Wandering into a war of Light and Darkness: Abraham Lincoln

Posted December 25, 2019 by ymarsakar
Categories: History

Hot Springs, Ark., April 30, 1909
Mr. Member of Congress,
Washington, D. C.
Sir : In my letter of April 9th, I endeavored to show you particularly the
scope of the scheme of the Catholic Church and the American Medical Assoc-
iation to secure augmented political power through the movement for a Na-
tional Department or Bureau of Health.

I wish to quote again to you the language of Lincoln, and quote further
some interesting matter which may reasonably be held to account for his
utterances and his “great purpose.”

Lincoln to 164th Ohio, August 18, 1864:

“I wish it might be more generally and universally understood
WHAT the country is now engaged in. We have, as all will agree,
a free Government, where every man has a right to be equal with
every other man. In this great struggle, this FORM of government
and EVERY human right is endangered if our enemies succeed.
“There is MORE involved in this contest than is realized by
every one. There is involved in this struggle the question whether
your children and my children shall enjoy the privileges WE have
enjoyed. I say this in order to impress upon you, if you are not
already impressed, that no small matter should divert lis from our
great PURPOSE.

The real issue in this country is the eternal struggle between
these two principles — right and wrong — throughout the world. They
are the two principles that have stood face to face from the begin-
ning of time, and will ever continue to struggle. The one is the
common right of humanity, and the other the divine right of
kings. It is the same principle in whatever shape it develops
ITSELF.” — Lincoln.
Lincoln to the Evangelical Lutherans, May 6, 1862:

“… I accept with gratitude their assurances of the sympathy
and support of that enlightened, influential, and loyal class of my
fellow-citizens in an important crisis which involes, in my judg-
ment, not only the civil and religious liberties of our own dear land,
but in a large degree the civil and religious liberties of MANKIND
IN MANY COUNTRIES AND THROUGH MANY AGES. You
well know, gentlemen, and the world knows, how RELUCTANTLY
I accepted the issue of battle forced upon me on my advent to this
place by the internal enemies of our country. . . I now humbly
and reverently, in your presence, reiterate the acknowledgement of
that dependence, not doubting that, if it shall please the Divine
Being who determines the destinies of nature, this shall remain a
united people, and they will, humbly seeking the Divine guidance,
make their prolonged national existence a SOURCE of NEW bene-
fit to themselves, and their successors and to all CLASSES and
CONDITIONS of MANKIND.”

Lincoln also said : “I do not pretend to be a prophet, but though
not a prophet, I see a very dark cloud on our horizon; and that

_2—
cloud is coming from Rome. It is filled -with tears of blood. The
true motive-power is secreted behind the thick walls of the Vatican,
the colleges and schools of the Jesuits, the convents of the nuns,
and the confessional boxes of Rome.”

Lincoln also said: “At what point shall we expect the approach
of danger? Shall we expect some transatlantic military Grant to
step the ocean and crush us at a blow?

“Never; all the armies of Europe, Asia, and Africa combined,
with all the treasures of the earth (our own excepted) in their mili-
tary chest, and with a Bonaparte for. a commander, could not, by
force, take a drink from the Ohio, or make a track on the Blue
Ridge, in a trial of a thousand years. At what point, then, is this
approach of danger to be expected? I answer, if it ever reach us,
it must spring up amongst us. It cannot come from abroad. If
destruction be our lot, we must ourselves be its author and fin-
isher. As a nation of freemen, we must live through all time or die
by suicide.”

What did Lincoln mean in saying to the 164th Ohio in 1864, when the
war was almost over; when the turning point has Jbeen surely passed: “I
wish it might be more generally and universally understood what the coun-
try is now engaged in. . . . There is more involved in this contest than is
realized by every one! … I say this in order to impress upon you, if
you are not already impressed, that no small matter should divert us from our
great PURPOSE.” And to the Lutherans in 1862: “. . . not doubting
that, if it shall please the Divine Being who determines the destinies of
nature, this shall remain a united people, and they will, humbly seizing the
Divine guidance make their prolonged national existence a SOURCE of new
benefit to themselves, and their successors, and to all CLASSES and CON-
DITIONS of MANKIND.” What was Lincoln’s great PURPOSE— the form
of the thank offering to the Almighty for National preservation, that should
spring from the war as a SOURCE of new benefit to themselves, and their
successors, and to all classes and conditions of mankind?

In a little book of some 320 pages, “The Engineer Corps of Hell,” com-
piled and translated by Edwin A. Sherman, 32d degree (late 33d, I under-
stand) of the Ancient and Accepted Scottish Rite of Freemasonry, a copy of
which was, upon April 10, 1909, in the Congressional Library, I find an
account of the defense by Abraham Lincoln of Rev. Father Chiniquy, in
1856, in the court of Urbana, 111., in which the Catholic Bishop of Chicago
was involved, and which came before Judge David Davis. On page 140 Mr.
Sherman writes: “When she read the paper (Chicago newspaper) she sa”id:
‘Chiniquy is innocent, and I know it.’ ‘I heard the whole thing as it was
planned in the Priest Le Belle’s house by him with his sister, and he promised
to give her two eighty-acre tracts of land if she would swear that Chiniquy
had made dishonorable proposals to her and attempts upon her person.’ ‘At’
first she refused, and denied positively that Chiniquy had ever done anything
of the kind, and that she would be guilty of perjury and damn her own soul
if she should swear to anything of the kind, for it was absolutely false.
After much urging and pressing on the part of the Priest Le Belle, and she
still refused, he said: ‘Mr. Chiniquy will destroy our holy religion and our
people if we do not destroy him. If you think that the swearing that I ask
you to do is sin, you will come to confess to me and I will pardon it in the abso-
lution I will give you.’ ‘Have you the power to forgive a false oath?’ replied
Mrs. Bossy to her brother. f Yes,’ he answered; 7 have that power; for Christ
has said to all his priests: “What you shall bind ©n earth will be bound in
heaven; and what you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven.” ‘ Mrs.
Bossy then said: ‘If you promise that you will forgive me that false oath,

and if you will give me the 160 acres of land that you promised, I will do
what you want.’ The Priest Le Belle then said: ‘All righjt.’

“When Narcisse Terrien heard this from his wife he said, ‘If it be so,
we can not allow Mr. Chiniquy to be condemned. Come with me to Urbana.’
But his wife being quite ill, said to her husband, ‘You know well that I can
not go. But Miss Philomena Moffat was with me then; she knows every
particular of that wicked plot as well as I do. She is well, go and take her
to Urbana. There is no doubt that her testimony ^ will prevent the condem-
nation of Mr. Chiniquy. Upon that her husband and Miss Moffat started at
once, and arrived in the night at Urbana, sought Mr. Lincoln and revealed to
•him the whole diabolical plot, of which he went immediately and informed
Chiniquy. In the meantime the priests watched the trains and examined the
hotel registers and found that Mr..Terrin and Miss Moffat had arrived. The
Priest Le Belle met her coming from Mr. Lincoln’s room, a colloquy ensued,
and he offered her a large sum of money to leave immediately ami return to
Chicago and not appear in court. She positively refused, informed him that
Mr. Lincoln knew all. Fearing the evil consequences that would result when
the hellish scheme would be made public, he went and informed the other
priests, and they left before daylight the next morning. The suit was with-
drawn by consent of the court and counsel, but not until Mr. Lincoln, with
words of burning eloquence and melting pathos, described the long and mali-
cious persecution of his client by his enemies, and with the most bitter invec-
tive that the human mind can conceive or the tongue can utter, denounced
the infernal machinations of Bishop O’Regan and his accomplices, and rising
to his full height, declared: ‘That while an almighty ruling Providence

PERMITTED HIM TO SEE THE LIGHT OF DAY AND BREATHE THE PURE AIR OF HEAV-
EN, AND SO LONG AS HE HAD A BRAIN TO THINK, A HEART TO FEEL AND A
HAND TO EXECUTE HIS WILL, HE WOULD DEVOTE THEM ALL AGAINST THAT
INFERNAL POWER THAT WAS THE ENEMY OF ALL FREE GOVERNMENT AND OF THE
FREE INSTITUTIONS OF HIS COUNTRY, THAT POLLUTED^ THE TFMPLES OF JUSTICE
WITH ITS PRESENCE AND ATTEMPTED TO USE THE MACHINERY OF THE LAW TO
OPPRESS AND CRUSH THE INNOCENT AND HELPLESS.’ ”

“He hated wrong and oppression everywhere, and many a man whose
fraudulent conduct was undergoing review in a Court of Justice has writhed
under his terrific indignation and rebuke’* — Judge David Davis. Nicolay.

Lincoln had a powerful example of how, through the buying and selling
of indulgences, by pardoning of crime committed in the interest of the
church, there was practically no safeguard for the reputation or the life of a
man who menaced the interests of the church. To such a man as Lincoln
such action must be as odious and great a menace as treason itself. I be-
lieve if a priest had originally been a citizen of the United States, he was
divested of that citizenship and became an alien, surrendered his conscience
and his future action, spiritual and political, to the direction of the Pope —
became a religious bigot, an intriguer and spy for the Pope the moment he
subscribed to a priest’s oath. That no man having taken such or a similar
oath, can be naturalized within the spirit of the Constitution. Whether the
Government recognizes the temporal pretensions of the Pope or not, the priest
does and makes his binding allegiance to it.

“. . . Urbana, May 23, 1856. Due A. Lincoln fifty dollars, for
value received.” (p. 178.)

(Page 189) : “. . . Mr. Lincoln, as he had just finished writing the
due bill, turned round to him and said: ‘Father Chiniquy, what are you
crying for? You ought to be the most happy man alive. You have beaten
your enemies and gained a glorious victory, and you will come out of all
these troubles in triumph.’ Said Father Chiniquy: ‘Mr. Lincoln. I am not
weeping for myself, but for you, sir, and your death; they will kill you, sir.
What you have said and done in court, holding them up in derision and

— 4—

making the declarations you have in court, and defeating them in ignominy
and shame, there will be no forgiveness for you, and sooner or later they will
take your life. And let me say further, that were I a Jesuit, as they are, and
some one of them been in my place and I in theirs, it would have been my
sworn purpose to either kill you myself or find the man to do it, and you will
be their victim!’ At this Mr. Lincoln’s countenance changed to a most pecu-
liar visage, expressing determination, and with a sarcastic smile accompany-
ing it, said: ‘Father Chiniquy, is that so?’ ‘It is,’ answered Father Chini-
quy. ‘Then,’ said Mr. Lincoln, as he spread out the due bill for my signature,
‘please sign my death warrant.’ Father Chiniquy signed the due bill, which
he shortly afterwards paid, and. kindly loaned to us in the year 1878, still in
our possession, and which we had laid on a lithographic stone by Wm. T.
Galloway & Co. of San Francisco, and several thousand certified copies of it
struck off for our brethren and friends. It ‘eventually proved to be the death
warrant of Abraham Lincoln, as we shall endeavor to show in the following
chapters, and that, as previously stated in Part First: ‘In whatever place
of the Catholic world a Jesuit is insulted or resisited, no matter how insig-
nificant he may be, he is sure to be avenged — and this-we know.’ ”

With a man of the fidelity of Abraham Lincoln to justice, humanity, his
oath to his countrymen, and his promise to an “Almighty Ruling Providence”
to devote his powers “against that infernal power that was the enemy of all
free government and of the free institutions of his country, that polluted the
temples of justice with its presence and attempted to use the machinery of
the law to oppress and crush the innocent and helpless,” is it strange that he
had a “great purpose ?” Would it be strange in such circumstances, that he
would have an ambition that the war — “That singular and unnecessary in-
testine collision, … at the mystery of which leading secessionists were
so much puzzled that they declared it to be the effects of a general lunacy,
was nevertheless in perfect harmony with the profound and masterly policy
of the Roman See which comprehends in its toils the events of ages, and from
the first projection of a pl?>t to its final consummation,, shapes every inter-
vening circumstance to the fulfillment of its grand design;” that, that war
which he understood and we never did, should be the “SOURCE of new bene-
fits” to us, our successors, and all classes and conditions of mankind.

Out of a personal experience which had inspired such a solemn dedication,
the war practically closed, four years of opportunity for service to his coun-
try and humanity, opportunity such as had not been had and appreciated
since Jesus Christ, that he would have supinely allowed the buying and sell-
ing of crime, in and out of the courts of a people who had his solemn oath to
uphold the fundamentals of their government, confided to him in the highest
trusteeship on earth.

Lincoln belonged to no church ; in fidelity to all that goes to make a
Christ-like character, he towered above churchmen, Cardinals, Archbishops,
Bishops, Preachers and laymen. Lincoln was God Almighty’s rebuke to
American Protestants before his day, and the monument to their shame to-
day. A man whispering the sentiment of Lincoln’s vow today, is branded
as an intolerant bigot by Protestant and Catholic alike, and it was left for an
individual then occuping the office of President, dignified by Lincoln, to re-
buke a citizen of the United States who protesting against a Roman Catholic
for President, “can be influenced by such narrow bigotry.”

We crowd the public service at home and abroad with adherents to the
institution stigmatized by Lincoln as an “enemy to all free government,” \
insulting Lincoln’s memory while we hypocritically laud him and build
monuments which belie us and belittle him. The Catholic ridicules the Pro-
testant’s religious sincerity, and mocks him when he says: “In self-defense,
Catholics must become independent, and vote for those only who will not
deny them their rights as citizens because of their religion. The rights of

conscience are more important than protection or free trade.” — Catholic
Review.

With the Protestant, protection or free trade are more important, be-
cause exercising the rights of conscience is bigotry.

“Then, one of the twelve, called Judas Iscariot, Vent into the chief priests
and said unto them, What will ye give me and I will deliver him unto you?
And they covenanted with him for thirty pieces of silver. . . . Then
Judas, which had betrayed him, when he saw that he was condemned, re-
pented himself, and brought again the thirty pieces to the chief priests and
elders, saying, I have sinned in that I have betrayed innocent blood, and they
said, what is that to US? See THOU to that.”

The Protestants are Christianizing the world outside of the United States,
and selling their votes to Rome for the prosperity to raise the money. Rome
takes the money from the offices and appropriations the Protestants give
her, furnishes more government situations for converts, until a standing
inducement of Rome to a convert is prospect of a Government position.

Said President Lincoln: “Archbishop Hughes, I have invited you here
as the chief representative and episcopal dignitary of the Roman Catholic
Church in the United States, for the purpose of a conference with you, the
result of which, I trust will be of benefit to the country and satisfactory to
ourselves. . . . These Protestant religious societies, both clerical and
laity, are purely local, and with no foreign spiritual head or Church govern-
ment to direct or control them, and their pastors are chosen and accepted by
the popular voice from among themselves. To a great extent, however,
though they have gone in a- wrong direction in national affairs, but they
have followed out the American idea of self-government, and nine hundred
and ninety-nine per cent out of a thousand in numbers are native and to the
manor born, and in no portion of the United States, as you are no doubt well
aware, is the prejudice against the foreign-born population so great as it is
in the South. Yet throughout the South, and in a great many places in the
North, as I am reliably informed through authentic sources and in the public
press, the bishops and priests of your Church, acting under an implied if not
direct authority from the Pope, whose declared sympathy is with the Rebell-
ion, have absolved all Roman Catholic citizens from their allegiance to the
United States Government, encouraged them in acts of rebellion and treason,
and have consecrated the arms and flags borne by the insurgent troops which
have been raised to fight against the Union. Bishop Lynch of Charleston,
South Carolina, Fathers Ryan of Georgia, and Hubert of Louisiana, and
others, have been particularly active and conspicuous in this work. I have
sent for you chiefly on the score of humanity. I do not want this war, which
has become so wickedly begun for the destruction of the Union to become a
religious one. It is bad enough as it is, but it would become tenfold worse
should it eventually take that shape, and its consequences no one now living
could foresee. There is an apparent coalition between the Pope and Jefferson
Davis, at the head of the rebel government, and the acts of his bishops and
priests in the South and elsewhere confirm this opinion. And if such be the
case, the others in authority and the laity in the North must naturally be
influenced and governed in their actions by what is sanctioned and directed
by their Spiritual Head at Rome. Their loyalty to the Government of the
United States would naturally wane; they would become neutral and pas-
sive if at last they did not befcome active sympathizers with the Rebellion,
and they soon take up arms as auxiliaries against the Union. Your Church
is a unit with a supreme head and not divisible. Its chief is a temporal
sovereign, who wields the scepter over the States of the Church in his own
country, and so far as he can do so by concordats, treaties, or otherwise, en-
forces the establishment of the Roman Catholic Church as the religion of the
State, with other powers where he is able to, and looks with a jealous eye

upon all governments where he does not command the secular arm, or where
his authority in temporal affairs is disputed. Now, what I desire to state to
you is, the definition of the rights of an American citizen as towards his
government so far as they apply to the matter in question. A native-born
American citizen has the inherent right of revolution within his own coun-
try. If he does not like to obey the laws of his government or wants to set
up a new government by exciting revolt and takes up arms to overturn it, he
has the inherent right to do so within the limits of the territorial boundaries
of his government, but not to destroy or segregate any portion of his com-
mon country from the rest, and he must take his chances of his treason and
rebellion in the success or defeat of his object. Not so, however, with the
naturalized foreign-born citizen ; he has no such right. He can not become
a President or Vice-President under our own Constitution, and he is not
accorded the same rights and privileges under the rebel government that he
enjoys under that of the United States. Every naturalized citizen is bound
by his oath in his renunciation of allegiance to every other power,

PRINCE, OR POTENTATE ON THE FACE OF THE EARTH, AND IS SWORN TO SUPPORT

anb defend the Constitution and Government of the United States against
all its enemies whatsoever, either, domestic or foreign. Now, after having
taken that oath, he can not renounce it in favor of any other government
within its territorial limits, and if found to be giving aid and sympathy or
encouragement to its enemies, or is captured with arms in his hands fighting
against the government which he has sworn to support, he is liable to be shot
or hung as a perjured traitor and an armed spy, as the sentence of a court-
martial may direct, and he will be so shot or hung accordingly, as there
will be no exchange of prisoners. If a naturalized citizen finds that he
can not comply with his oath of naturalization, he must leave the country or
abide they consequences of his disaffection and disloyalty. The position in
which the bishops and priests of. your church in the South have placed the
naturalized citizens belonging to their faith, as well as themselves, is a
perilous one, and their acts must be recalled and annulled by the Pope,
or they and their followers must abide the results of their perjured and trea-
sonable action.

“Archbishop Hughes, nominally a Union man, and necessarily, for policy’s
sake, if nothing else, compelled to be so from his official position in that
church as a public man in the North, and himself a naturalized citizen, saw
the status of himself and others in like condition, and feeling the full force
of President Lincoln’s argument, agreed to do what he could by his influence
with the Pope to have the acts referred to annulled by the Pope, and this with
other matters to prove his own loyalty and sincerity, went to Europe for that
purpose as well as others with which he was entrusted with a special mission
by President Lincoln, which he performed satisfactorily and received his per-
sonal thanks.

“The effect was a simulated neutrality, but the evil had been done already,
and as the war had to be fought out to the bitter end, there was that which
could not have been the result of accident, but rather of design, among
Roman Catholic troops who were engaged on both sides, and in battle, as a
general rule, they were not, as organized bodies, arrayed against each other.
In northern cities they resisted the draft, created riots and performed acts
of outrage, robbery and murder, which at last had to be suppressed by
veteran troops sent from the field for that purpose. But the war had to
come to an end. The original plan of the Jesuits and the Pope, both in the
United States and Mexico, was to end in ignominous failure — the union cause
to triumph and the Republic of Mexico to be restored. Protestant blood on
both sides had caused to flow in rivers and drench the mountains and the
plains, while the places of the victims of the internecine strife were to be
filled with importations from Roman Catholic populations from abroad.

Backed up by even more sources and testimony, primary source. History is really not what they told us it was…

A Course in Miracles article

Posted October 22, 2019 by ymarsakar
Categories: Spirituality

Fear Is Not The Opposite of Love: A Critique of A Course in Miracles

I do not know if his points are true or not, but the discussion is useful.

This is what we prevent

Posted October 22, 2019 by ymarsakar
Categories: History, Spirituality, War

http://atheistscholar.org/WorldHistory/TheInquisition.aspx

Hold the Line.

When the Social Contract goes bye bye

Posted September 25, 2019 by ymarsakar
Categories: Psychology, Uncategorized

Antarctica and Boleshevism

Posted September 19, 2019 by ymarsakar
Categories: Philosophy, War

When a nation has to have a “strategic oil reserve”, oil is not a luxury but a strategic critical resource. Anything that stands in its way, must be removed, if one actually cares about their national standing.

The fact that America (the white hats) does not do that is weird. To the rest of the world “War for Oil” is not a uniquely American sin. After all, their nations have done far worse for resources far less critical than “oil”.

Do you know how much oil is in Antarctica and Greenland? Do you know that the US has never even tried annexing those places? When they had bases on Antarctica, they voluntarily created a treaty in the UN, unviolated to this day, to remove all corporate, private, and industrial processes from that continent full of natural resources as reported by Byrd surveying using an American aircraft carrier battlegroup.

When nations do the opposite of what is in their strategic interests, it makes analysts like me antsy and suspicious.

In other news…

Bolshevik ethics explicitly began and ended with atheism. Only someone who rejected all religious or quasi-religious morals could be a Bolshevik because, as Lenin, Trotsky, Stalin, and other Bolshevik leaders insisted, the only standard of right and wrong was success for the Party. The bourgeoisie falsely claim we have no ethics, Lenin explained in a 1920 speech. But what we reject is any ethics based on God’s commandments or anything resembling them, such as abstract principles, timeless values, universal human rights, or any tenet of philosophical idealism. For a true materialist, Lenin maintained, there can be no Kantian categorical imperative to regard others only as ends, not as means. By the same token, the materialist does not acknowledge the supposed sanctity of human life. All such notions, Lenin insisted, are “based on extra human and extra class concepts” and so are simply religion in disguise. “That is why we say that to us there is no such thing as a morality that stands outside human society; that is a fraud. To us morality is subordinated to the interests of the proletariat’s class struggle,” which means to the Party. Aron Solts, known as “the conscience of the Party,” explained: “We . . . can say openly and frankly: yes, we hold in prison those who interfere with the establishment of our order, and we do not stop before other such actions because we do not believe in the existence of abstractly unethical actions.”

Until recently, I supposed such statements meant that if it should be necessary to kill people, then it is permissible to do so. That is what the anarchist Peter Kropotkin had maintained, but the Bolsheviks rejected this formulation as sheer sentimentality. Kropotkin’s way of thinking suggests that revolutionaries must meet a burden of proof to overcome the moral law against killing: no more killing than necessary. For the Bolsheviks, there was no such moral law. The only moral criterion was the interests of the Party, and so they trained followers to overcome their instinctive compassion. Reluctance to kill reflected an essentially religious (or “abstract humanist”) belief in the sanctity of human life.

In short, all things equal, violent means were preferable. Mercy, kindness, compassion: these were all anti-Bolshevik emotions, and schoolchildren were taught to reject them. I know of no previous society where children were taught that compassion and mercy are vices.

Do unto class enemies what you would not want them to do unto you. That is why, starting in mid-1937, torture became mandatory. What objection could be raised? It was positively good to arrest the innocent. When Stalin assigned arrest quotas, local nkvd branches asked to arrest even more.

Kopelev accepted that hesitation to kill showed “intellectual squeamishness” and “stupid liberalism.” In her memoir Hope Against Hope, Mandelstam reflects that “the word ‘conscience’ . . . had gone out of ordinary use—it was not current in newspapers, books or in the schools, since its function had been taken over . . . by ‘class feeling.’ ‘Kindness’ became something to be ashamed of, and its exponents were as extinct as the mammoth.” Positive words now included “merciless” and “ruthless.” A good Bolshevik spied on his friends, and children were taught to denounce their parents. A speaker at the Party Congress in 1925, held a year after Lenin’s death, reminisced: “Lenin used to teach us that every Party member should be a Cheka agent—that is, he should watch and inform . . . if we suffer from one thing, it is that we do not do enough informing.”

Source

This is why purging the human taint and corruption early on is far better than fighting another civil war or two soon due to pacifism or unwillingness to take the Leftist alliance or Deep State seriously.

Speaking of good old Sol:

Solzhenitsyn quote:

“We cannot state that all Jews are Bolsheviks. But without Jews, there would never have been Bolshevism. For a Jew, nothing is more insulting than the truth. The blood madndened Jewish terrorists have murdered sixty-six million in Russia from 1918 to 1957.”

Some parts of his novel were censored when translated to the West. I find it quaint that even Western civilization’s supposedly wise authors and figures… have been corrupted and contaminated by a mere translation and slippage in what got “covered” (in main media pillow case).

Makes me wonder what else the intelligensia “left out” in their translations.

Challenging it (Bolshevism) was as unthinkable as simultaneously renouncing one’s education and all one’s friends and relatives.

Which is why it is better to purge them all sooner, rather than wait until things get into a civil war… as they have.

Of course the former may not be practical on this plane of existence. Even still, if the tsars had purged all the Bolsheviks, they might have avoided their fate. Or they might not. Hard to tell with your human shenanigans going on contaminating this Earth.

Humanity is like a mold growing in dark places. Sometimes it is penicillin and can be used for good. Other times it is botulism or some other nerve/toxin… hard to tell with you humans growing like locusts and ants on this Earth.

One of the reasons why Bush II’s decision for Afghanistan and Iraq made sense to me is that a first strike and purification strategy is one that I have always favored, even before this mortal life.

What difference does it make? It makes all the difference. Assume that souls have memories that transgress the physical life or lives. Thus losing their life does not mean they cease to exist. They can be born again. Why else would the Hebrews mistake Jesus as Elijah? Wouldn’t elijah, if he came back, be called Elijah and why would he be born a clueless babe?

Thus the longer the conflict pursues itself, the more hate and fear is created, which saturates the soul consciousness to the point where it becomes trapped in the cycle of violence. Not a cycle of human cycle, but of a celestial nature, one that does not decay. There are no wars in heaven, that we do here on Earth instead.

(The Wars amongst the planets and stars, that’s still under the Heavens)

Thus if we had to purge the Soviets, that would require a war that would cost untold millions of lives, and untold number of suffering.

The most merciful, the most pragmatic, the most realistic, and the most ruthless option, straight out of Aries and Mars itself, is to kill them all, now, and before, rather than later.

Kill them when they were merely the Iranian “exiles” in France, running from the Shah’s secret police. Kill them all, leave none alive, when it was just Che and Castro buying prostitutes while on the run from the Cuban government security. Kill them all, now, leave none alive and none of their ideology in survivable condition, when the Tsars had the bolsheviks in arrest or exile.

Kill them all. And let them remake their lives later on, when they can let their evil stupidities go.

In a sense, it is like countering ideology with ideology. If you don’t believe in any of this, then you would perceive this as “warmongering”. He wants a “war”. He doesn’t know what a “war means”. We can deal with this peacefully without a first strike.

If so… show us, human. Many of my collective group would prefer not to have to purge this place once again and start all over from the age of… stone.

Some may be thinking “but we are fighting, we are doing as much as our rules of engagement allow, what more can be feasible given the problems of today”?

Well, fighting is not what I am talking about. Fighting is what happens when you get into a prolonged quagmire and have to become the enemy to beat the enemy.

Annihilating the enemy is completely different methodology strategically speaking.

It can be done one of two ways. the Easiest way is a war to the knife. The second way is much harder. It is convert the evil to the good.

Good converts to evil. Look at conservatives fighting Leftists. What have they had to sacrifice to become more like ALinsky to beat Alinsky? Not Worth it.

The South fought so hard for so many decades against Northern abolitionists, carpet baggers, all for the promises of Demoncrat white plantation slave masters… and now they have become the Republican enemy that are fighting the Demoncrats. Sighs. It is POINTLESS, this fighting of yours, humanity. It means nothing. It accomplishes nothing. It cannot break the Eternal cycle. The Celestial soul taint. Or the Cycle of Violence. Not even in purely human affairs.

Neurosurgeon visits Theosophical Society

Posted September 18, 2019 by ymarsakar
Categories: Spirituality

Got to see it to believe it.

Kimetsu no Yaiba

Posted August 15, 2019 by ymarsakar
Categories: Anime

https://www.crunchyroll.com/demon-slayer-kimetsu-no-yaiba/episode-1-cruelty-782932

This show is pretty good. Best to watch the first episode without spoilers.