In relation to the part about conflict and killing:
"Q: (L) Well, since you brought that up, there has been a discussion on the forum where people are saying things like, "Well, I don't want to have a gun because it's a dirty thing, it’s just about death" and so on and so forth. Or, "I just couldn't kill anybody even to protect myself, or if I had to I'd feel like I failed as a human being." Yet you're saying that there are battles in 4D and it's reflected in 3D. So, what's going on right here in 3D is basically a reflection of this battle that's taking place in this higher...
(Joe) Are there wars in 4D?
A: Yes
Q: (L) Their version of war.
A: STS seeks to impose domination which must be resisted. You wrote about this yourself!!
Q: (L) Yeah, I did. Wasn't it that Michael Topper article? I wrote about it somewhere else, too. I think in the article I wrote something about the psychopathic state of America, that we're almost required to resist that domination for the sake of the future, for the sake of the STO position itself. Well, so in other words...
A: One thing you should consider is that the so-called "rules" that dictate that it is being less than human to defend oneself and what is right and true just may have been programmed to make one weak.
Q: (Artemis) Well, yeah, I mean if you look at Western society and values and TV, they're all about not killing people at all even if you're a good guy and even if you need to.
(L) At the same time, they promote killing with all their shoot-em-ups and blow-em-ups. There's something about that, because... It's like Jonathan Haidt who talks about the different moral systems and that the liberal snowflake moral system foundation is mainly just about not harming anybody, and nobody should ever get hurt, nobody should have hurt feelings... And that's kinda bizarre because it doesn't accommodate the fact that...
(Andromeda) In the wrong situation, it leads to hurt!
(L) Yeah. Not to mention reality itself. [...]"
And in a session from 12 July, 2014 there were some question about Caesar, including a follow up question about killing similar to the ones quoted in the excerpt above:
Session 12 July 2014:
"Q: [...](Perceval) Did Caesar himself ever kill anyone?
A: Many, certainly.
Q: (Perceval) So, given the times around then being very war-like, with a lot of fighting and death going on in general... and with some kind of a Great Soul at the time coming down and... it doesn't necessarily have to be a peacemaker kissing people's feet like Jesus... But is there some thing like what we would understand as a prohibition against killing other people as a requirement for being "spiritually evolved"
A: That idea is for the most part an exaggerated human philosophical construct.
Q: (L) So the idea that...
(Perceval) That to be good, thou shalt not kill...
(Atriedes) But which religion does that come from? The most killingest religion on the planet!
(Perceval) It does seem to... Killing another human being for a normal human being does seem to be quite a traumatic thing.
(Atriedes) It's socially inculcated.
(Perceval) I doubt it. I mean, for soldiers, they come back with Post Traumatic Stress Disorder, they're trained to kill, and they want to kill themselves afterwards, ya know? They can't handle the fact that they...
(Pierre) Maybe the difference is that Caesar was aware of the very fundamental reason why he was killing...
A: Caesar intended to eliminate or vastly reduce killing. He knew what he was up against.
Q: (L) Okay, for example... Okay, let me ask this: There is a speech alleged to have been Caesar's that is reproduced in Sallust's... The War with Catiline. Sallust reproduces this speech, supposedly Caesar's, at the Catilinarian Conspiracy debates. Now, how close is that speech to what Caesar said on the occasion?
A: 80 percent.
Q: (L) Because in that speech, Caesar is completely against even the death penalty. It's among the conundrums that you face when you read something like that, his words, and I mean he was risking his life giving this speech! He was surrounded by armed men, under the command of Cicero, who was bound and determined to execute those people. And yet Caesar stood up against the entire hostile senate, and advocated against the death penalty. And it's even commented that people drew their swords and wanted to kill him at that time. And in fact it's very similar to a story about Jesus in the bible, that people drew their swords and wanted to kill him, but he escaped from the mob and they didn't see him leave. So, it's really kind of an odd thing. So, for somebody to accuse Caesar of being this murdering psychopath is like, it's very difficult. And then supposedly these body counts in Gaul, and these horrible cruel events, and it just doesn't reconcile.[...]"
If what is practised and preached at present is the outcome of an
"exaggerated human philosophical construct", I wonder what a legal and moral code or guideline that would allow for the right "to defend oneself and what is right and true" would read like in terms of practical legislation. To make a law that fits all circumstances may not be found, but to even reconsider the basis of the philosophical constructs with a view to find more balance when deciding what to do and what not to do in critical circumstances might be rewarding.
I read that part from the book yesterday! "One of his most famous conclusions is that the huris (white eyed virgins) awaiting the faithful in paradise refer to grapes or raisins. This is consistent with earlier Christian texts in which grapes are associated with paradise. If Luxenburg is correct, some martyrs for the cause of Allah may be in for a rude shock."
). I'd say Jordan Peterson is right when he points out that weakness is not a moral virtue (quite the opposite actually), but when to apply force and in what way depends entirely on the specific circumstances. FWIW
