is a bigger issue. Although there are competing power elites, they all share the same basic goal. A democracy is a form of society that gives – or is meant to give – all people the same rights and opportunity. Thus, we might say that a democracy is designed to prevent a power elite from taking power and privileges over the general population. Therefore, all power elite groups share an interest in undermining the principles that guarantee equal rights.

From the very birth of the first democracy, there has been an effort by various groups to undermine and even destroy democracy. In modern western society, this has taken two main directions:

Secularization
Most democratic constitutions take their inspiration from the Declaration of Independence. This document was inspired by the ascended masters, and its central concept is that all people are created equal and that their Creator has given them certain INALIENABLE rights. The essence of this is that there is an authority that is above and beyond any authority on earth—meaning any power elite group. Thus, no institution on earth has the right to take away or restrict the rights given to ALL people by this super-earthly authority.

It should be possible for perceptible people to see that if the belief in and respect for the existence of a super-earthly authority declines, then the justification for the concept of inalienable rights fades with it. In a completely secular society, such as communist China, it is taken as granted that human rights are defined by the state, meaning an institution here on earth. In other words, rights are defined by an earthly institution rather than being given by an authority above and beyond the human power struggle. In practicality, this means that the ruling power elite defines the rights of the general population.
My point is that it is an undeniable fact that a completely secular democracy simply cannot survive for very long. It is inevitable that a power elite will erode the inalienable rights of the people until the people’s rights are now defined by the power elite.

The ascended masters clearly support the move away from the doctrinal, fanatical approach to religion in the middle ages. Yet we do not support the current situation in Europe where people live in a spiritual vacuum and where governments take pride in removing all influence of religious principles from government. This is not sustainable, and unless people embrace a new, universal spirituality, European democracy will continue its decline until it is democracy by name only.

Misguided tolerance
The concept of inalienable rights implies that it is possible to evaluate human behavior in terms of absolute right and wrong. If you violate the God-given rights of another person, your actions are wrong in an absolute sense and a democratic society has no obligation to tolerate them.

Yet one of the cornerstones of democracy is that a society is obligated to give its citizens the greatest possible amount of freedom, and this necessitates that people have a high degree of tolerance for each other’s differences. For example, a democracy must guarantee religious freedom, meaning that it cannot allow one religion to dominate society, as the Catholic Church did in the middle ages.

Over the past several decades, most western democracies have been exposed to a deliberate and planned attempt at social engineering. This is a very subtle attempt to misuse the concept of tolerance in order to subvert the respect for inalienable rights. By using some of the worst atrocities from history, such as the Inquisition and the Holocaust, certain power elite groups have gradually raised up tolerance as the overriding ideal for a free society.

The effect is that – in the name of tolerance – the majority has been engineered not to speak out against the behavior of any minority group, even if that minority is actually violating the inalienable rights of the majority, thus undermining democracy itself. In the name of tolerance, society has been moved toward a state where anything goes and there is no higher standard for evaluating behavior. Everything is defined by human beings—meaning the ruling power elite.

The net effect of these two factors is an undermining of the democratic principle of protecting the majority from an aggressive power elite. If anything goes, then the bullies have free reign to intimidate those who are not aggressive people. This has far-reaching consequences, but let me focus on the issue of free speech.

As I said above, the power elite can only maintain power and privilege by curbing free speech. They want to set themselves up as a privileged group whose actions and power cannot be questioned or gainsaid. They are in a separate class than the majority, they are above the law and can do whatever they want because they belong to the elite.