An interesting read
An interesting read from 1991: the Anthroposophical magazine The Golden Blade. https://www.waldorflibrary.org/images/stories/Journal_Articles/Golden_Blade_1991.pdf.
“On the one hand, this will be the temptation of Americanism, which threatens ‘ gradually to tum Eastem Europe into a virginal appendage of the economically developed and politically advanced Westem countries and also to inundate it on a huge scale with all the ‘achievements’ and ‘fruits’ of super-materialism. On the other hand, as its counterpart, the temptation which arises out of a rejection and fear of this mighty and unconquerable wave of Westem materialism to return to one or another of the forms of the traditional spiritual past.
Although Americanism will be able in a comparatively short time to satisfy the more ‘earthly’ demands of the East European, in so far as these have been virtually unsatisfied during the past seventy-two years, it will, as a result of its anti-spiritual nature, be unable to offer him any kind of spiritual ideals or evolutionary perspectives, apart from that of achieving universal material well-being.” [from The Golden Blade, 1991]
Musing on life, death, and on the nature of killing as sin
Most religions forbid the taking of life. In Christianity and Judaism, the Ten Commandments given to Moses cover the issue, while in Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism (etc), similar basic prohibition is outlined.
In the most ancient of the still-existing major world religions, Hinduism, killing is seen as wrong but, in some cases, also right. For example, on the field of Kurukshetra, when Arjuna loses heart at the thought of fighting and killing his relatives on the other side, Krishna puts steel into him by indicating that it is Arjuna’s destiny to kill on the battlefield, in the cause of the right. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Arjuna#Bhagavat_Gita.
“When the war was declared and the two armies were facing each other, Arjuna realized that he would have to kill his dear granduncle (Bhishma), on whose lap he had played as a child and his respected teacher (Drona), who had held his hand and taught him how to hold the bow and arrow, making him the greatest archer in the world. Arjuna felt weak and sickened at the prospect of killing his entire family, including his 100 cousins and friends such as Ashwatthama. Despondent and confused about what is right and what is wrong, Arjuna turned to Krishna for divine advice and teachings. Krishna, who Arjuna chose as his charioteer, advised him of his duty. This conversation forms the Bhagavad Gita, one of the most respected religious and philosophical texts in the Hindu religion. Krishna instructs Arjuna not to yield to degrading impotence and to fight his kin, for that was the only way to righteousness. He also reminded him that this was a war between righteousness and unrighteousness (dharma and adharma) and it was Arjuna’s duty to slay anyone who supported the cause of unrighteousness, or sin. Krishna then revealed his divine form and explained that he is born on earth in each eon when evil raises its head.” [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurukshetra_War#The_Bhagavad_Gita].
In fact, we see that the anti-killing prohibition is taken as literal prohibition by very few in our society. The “Thou shalt not kill” injunction in the Ten Commandments is kept to, most of the time, by most humans, as far as killing humans is concerned, but the same people (most of them) think nothing of, say, buying and consuming animal flesh, or fish. Or shooting pheasant. Where do we draw the line? Shellfish? Oysters? What about plants? They are also killed. Is pain and suffering, if any, the deciding factor? How literal must we be?
In India, there is a sect called the Jains, who even wear fine net over their mouths in case they inadvertently swallow small insects as they, the Jains, go about their day.
In Christianity, at first in Roman Catholicism, the notion of the “just war” was developed. If I am not in error, the thinkers behind this were St. Thomas Aquinas and St. Dominic.
That idea, of the “just war”, is deeply ingrained in human religion and in human history. Look at, for example, the Second World War. The psychological convenience of both the West (UK/USA, mainly) and the East (Russia) demands that the war against the German Reich be regarded as an “OK” war, a “just” war, and so a justifiable war. How else can the death, pain, and suffering be —conveniently— exculpated?
Germany suffered at least ten times the number of deaths (perhaps as many as 800,000) by bombing as did the UK (c.60,000), and the USA was not bombed at all. That disproportion, and other things, are considered “OK” because the war was, and still is, labelled as a “just war”, a designation encouraged by the Jew-Zionist element via endless films, books etc.
The issue is not as clear-cut as many of us would like to believe. We, most of us, were appalled at the outrages perpetrated by the IRA in both Northern Ireland and the UK from, especially, 1970-1997. All right, but one IRA bombing might kill one or two, or perhaps a hundred, people, whereas a single plane, even in WW2, might kill hundreds or thousands of people, mostly “civilians”. That was taken further at Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Is quantity even relevant?
These “thoughts out of season” were prompted not primarily by thoughts about politics, as such, but by the present plague of flying ants, which are at present such a nuisance in Southern England.
How bad does a nuisance have to be before extermination becomes the only perceived alternative? Do flying ants have rights, or at least the right to have their needs considered by humans?
Questions without answers, perhaps.
Tweeter “@Tom5731” displaying an ignorance that is all too common. The Daily Mail support for the BUF was brief, and had been withdrawn by 1934.
Quite. To listen to some British people, you would think that nowhere else in the world has health services, or that they exist only for the wealthy few; or that the only alternative to the present NHS in the UK is some “pay or die” American-style health provision (though that is not a completely true characterization anyway).
That, however, is not the only aspect: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2018/12/10/tv-ads-and-soaps-are-the-propaganda-preferred-by-the-system-in-the-uk/.
See also: https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/09/29/greta-thunberg-system-approved-wunderkind/; https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/10/09/extinction-rebellion-greta-thunberg-cressida-dick-and-the-madness-of-protesting-crowds/; https://ianrobertmillard.org/2019/08/16/the-extinction-rebellion-levellers/; https://ianrobertmillard.org/2020/09/08/diary-blog-8-september-2020-including-further-assessment-of-extinction-rebellion-as-well-as-of-tim-crosland-and-plan-b-etc/.
Quite so. The weaponization of this relatively unimportant virus by means of a massive fear campaign has several benefits for the System. One is the —all but total— prohibition of traditional political activity.
Trad. politics? System politics? The perhaps vulgar but certainly accurate cartoon below makes the point quite well:
Boris-idiot. Boris the clown. Boris the part-Jew, part-Levantine chancer and liar. Only when you see how poor is this idiot and his mostly non-British Cabinet do you also understand how hopeless is misnamed “Labour” and its own idiotic leader, Starmer…
Starmer and Labour also offer nothing at all to the British people.
The law is being replaced by the wishes of the Government
Just heard radio news to the effect that various clowns in the present Cabinet are now saying that the facemask nonsense will “end” on 19 July 2021, 8 days from now, but that the public will be “expected” to wear facemasks inside “where appropriate” or the like.
In this country, the mere wishes of ministers and their advisers have never constituted binding law, not at least since the 17th Century.
Laws must be obeyed (on pain of penalty), but the wishes or “guidance” of government and administrators need not be obeyed unless made part of law by properly passed secondary legislation.
What we have here is a conflation of governmental wishes with law. It trashes the whole rule of law. In effect, it says, “do as we say even though it is not illegal not to do so.”
This has, perhaps intentionally, a confusing effect on public and police. We saw in 2020 how some police officers, both high and low in rank, seemed to enjoy arrogating to themselves powers which they, in law, did not actually possess: examining people’s shopping, stopping lone motorcyclists out for a spin etc.
The traditional line drawn was “law— to be obeyed, and to be enforced by courts and where necessary by police”, and “anything not law— voluntary in application”. That was right. This new “this is not the law but you really must do it” is actually the trashing of any concept of rule of law.
In the end, both the Scottish and Welsh nationalists were (in the late 20thC) infiltrated by System drones, and became just part of the System. The SNP is the more obvious, but Plaid Cymru is similar, just less successful.
I remain convinced that the only strategy that makes immediate sense is for there to be a relocation of social-national people to the South West of the UK. Concentration of forces. I have blogged about this in the past (from 2016 or 2017).