Kṛṣṇacandra Dāsa – Vṛndāvan: The Cultural Marxist Social Engineers agenda and influence within Western Society has been delineated developmentally in the previous chapters. The Cultural Marxist Social Engineers achieved huge inroads into systematically degrading the very fabric of Western thought and practice which was further aided by the development of the Human/Civil Rights Movement under the banner of Political Correctness.

Socialism and Communism

The Judaic Marxist Communists’ ultimate goal is to destroy Western God centric culture and convert the Western World into Communism where the State and its populace will be under the total control of the Government. In order to accomplish this they have systematically set about destroying the old feudal monarchic system that was left over by the Roman Empire. However their ultimate intention is to reinstate a Monarchical system in what they term as the Messianic time. They intend to rule the world under one Monarch who comes in line with King David of the Toraḥ and in order to do so they have to convert Western thought, political / economic systems and culture into more or less the Communistic ideals so as to effectively control the populace

British Fabian Socialism entered into the US in the late eighteen hundreds through Harvard University which was also the main centre for Marxist Communists infiltration of Academia. Both schools of social reform / breakdown began via the proliferation of their doctrines through the American University system targeting Professors / Teachers / students and gaining control of the Teachers Unions.

Socialism is fundamentally a precursor to Communism and is an ideology that believes that the Government should have more control over the members of a ‘state’ particularly their activities in the guise of social welfare and health etc. Socialism seeks to control the populace / private enterprise and infrastructure of a society, yet still remain within liberalist / Democratic / Capitalistic systems and Communism means total control of the State by Government.

Many Governments throughout the Federated State system of the world are more or less socialist / liberalist states. Socialism, being neither Capitalist, Liberalist nor Marxist Communist in its agenda, naturally lends itself more to the Communist agenda rather than the Capitalist or Liberalist agenda and therefore is the perfect preliminary step towards a country accepting the Communistic agenda.

Socialism, as a political ideology being linked to Marxism, is usually not openly accepted in a Federated State or Democratic Liberalist Government in its pure form, however, many political systems seeking votes from ‘politically correct’ members within their constituencies insidiously incorporate many Socialist ideas into their political agendas which bring them closer to the Marxist agenda. These political parties often use the term ‘progressive’ in order to cover their Socialist leanings.

Social Democracy was the main political thrust of the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers who believed that it was through Socialism that the West could come closer to Communism. The Social Democratic movement’s main thrust was ‘Social Justice’ which was the political wing of the ‘politically correct’ movement.

The Judaic Marxist Social Engineers have created the perfect system in which the Judaic Messianic rule can be established. The various political systems are geared in such a manner to incrementally convert all Federated States into Communist States. This has been achieved by incorporating socialism into the Capitalistic Liberalist Democratic system. As the Liberalist State seeks to give land and ownership to the people, Socialism seeks to place governmental control over all aspects of the state.

In more modern times one of the largest countries in the world, which is basically a liberalist / Socialist Democracy is India. In recent times India is increasingly becoming a ‘politically correct’ country with lobby groups pushing for changes in law to accommodate the exact same ‘rights’ that other countries who are heavily influenced by the Marxist agenda had previously accomplished.

India became an independent country under the leadership of Nehru, a staunch Fabian Socialist, whose family (Nehru – Gandhi family) have become the grandsires of the Indian National Congress party of India. It must be noted that the Nehru – Gandhi family is not related to Mahātmā Gandhi.

India has two main political parties; The Bharatiya Janatā Party (BJP) founded in 1980 and the Indian National Congress (INC) which was founded in 1885 by members of the occultist movement Theosophical Society. Both these parties have basically Socialist / Liberalists political orientation.

India is one of the few Social / Liberal Democracies that tolerate Communist parties within their political systems. West Bengal, Kerala and Tripura are three states in India who’s Chief Ministers are Communists.

India is a country that can very easily be converted over to Communism as it too has become a secular country which has at its educational foundation in Secular Humanistic Academia and a very strong social justice movement on par with any Cultural Marxist Social Engineer countries in Western Society which have been directly engineered by Judaic Cultural Marxists.

India’s deeply spiritual and God centric cultural identity is being systematically eroded by the acculturation of Cultural Marxist Social Engineers’ ideologies which have infused themselves into the youth by the Secular Humanistic Educative process.

Political parties / media / lobby and special interest groups are proliferating exponentially in the rapidly developing hotbed of Socialistic driven Liberal civil rights agenda which is increasingly changing the social milieu of the country as it becomes more in line with similar trends throughout the Western world.

By the turn of the twentieth century the Judaic influence of the cultural Marxists has been firmly established globally what to speak of the fact that they had successfully influenced the youth of America to revolt against their fellow countrymen to degrade the traditional western societal value system and social order, replacing it with a modernistic liberally egalitarian and politically correct value system and social order.

Even today in the second decade of the new century we see revolution started in all countries that are based on student / youth demonstrations lead by Liberalist / Socialist parties. These are usually US and Israeli backed operations as powerful Jewish lobby groups in the US are pressuring congress to destabilize the area to seek protection to the State of Israel as they prepare for the Messianic time. This is easily done due to the US presidential office being staffed by American / Israeli dual citizens the US Governments policies are aimed at the total support of Israeli foreign policy.

The United Nations is an international body established to aid in multilateral ‘collective security’ of nation members, however it has been dovetailed to being the international sanctioning body of the US and the European Union all of whom are under the powerful influence of the Jewish lobby and the State of Israel.

Before discussing the legal, social and justice implications of the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers agenda in Western Society and in particular America there is a need to place this in greater perspective according to the development of political theoretical systems. Firstly the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers understood very well that Capitalism was not so much of a political theory as a reaction to the nineteenth century Classical Liberalist movement in Europe that sought freedom from the state and religious authority and to decrease and eradicate the authority of the Royalty and Aristocracy.

WW1 was the first stage in the rearrangement of Russia (and Europe) with the rise of Communism (Predominately Jewish upper echelon of the Bolshevik Party) which threatened to agitate the proletariat or the working class against the remnants of Russian Royalty and rule. In this way Communist Russia was very similar to Liberalist Europe and America who both sought to destroy the power of the Church and Royalty and break up the social order to affect the changes that the Judaic Social Engineers desired for global domination.

Communists used the working and peasant class to tear down the social structure in Russia and in the west they also used the working class in the form of the heavily Jewish controlled Trade Unions to manipulate the system in order to gain control and destabilize Western society. The Judaic reformers controlled the world’s corporate business industry both from the top down as owners and principal shareholders and the bottom up by trade/worker/student unions and academia.

Liberalists sought to free the individual from the control of the state or monarchy and to seek private ownership of property and business enterprise. The Liberalist movements which were expanding all over Europe and the Americas gave rise to the Social Liberalist movement which sought economic and social reform with particular emphasis on civil rights.

This was made possible by the fact that the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers had indoctrinated Academia and the Youth into believing that individual freedom was entirely possible through the breakdown of what they had been bewildered into believing was the tyrannical Patriarchal Western Society.

The proliferation of Capitalism into Liberal Political systems gave more influential power and independence to members of the society and spurred on the economic development of the nations which encouraged Capitalism, however it simultaneously degraded the authority and position of the ruling elite and the power of the Church. The power more effectively lay in the hands of politicians and businessmen. It is important to note that even though neither Capitalism nor Social/Classical Liberalism became political movements, their ideologies were merged into what is now known as Modern Liberalism.

The development of civil rights, which were based on the ‘perceived’ good of the individual as opposed to the nation, further undermined the ability of Western God centred government / monarchy etc to effectively rule and threw the leadership of the country or state open to the multitude of political parties and ideologies that were exponentially increasing with this new sense of freedom. The spread of these schismatic political parties and ideologies was greatly encouraged by Socialists and Communist ideologies which were increasingly becoming acculturated into the various societies.

As the ability of the so called social reformers increased in the socio-political arena it began encompassing the Political Legislative Branch and the Legal Justice System of Western God centric Society.

The influence of the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers on the area of Criminal Justice played an important role in destabilizing the social order as it generated fear in the society by establishing an ideology within the legal system that the law took precedent over justice which successfully watered down the legal process and awarded more rights to the criminal at the expense of the victim and society at large.


Political Correctness and the Criminal Justice System

The agenda of the politically correct liberalized modernist has also entered into the criminal Justice system which has led to the increased ‘rights’ of the criminal, many times at the expense of the victim. The move to abolish capital punishment has lead to many countries implementing laws that have abolished the death penalty in favour of drastically reduced sentences and early release programs for convicted murderers. The states or countries that have not abolished capital punishment have been forced by the anti death penalty lobby and lawyers to extend the stays of execution indefinitely.

Political correctness is reinforced by the legal profession and the formation of lobby groups. The appearance of the ‘lobby group’ has greatly increased the ability for the Cultural Marxists to effect change when dealing with the legal system and the political process. That coupled with the financial incentive involved has brought the legal profession to the party.

Now punitive measures no longer represent the nature of the crime and prisoners on early release programs reoffend in a never ending cycle of criminality. The various Agitators, Activists and lobby groups have effectively tied the hands of the Police and Judicial System which is now basically impotent to punish crime accordingly.

Instead of the Utopia that was promised by the Frankfurt School Social Engineers, the common people now live in fear of the early release programs of the Liberalistic Lobby. Another effect of this is that it is now seen as politically incorrect and barbaric to advocate for the death penalty.

A simple example of the sentimentality of the Liberalist agenda is to argue for the removal of the death penalty for capital crimes so long as they themselves or their loved ones are not raped or murdered. Should the crime be made personal and intimate then such a heinous crime will not be perceived in the same manner as it did before.

This is made especially so when one realizes that the non-repentant (released) criminal now has been given the ‘opportunity’ to reoffend. That translates to be able to rape or murder again. High recidivist rates stand stark testimony to this. Reoffending is only made easier for the criminal if it is common knowledge that, should they secure the ‘right’ lawyer they could either get off on a technicality or not have to face the death penalty and have their sentences severely reduced.

The more permissive and liberal the society the more opportunities present themselves for individuals who cannot control their senses.

In the Vedic Scriptures it is very clear that when one commits sin or crimes they must submit to punishment or atonement according to the proper laws of the Scriptural injunctions (which include the law of the land) in order to nullify the impious or sinful activities of this life.

Śukadeva Goswami replied: My dear King, if before one’s next death whatever impious acts one has performed in this life with his mind, words and body are not counteracted through proper atonement according to the description of the Manu-saṁhitā and other dharma-śāstras, one will certainly enter the hellish planets after death and undergo terrible suffering, as I have previously described to you. (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 6.1.7)

Therefore, before one’s next death comes, as long as one’s body is strong enough, one should quickly adopt the process of atonement according to śāstra; otherwise one’s time will be lost, and the reactions of his sins will increase. As an expert physician diagnoses and treats a disease according to its gravity, one should undergo atonement according to the severity of one’s sins.(Śrīmad Bhāgavatam 6.1.8.)

It is the conclusion of the Ancient Indian Vedic Scriptures, which predate the Abrahamic Scriptures; that unless one atones for their sinful or criminal activity and faces punishment in this life, the reaction to his sins will only increase. Atonement means to understand that engaging in sinful activity only leads to further entanglement and suffering under the bonds of material nature, or karma. That true atonement means to raise one’s consciousness to the transcendental platform and develop their relationship with God. Not simply to ask forgiveness from God and to sin again.

Thus the role of the King or Government is to understand the laws of nature, God’s nature, and therefore aid in the atonement of the individual by justly punishing them according to the degree of the sinful activity that they have committed. Failure to do so not only incurs increasingly more severe punishment for the offending individual, it also creates a future life that is more sinful. As we are now evidencing with regards to the incrementally escalating crime rates as well as more heinous crimes being committed, this is the real cost of the liberalist mentality with regards to the Criminal Justice System.

Possibly the most serious degradation of the Criminal Justice system is the decriminalizing of abortion. The God conscious understanding is that all living entities are sacred and must not be killed indiscriminately.

Women’s Rights and Family Planning

With the destruction of dynasty, the eternal family tradition is vanquished, and thus the rest of the family becomes involved in irreligion. When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krishna, the women of the family become polluted, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant of Vrisni, comes unwanted progeny. Bhagavad Gītā – chapter 2.39/40

The Bhagavad Gītā, which was spoken five thousand years ago and is accepted in the Vedic tradition as the word of God, clearly states what happens when religious life is degraded and how this directly effect’s the women of the society.

Perhaps the most sinister aspect of the ‘Human Rights Movement’ championed by the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers was when it was applied to the rights of the mother with regards to her unborn child. This ideology had a dire impact on not only women but also on the family unit in general.

The Contention of Consciousness

The Abrahamic Scriptural ideology is that the unborn child is not considered conscious or a human being until it has been born. Basically abortion is not a consideration in Biblical Text. The Roman Catholic’s however, have considered the killing of an unborn child a sin since the first century CE but it was not considered murder. Most Abrahamic religions believe the act of killing an unborn child is sinful but disagree on the severity of the sin according to the moment in which they believe that the soul is given to the child.

The consensus is usually, the presence of a fetal heart beat; a functional heart meant blood flow and since the nephesh was found in the blood they speculated that the fetus was, from that point, alive. This ideology is not unanimously accepted in all Christian denominations as it is not supported by ancient texts of the Old Testament; therefore it was not decreed by God. Being ‘alive’ is not synonymous with being conscious in the strict biblical sense pertaining to humans.

In light of the findings of empirical scientific study which detected embryonic fetal heart beat, the Church revised their stance and adjusted it to one that, even though speculative, made more logical sense than the idea that a child was a conscious human being only after it was born.

The Judaic Scriptures describe a monetary value put on the unborn child should a man cause it to be aborted by physically assaulting the mother. Should the assault lead to the death of the mother then an eye for an eye law would see the assailant punished by death. Wrongful death of a human being was punishable by death but the death of the unborn child was punishable by a fine.

The counter logical consideration to the above scenario would be if God has created the unborn unconscious soulless child within the womb of its mother and will at some later stage give it a soul or consciousness then what ‘right’ does any person be it the; mother, parent or doctor to intervene in the process of procreation by intervening in a process that God has set in place in order for him to give that particular unborn child a soul?

However, some Abrahamic Religious scholars believe that the unborn child possesses the nephesh either at conception or at some ‘unknowable’ point between conception and birth. However, the nephesh is given by God to all air breathing creatures and is not particular to humans, so possession of the nephesh does not necessarily connote human consciousness. The ruach or wind/spirit is the female aspect of God; the emotional aspect of the soul and is in contact with the lower aspect, nephesh. This is given to all humans at the time of birth and indicates the presence of human consciousness.

Thus many Abrahamic traditions have not placed a high emphasis on the unborn child as they possess this rudimentary consciousness, nephesh, which is the same as an animal. Thus according to Abrahamic Law it is permissible to kill an unborn child as it is in animal consciousness and not human. However, it is strictly controlled, for the main purpose of conception is procreation of the species.

In summary there are several ways in which a fetus is considered – living or conscious or in possession of a soul, etc, such as at; conception / quickening / viability / birth (‘reasonable being’ or, in rerum natura). In all religious scriptures; except the Vedic (Sanātana Dharma) tradition of India, women are afforded the right to abort / terminate / kill their unborn child according to law and/or religious belief and it is not considered murder as they deem the unborn child as either not having sufficient consciousness or viable physical form and therefore not at an appropriate stage to be in possession of a soul.

However, in some Judaic thought, God explains the Toraḥ to the unborn child who becomes conscious of its spiritual reality, however, it is explained, an angel appears at birth and slaps the newborn child in the mouth which causes it to forget the spiritual realm and enter into its new body and thus the material world. If this is in fact true then the unborn child can be considered in possession of a soul… However, the scriptural references are so scant and ambivalent it is impossible to arrive at a definitive conclusion on this matter.

Modern Scientific Understanding of the Unborn Child

The determination to terminate a pregnancy is also being validated on modern medical scientific grounds by the understanding of embryonic viability with specific regards to the point at which life/consciousness begins. The contention is, however, whether ‘life’ begins at conception or at a specific stage of embryonic development. The Vedic understanding is that life or consciousness is present from conception and its potential to perceive and interact with its external environment is in accordance with its cellular development. Thus as the cells begin to organize themselves into increasingly more complex structures and functionality, the soul is better able to perceive and respond to external stimuli and conditions.

In other words the soul’s perception is limited by the body’s level of structural organizational development and not that the development of the body denotes the development of the consciousness as is the opinion of the medical scientist.

Then there is the argument on what comprises consciousness? Is conscious given to a living entity from God at some specific point in its development or does God award the living entity a soul (Human) at conception? The Judaic understanding is given that God awards the living entity a soul at the moment of birth. That human consciousness is fully realized through social interaction. The scientific community has not come to a conclusion on the nature of consciousness and at which point an unborn child can be understood to possess consciousness.

As modern technical advances observe self preservation activities of the unborn child in increasingly earlier stages of its development, the point at which the child is conscious is being recalculated.

The Vedic conclusion will be eventually discovered to be accurate as advances in modern technology, which are nothing but extensions to human sense perception, are invented. However so long as the idea that the soul is either; given by God at some point in human development or that is the sum total of its functioning constituent parts, then abortions will be conducted and human mothers will be engaged in murdering their children on purely practical considerations.

Abortion and Human Society

Since the eighteen hundreds many traditional Western Societies held the view that killing the unborn child is sinful and illegal by law, however, the women’s rights movement has gained a stronger hold on public opinion by the promotion of the ideology of ‘rights’ and political correctness which is changing both the value system and legal status of the members of society as well as the family structure. With abortion now being considered legally, morally and socially acceptable in many countries the death rate of a society is far overtaking the birth rate amongst many if not most Westernized Societies. The status is the US is that abortion is legal and can be conducted at the request of the mother.

In the past abortions were being practiced by most societies as a form of birth control or family planning. In many societies, except for the Vedic Culture of India, to abort a fetus was not considered murder and fell under Common Law instead of Criminal Law.

Pro Life? Pro Death?

The political platform for the abortionists was the slogan ‘Pro Choice’ which in their terms of reference means that the woman/mother has the right to choose what happens to their body. This of course is a natural law and everyone has this undeniable right even under a kingdom run by the Religious tenets of God’s law. Everyone can choose what action or inaction they will take. However, this is subject to natural laws such as; as you shall sow so shall you reap; Every action has an opposite and equal reaction etc.

The idea that, the mother being given the right to choose if their unborn child lives or dies is an advancement in civilization and culture, needs to be rigorously tested.

Due to modern ‘politically correct’ society making the killing of an unborn child at the behest of the mother, has created a dichotomy within society which has now polarized into two basic factions.

The Pro Life movement seeks to educate people that the killing of an unborn child is a criminal act and denies the rights of the child and therefore must be considered murder. The Pro Death (Choice) movement consider that the women/mother has the right to kill her unborn child. The ‘pro death’ movement have the slogan ‘pro choice’ however, this is another misleading term used by the politically correct movement to mislead the general public.

To use the term ‘choice’ rather than ‘death’ is incongruent with the rights of the unborn child who in the case of the pro death/choice movement, denies the unborn child any rights and places the right of the women/mother as ‘absolute’ over that of the child. For the child there is no choice or voice in the ideologies of the pro choice advocates and should the woman/mother choose her pregnancy to be impractical for whatever reason this choice means death for the unborn child.

Using the term ‘woman’ instead of ‘mother’, infers that the woman is only a mother after the birth of her child and not before, is misleading and incorrect. The woman who has conceived is responsible for her child both in the womb and after its birth. To say that a woman is not responsible for her child inside her own womb is unintelligent. If the woman drinks too much alcohol it affects the developing child in her womb. If she falls when playing sport the child may be injured or killed, so she is responsible for her child inside her womb.

For a pregnant mother to smoke cigarettes, drink alcohol or engage in rigorous sport she is necessarily being irresponsible with her unborn child yet on the other hand if she chooses to have her unborn child killed she can look at her pregnancy as a ‘woman’ and not as a ‘mother’ and so have someone kill the child in her womb with extreme prejudice and so called modern society believe that this is civilized?

Again the so called Human Rights Movement’s logic is based on ‘a priori’ criterion that is incongruent with rational logical thought and heavily ‘biased’ towards those that ‘benefit’ from the issue. In this case women now have the right to kill their child which is based on flimsy selfish logic which has more to do with convenience and lifestyle choices of the woman and has nothing to do with the rights of their child.

However the right of the woman to kill her child stops once an arbitrary legal limit is placed on them by legislature. This limit is loosely based on the understanding of modern science; which is limited in being able to define and analyse consciousness.

However, the Vedic understanding is very clear and simple on this matter. Abortion is the murder of an unborn child for it is given by scriptural reference that the soul inhabits the living entity at the moment of conception. The child is conscious from this time onwards, the only difference being that according to the stage of bodily growth and development it is limited in its activities and function.

“As the embodied soul continually passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change.” (Bhagavad Gītā: Chapter – 2.13)

“The Personality of Godhead said: Under the supervision of the Supreme Lord and according to the result of his work, the living entity, the soul, is made to enter into the womb of a woman through the particle of male semen to assume a particular type of body.” (Śrīmad Bhāgavatam: Canto 3 Chapter 31.1)

The Vedic Scriptures are very clear and definitive on this matter. The soul is present in the sperm of the father who impregnates the mother’s ovum and life goes on. To terminate this life is considered a sin and murder and more importantly ‘uncivilized’.

In early embryonic stages the soul is extremely limited in functionality and activity. As the newborn grows through its infant stage it becomes increasingly less limited but still dependent on its mother to live. Similarly as the child grows and develops into a toddler it is more able to communicate and interact as a separate entity and is increasingly less dependent on its mother. However, when the child is inside the womb of the mother it is totally dependent on the mother and being totally dependent does not mean that it is without rights.

A child or an adult if either partially or totally dependent must necessarily have their rights protected from murderous, selfish, uncivilized and unscrupulous people; similarly the very same person when they were in their embryonic stage must also be afforded the exact same rights.

Yet for women in accordance with political correctness and law in many secular states, are awarded the special privilege to choose whether the child that she has conceived in her womb can live or die. The ethicality and morality of the issue is further distorted when the child’s ‘father’ is not included in the decision making process.

To simply deny the biological, moral, ethical, social and spiritual factors that surrounds the conception of a child and to cover the issue with political correctness, biased rights, law and vague scriptural reference does not negate that fact that murder is taking place.

The Vedic perspective is that the living entity or spirit soul is incarnated into the sperm and when the sperm unites with the female ovum cellular development of the individual person begins. It is the soul that animates the inanimate chemical body of the living entity. The spiritual soul is a conscious entity; however, the ability of the soul to express itself is limited, and in accordance with the developmental stage of the body.

The material scientist seeks to find an answer to consciousness from the nervous development of the brain which is tested by brain wave activity however this does not answer the question of what is consciousness and at what stage can an individual be considered conscious. There are so many unanswered questions for the empirical scientist to answer however the questions lend themselves more towards the subtle realm than the gross material realm.

Scientists to this day lack the necessary technology in order to accurately ascertain the crossover between anatomy and conscious thought. When material scientists discuss the nature of consciousness as it relates to the organic, they begin to enter into the realm of the pseudo empirical sciences of psychology and psychiatry which more or less deal with symptomatic descriptions of consciousness rather than consciousness itself.

The consideration of the Vedic view presents an interesting scenario. Does biological development necessitate consciousness or does consciousness necessitate biological development. In the Western scientific model the understanding is that biological development necessitates consciousness. However, in the Vedic perspective the presence of the soul animates the body inducing biological development.

The Judaic/Abrahamic perspective does not answer who is the ‘me’ that is receiving the soul. The ‘me’ is given the soul which is more or less a vehicle to link it with God but always appears to be separate from the ‘me’ who possesses it. The ‘me’ in the Vedic philosophical perspective is in fact the spirit soul and is qualitatively distinct from the corporeal body.

The ‘me’, jīvātmā, in the Vedic perspective perceives the external material world according to the biological make up of the body incarnate. For example should the body be either in its embryonic stage or toddler stage it perceives its environment according to the corresponding stage of anatomical development. This is also true for the soul’s ability to express itself or respond to environmental factors etc. The consistent reality is that the ‘me’ or ‘I’ of the soul does not change either in early embryonic stages / birth / infant / child / teenager / adult or old age. We are the same person experiencing all these bodily changes and yet we remain the same.

The Vedic conclusion therefore presents the case that from conception the individual spirit soul is present within the developing embryo and therefore should any other ‘person’ make a decision to destroy / kill / terminate the developing embryo that this would be considered wrongful destruction of the body and therefore murder and punishable by both the law of the land and/or karmic law.

The Judaic Understanding of the Soul

The Abrahamic tradition describes life beginning at the point at which God breathes air into the nostrils of the body. However, as described above, both the body and the soul appear to be separate conscious entities with importance given to the spiritual soul over the ‘conscious’ physical body.

“I offer thanks to You, living and everlasting King, for having returned to me my soul with compassion and great faithfulness”. (the Modeh Āni prayer)

Biblical reference therefore presents that it is only after God breathes ‘life’ through the body ‘at birth’ does the soul ‘enter’ into the body of the child.

And the Lord God formed man # (Hebrew ‘eth-ha’adham) of the dust of the ground, and breathed into his nostrils the breath of life; and man became a living soul. (Genesis 2.7)

The above text refers to the formation of the original man. Here God breathes ‘life’ into the body apparently at the moment it takes its first breath. God forms man in its gogul state or made from the earth state and breathed his breath or nephesh into his already formed and workable nostrils.

This would infer that prior to that moment the ‘nephesh’ was not present in the fetus, or gogul, even though blood was present in its vascular system. Perhaps it can be speculatively argued that the blood that was existent in the pre birth body was that of the mothers and only when the body was infused with the nephesh did it begin to produce its own oxygenated blood cells which were distinctly the un-born child’s which were produced via its independent respiratory function.

From this perspective the ‘un-born’ child does not possess a soul and is therefore not considered a human being. This understanding based on biblical reference for the nature of consciousness/soul should necessitate an acceptance of ‘abortion’ for all followers of the Abrahamic faiths up until the point of the birth of the baby. However, there is ongoing debate regarding the exact point that the un-born child can be considered a conscious human being.

Some advocate the development of the beating heart which circulates blood throughout the body as the point at which consciousness is present however, no matter what idea any theorist can consider this point to be, the religious theorist following the Abrahamic tradition lacks any clear and distinct reference from the Old Testament and therefore must be considered speculative at best.

The child in Judaic mystical terms is considered to possess the nephesh or instinctual aspect of the soul which is found in the blood with its main concentration in the liver in the developing embryo. In latter day texts; such as the Kabbalaḥ and Zoha, the nephesh was present when the embryo first developed. Here it gives the idea that although the nephesh is present it is not existent or functional in the material world but is more tuned to the spirit world from which it came. This is due to the embryonic ‘body’ possessing only rudimentary/undeveloped sense organs which restricts the soul’s ability to accurately perceive the material world.

However, even though the nephesh or the breath of God exists and is conscious to a degree in the developing embryo the same nephesh is also found in any air breathing animal. The killing of specific animals for specific purpose such as food and sacrifice is condoned by Judaic law and so in certain circumstances the human embryo can be killed for it does not possess the higher aspects of the soul such as the ruach – moral aspect or the neshamah – higher consciousness/connection related the God etc.

In pre Abrahamic times abortion was practised by many of the peoples of the region and it was only until the teachings of the various church fathers and lawmakers throughout the ‘common era’ did the Abrahamic faiths begin to view abortion as sinful. They began to place stipulations on circumstances that deem abortion as appropriate. For example if the conception was due to rape or there was some threat to the life of the mother or a pregnancy may threaten the life of a suckling child etc then the killing of the unborn child would be deemed appropriate. They also placed a monetary value on the unborn child should someone cause it to be killed.

Abortion in the Western Society is a highly emotive and volatile issue which is marked by speculative reasoning, vague Scriptural reference and insubstantial medical findings. This coupled with the support of liberalised women /civil rights activists / the legal profession and powerful lobby groups who have pressured legislative change to legally allow institutional killing of the un-born child within a specific time frame in accordance with the wishes of the woman who has conceived the child.

Men’s Role

Men in general have amorally gained from this process for they are legally and therefore morally and ethically not responsible for the conception of the child and so they are free to engage in sexual relationships with liberalised women with the knowledge that they are not responsible for any procreational consequences of their actions. This also removes the rapist from any responsibility for the conception of a child that may be conceived from their heinous and reprehensible action.

Should a man feel morally, spiritually or socially responsible for the conception, as the ‘father’ of the child, he has no rights in the decision and therefore has no say in the matter, unless of course, should the women decide to assume to role of a mother and take the child to the natural conclusion of conception – full term; and give birth.

However, in the Vedic sense the man is still responsible for his actions and the future of the child he conceived. Both the mother and the father of the child’s role in conception cannot be denied according to karma and therefore the reaction to their actions will be either rewarded or punished.

The Cultural Marxist Social Engineers would have society believe that simply because the individual believes they are right in any given situation they will be judged as being right. This is of course both naïve and simplistic.

The woman who has had multiple abortions and has finally settled down to have a family and takes the child in her womb to not only full term but also gives birth and learns to love and care for that child in many instances begins to have a different perspective on her decision to kill her previous children before they had a chance to be born.

The so called Civil Rights Movement spurned on by the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers has promoted two fundamental changes in modern society with the abolition of the death penalty for convicted killers and legalizing of the state killing of an innocent child in the womb of its mother, which at the very least is contradictory.

These two ‘results’ of the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers stand as stark testimony to just how much they have affected the intelligences of the members of Western Society who have been ‘dumbed down’ to such an extent that they allow such unintelligent notions to enter their minds and hearts what to speak of push for laws that make them legislation and create legal precedent.

However, if one perceives some of the changes that the civil rights movements promote as being progressive and advantageous to minority groups and individuals who have been suffering from oppression, suppression and discrimination, it does not necessitate that people are emotionally and/or philosophically manipulated into making these changes.

For example if a woman or a man is being discriminated against is not a difficult situation to recognize. Discrimination occurs in all human societies no matter if they be religious or political. Even in the Jewish society discrimination is occurring between the Ashkenazi Jews and the Sephardic Jews or the Jews who have a Jewish mother and those that do not etc.

It is the insidious intention of the Cultural Marxist Social Engineers which makes these changes inimical rather than empowering for healthy human development. The self-righteous attitude based on specious ‘a priori’ logic of the social reformists of the civil rights movement will always cause more trouble within the society than good.

Murder or the illegal killing of another human being is the most heinous of crimes within any human social structure. To deny or attempt to interfere with the natural laws of: “every action has an equal and opposite reaction” / “as you sow so shall you reap” / “eye for an eye” or in the Vedic sense the law of karma.

The Cultural Marxist Social Engineers have successfully established the mind-set within Western Society and culture that being ‘politically correct’ is a definitive sign of being a civilized society.

They have successfully managed to twist morality to such an extent that the average person is beginning to accept that, by not appropriately punishing a murderer for their crime on one hand is the civilized thing to do and on the other hand it is (ironically) seen as civilized to allow and encourage the intentional killing of an unborn child. This is possibly the most hypocritical aspect of the so called liberalistic modern evolution of so called civilized man.

Thus ends the sixth part of Geopolitics.

( Click here to download a PDF of Geopolitics Parts 1 to 6 )