The Sanctity of Life

Without It, Bad Things Are Afoot

Much of the modern political thought and action revolves around one's personal view of the sanctity of life, or the lack thereof. To me, the most chilling phrase in the English language is “for the greater good”. One can thereby justify anything. Inherent in the statement is the idea that life does not have sanctity, at least not as much as the needs of society as a whole dictate. One's view on life's sanctity is no doubt strongly affected by one's view on the soul. I remember seeing a quote that was attributed to C. S. Lewis: “You don't have a soul, you are a soul. You have a body.” I think whether or not this statement is seen as true divides the world views of many.

Some people just have no empathy and are known as sociopaths. Although a minority, they have an unfortunate tendency to acquire positions of power; after all, if you're going to walk all over people on your trip to the top it helps if you don't feel their pain. This phenomenon has the unfortunate consequence of inducing evil into the world (like it needs any help).

In the twentieth century well over one hundred million people were killed by their own governments, more than were killed in open warfare. From Turkey to Cambodia the list is staggering, much of it done by leaders who were ostensibly trying to improve their countries. One may argue that this would not had occurred if the leaders had had respect for life’s sanctity.

As I've mentioned before, R. J. Rummel of the University of Hawaii studied the phenomenon of mass government killings, and this is the U. of Hawaii website on the issue:

https://hawaii.edu/powerkills/welcome.html

The abortion issue revolves around this as well. If an unborn baby were seen as simply a tissue mass very few people would be opposed, but when it is seen as a soul inhabiting a growing but not yet born body, it becomes tantamount to murder. (Modern technology seems to be changing many views as people see their progeny frolicking in the womb.) We always hear that a woman should be able to do what she wants with her own body, but the baby is not her body, it's someone else’s.

Of course, without a belief in life's sanctity you can convince yourself that all of the people you are killing is “for the greater good” , and you are home free. You can do anything you want to anyone as long as you think that the ends are being justified, and maybe even if they are not quite. It seems to me that such a person might come down with a bad case of insomnia, what with the ghosts of millions haunting his nightmares, but Pol Pot of Cambodia (the per capita champion in the democide olympics) is reputed to claim that he retained a clear conscience. Such is the human power to justify ones actions.

Under feudalism in medieval Europe knights were expected to abide by a code of chivalry. I believe it was promulgated by religious leaders, who promised them a bad time in the afterlife if they didn't display a modicum of decency. It basically came down to not abusing the power that came from the combination of their skills and weapons, and their human desires to just have what they want. Though certainly not universally successful, it was a positive thing, and it formed the background for some of the modern rules of war. The point is that this sprang from the belief in the sanctity of life by some influential individuals, and made life a little less nasty, brutish and short.

At one time in America religious leaders would proclaim that a failure to defend innocent life, including your own, was itself a sin. Thus to be unarmed around those needing your protection, if not an actual sin, was at least borderline sinful, the reason being that life is sacred, and to not defend it means you are not treating it as such. The view in recent times shifted to that of only the state having the right to defend against violence, with civilians expected to act as criminal detectors who suffer their victimization gladly as a service to the state. Thank God that that has changed in recent years, but it is evidence of the state not respecting the sanctity of life.

We now have the phenomenon of world leaders proclaiming the the population of the Earth is to great and methods of depopulation must be introduced. Who is it, exactly, that they think they are? Decisions like that, in the vernacular of the local peasantry, are above the pay grade of any human.

Substack writer Bianca Kennedy has written a couple of essays regarding the ideas of those who call themselves the elite who want to drastically reduce the population of the world:

Part 1

All Roads Lead to Depopulation - Part 1

Part 2

All Roads Lead to Depopulation - Part 2

And from Dr. Robert Malone:

Population Control and Official USG Policy

These ideas seem like conspiracy theories, but then, if you don't believe that the powerful will conspire with each other for their mutual benefit you are a bit short of a full load. Really, it's not so much that they would conspire that's hard to believe, it's that they would go to these incredible lengths. Besides, no one in his right mind would want to believe that it could be true.

That they lack a feeling for the sanctity of life would be a gross understatement. How can they be this way? If I knew that I would tell you. Suffice it to say, it's not a new thing. There is a human tendency to align with groups, with people outside your group not seeming quite human. Tribalism, in other words. Throughout history there have been tribes, but the tribes got larger and larger. In the early days of humanity other tribes were always dangerous, the point of view was that, for the tribe, violence is honor and honor is life. Any tribe that did not subscribe to this mode of thought became a tribe that once existed, with it's members dead or enslaved. So chances are the elites of the world are in effect a tribe, and anyone outside of it is fair game.

From The Gods of the Copy Book Headings by Rudyard Kipling

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Heading said: "Stick to the Devil you know."

It seems that there is an effort to reduce the sanctity of life in the general public. Probably it is seen as in the way of the globalists dominance of everyone and everything, much like the U.S. Bill of Rights. The public school systems have gone overboard on secularism, with prayer being eliminated claiming the First Amendment requires it. It seems to me that the First Amendment says that no state religion can be mandated, but there is a state religion, that of scientism; the belief that there is nothing beyond the physical. Atheism.

In ending, if you want to fight against the dominance of the would by international overlords, an important arrow in you quiver would to do what you can to imbue people with a feeling for the sanctity of life.

But we must not give up hope. Here is a poem by Emily Dickinson

Hope is the thing with feathers
That perches in the soul,
And sings the tune without the words,
And never stops at all,

And sweetest in the gale is heard;
And sore must be the storm
That could abash the little bird
That kept so many warm.

I've heard it in the chillest land,
And on the strangest sea;
Yet, never, in extremity,
It asked a crumb of me.