JD11.1. The duty of defence - the most important of all totaliztic good deeds
#1
@ Dr. Ing. Jan Pająk

JD11.1. The duty of defence - the most important of all totaliztic good deeds

The major attribute of parasitism described in subsection JB5 (and also in chapters OA and OC) is the aggressiveness. Parasites are extremely hostile and aggressive. Their aggressiveness manifests itself by the constant igniting of hostilities against everyone who is weaker than them, and who happens to be in their vicinity. Especially viciously they attack weaker from them intellects of a high moral standards, including adherers of totalizm, philosophy of totalizm, etc. If for some reason this aggressiveness of parasites is not met with a defensive counteraction of the intellect with a high morality, then it would introduce a threat to the very essence of morality, and also to the survival of these intellects with high moral standards. Probably for these reasons, the universal intellect designed moral laws in such a manner, that the undertaking of defence against someone's aggression, is the expression of obeying these laws. In turn the duty of undertaking such a defence, is in fact not only one of the most important "moral" behaviours (i.e. one of most important totaliztic good deeds - see subsection A5.1), but it is also a separate moral law (see subsection I4.1.1). The fact, that undertaking defence is both, a "moral" behaviour - means a totaliztic good deed, and also one of the obligatory moral laws, thus also the fact, that self-defence against someone's aggression is an expression of obeying moral laws, is going to be formally proven in this subsection.
The reason why this entire subsection is dedicated to formal proving that undertaking the defence is a "moral" behaviour and a main totaliztic good deed, and also that according to moral laws we have a duty to carry out our defence, is the inheritance of Christianity. As we know, all those, who are brought up on ideas of Christianity, are impregnated with a deep belief, that the moral life depends on a complete avoidance of fight that is imposed on us, and also on avoiding any resistance against aggression. After all Christianity teaches the adherers: "if someone hits you in one cheek, expose also other cheek for a hit". But if one analyses the real intensions of the universal intellect (God), as this is done in this subsection JD11.1, then it turns out, that Christianity interpreted these intensions completely wrong. Moral laws very clearly state that "if, without any provocation on your part, someone assaults you first, you have a duty to defend yourself actively, while your defence is still going to be rewarded by moral laws, even if for this defence you are forced to cause similar outcomes of the fight, as outcomes the causing of which was in the original intensions of your aggressor (i.e. if the aggressor originally intends to kill you, you will be rewarded by moral laws even if your defence will require to kill your aggressor)" - see the Moral Law of Obligatory Defence, described in subsection I4.1.1. For this reason the defence against someone's assault, not the passive submission to violence, is the expression of acting according to moral laws. (Although simultaneously moral laws decisively forbid aggression and assaulting of those, who show intensions of living in peace with us - as this is going to be proven in this subsection.) Such a defence is also clearly ordered to us by intensions of the universal intellect (God), coded into the content of moral laws, and coded into moral rewards that are granted to us, if we actually undertake an active defence. Because these intensions contain a clear order of the universal intellect (God), that we must defend ourselves in case of every aggression, in this subsection I prove these intensions in an unambiguous manner. This proof is going to realize to us, that what the universal intellect (God) expects us to do, is exactly opposite to what Christianity tells us to do in case of aggression, and what so unfortunately was casted into our memory by Christian teachings. For these reasons I would recommend, that this subsection is read especially thoroughly. After all, on one hand this subsection unambiguously proves, that if we are faced with an aggression, then the universal intellect (God) clearly orders to us, to defend ourselves effectively, and even designates moral rewards for the completion of our defence (NOT - as this is taught to us by Christianity, "to expose our other cheek for a next hit"). On other hand, this subsection also demonstrates to everyone rather spectacularly, that even at the present level of development, totalizm allows to derive and to verify every moral claims in equally strict manner, as mathematicians and physicists derive and verify their equations. Furthermore this subsection reveals, that morality and totalizm, are not just subjects for academic disputes and free interpretations that would allow to freely turn every matter in any direction, but they represent strict sciences similar to mathematics, physics, and mechanics, which for every moral problem provide a very unambiguous solution.
Our consideration of the totaliztic defence we should begin with reminding ourselves, what the definition of totaliztic good deed of defence is. In subsection A5.1 of this monograph, totaliztic good deed of defence was defined in the following manner:
"defence is every vigorous counter-action against attempts of sinning, which shows the presence of all fundamental properties of totaliztic good deeds, although in the case of successful completion, it leaves approximately the same total amount of moral energy in all affected people - as the amount that would appear if this counter-action is not undertaken, or if it is completed but it finished with a defeat. Fundamental attributes of a totaliztic good deed, which must be manifested by every activity which is to be qualified as a defence, include: a) not undertaking the defence activity would cause that the opposite side would commit a totaliztic sin, b) undertaking the defence is to stop the opposite side from committing a totaliztic sin, c) the defence must be provoked by an aggressive action of the other side (i.e. the responsibility for creating a situation that the defence is necessary, must lie in the other party than the party which is defended), d) in the success of this defence are interested also other people than the ones who are defending, while this success in defence is for these other people corresponding to a totaliztic good deed."
Note that the above definition of totaliztic defence is so formulated, that by a defence totalizm understands only some out of numerous activities, which the everyday life used to call with the same name. For totalizm a defence is only standing up against aggression, which the defending person would not provoke with his/her previous behaviour, and the winning of which is going to bring moral benefits not only to himself/herself. In the understanding of totalizm, a defence is NOT for example regaining something, that was taken away from us because of morally valid reasons, or gaining benefits that are unjust for others - even if we consider that for some reasons we deserve them, or a revenge for undesirable reaction of the other side to our behaviour that we initiated ourselves, or reversing the undesirable for us development of events which we provoked ourselves. For totalizm defence represents only these actions, which both, by our conscience, and also by conscience of all other people that these actions affect, are unambiguously described as defence.
Let us start analyses of totaliztic good deed of defence, from checking whether the totaliztic definition of this good deed coincides with the instinctive (i.e. based on the statements of our conscience) understanding of the same idea. For this, let us firstly consider examples of two activities, about which our conscience is clearly telling us, that they actually are forms of defence, and let us check whether they are fulfilling the definition of defence stated before. Then we consider also examples of two other activities, about which conscience tells us, that they are NOT defence - and also let us check, whether they fulfil the totaliztic definition of defence.
Examples of two activities, marked below (1Y) and (2Y), which according to statements of our conscience are examples of defence, are two situations, which can be described in following manners. (1Y) We parked our family car in area clearly marked as place designated for parking. A while later a different driver hits our parked car with his, causing significant damages in both cars - although does not hurts anyone from our family. Then, raising various threats against us, he insists that all this is our fault, because we "barricaded his way with our car", and requests that we pay him a compensation for damages in his car. Is the action that we take, in order to not only avoid paying him the compensation that he requests, but also to cause that he pays a compensation to us for damages to our car, fulfilling the definition of defence? (2Y) To our house arrived an armed robber, who does not hide his intensions, that he is to bind, rob and kill us and our wife, children, and a family that visits us. Does the fast killing of this robber by us, fulfil the definition of totaliztic defence?
If we check the situation (1Y), through matching it with the totaliztic definition of defence, then it turns out, that it actually fulfils this definition exactly. This is because subsequent features of the situation indicate, that this situation in fact does display the fundamental attributes a), b), c), and d) of totaliztic good deed of defence (these attributes are listed within the definition of defence provided before). Simultaneously - if we manage to defend ourselves from paying someone the compensation for damages to his car, and cause that this someone pays us such a compensation, then the sum of moral energy in the universe remains almost the same, as it would be in situation, when this someone would force us to pay him the compensation. Where the fundamental attributes a), b), c), and d) of totaliztic good deeds are concerned, then it turns out, that the attribute a) is fulfilled, because if we do not undertake this defence, then the person who hit our car would commit a totaliztic sin of exploitation (after all, this person would repair at our cost the damages that it caused). The attribute b) is also fulfilled, because the carrying out our defence is intended to stop the person who is responsible, from committing this sin of exploitation. The attribute c) is fulfilled, because our defence is provoked by someone who hit our car - i.e. if this someone does not hit us, then we would not need to defend ourselves. In turn attribute d) is fulfilled, because our success in this defence is going to be for our family a totaliztic good deed - after all our defending from paying a compensation and causing that the aggressor covers our expenses, does not deprive this family means of support.
Also the situation (2Y) exactly matches the totaliztic definition of defence, and it also displays all the attributes of defence. In fact, it fulfils the fundamental attributes a), b), c), and d) of totaliztic good deeds, and simultaneously, when we manage to defend ourselves from being killed through a fast killing of a robber that attacked us, then the total amount of moral energy in the universe remains almost the same, as it would be in situation, when this someone would kill us. Where the fundamental attributes a), b), c), and d) of totaliztic good deed are concerned, then it turns out, that the attribute a) is fulfilled, because if we do not undertake this defence, then the robber would commit a totaliztic sin of oppression - after all this person would then kill us (destroying the entire amount of moral energy that we have), while he would be chased by law and by police (thus loosing also a lot of his own moral energy). The attribute b) is also fulfilled, because our undertaking the defence is going to prevent this person from committing a gravely sin of oppression. The attribute c) is fulfilled, because in fact our defence is provoked by attack of this robber at our house - i.e. if this robber would not arrive to our home and would not show the intention of killing us, then we would not need to defend ourselves. In turn the attribute d) is also fulfilled, because for our family, for neighbours, and for the whole society, this killing of the robber that come armed to our house to kill us, would be an illustration, that immorality and carrying out robberies do not pay off.
Examples of two actions, marked below (1N) and (2N), which according to the statement of conscience are not at all examples of defence, but which we intend to check formally, whether by any chance they fulfil the totaliztic definition of defence, and thus illustrate that this definition is faulty, are two life situations, which can be described as follows. (1N) A person in the advanced stadium of parasitism was employed on the position of a chef executive officer (CEO) in a school. But soon after being employed, this person started to show negligence, the lack of moral behaviour, and begin to direct the school towards a disintegration. When, after a series of warnings and requests, this person would not change its parasitic practices, the council of the school sacked him with a big bang from the job. Does the suing of the council by this parasite, to an employment court, for an unjustified sacking him from the job, and also for accomplishing the reinstating of himself into the CEO position that he occupied, fulfil the definition of totaliztic defence? (This situation is based on the described in subsection L4 real case of my former parasitic superior.) (2N) A female invited her acquaintance to spend together a romantic evening together in her flat, in the situation "tete-a- tete". Around a month later it turned out that the female got pregnant. When she informed the acquaintance about her pregnancy, he was taking the responsibility for making her pregnant (e.g. he was willing to pay maintenance for the child), but he decisively refused to marry this female. Does the later accusation of the female, that in the evening concerned he raped her, fulfil the definition of totaliztic defence? (I.e. does in the light of totalizm the accusation of this female, that the acquaintance raped her that evening, is going to be seen as her defence, or as something completely different, e.g. as her revenge for the failure of causing the acquaintance to marry her?)
When we check the situation (1N) through matching it with the totaliztic definition of defence, then it turns out, that it completely does NOT fulfil this definition. This is because subsequent features of the situation indicate, that in fact it does not display the fundamental attributes a), b), c), and d) of totaliztic good deed of defence. Simultaneously, if this parasite with some his manipulations, false evidence, or errors of human legal system, causes that the employment court actually reinstates him into the CEO position from which he was removed, then the total level of moral energy of all interested parties will decrease rapidly in comparison to the situation when this person would not undertake any action (this decrease in the level of moral energy will result e.g. from the fact, that the next - more capable CEO, would not receive a chance to manage the school, that all employees of this school are going to suffer under the rules of a parasitic and incompetent manager, that the incompetence of the removed CEO will impact the outcomes of teaching of the students that attend this school, etc.). Where the fundamental attributes a), b), c), and d) of totaliztic good deed of defence are concerned, then it turns out, that all these attributes are NOT displayed by the situation (1N) for the following reasons. The attribute a) is NOT fulfilled, because in case the court action is not taken by the removed CEO, would not cause any sin at all by the opposite side, but rather it would cause several good deeds to be accomplished by this other side (e.g. the other side could employ a better CEO, it could improve the management of the school, it could improve the quality of teaching in this school, etc.). The attribute b) is also not fulfilled, because the undertaking a court case by the removed CEO, would not serve for stopping the opposite side from committing a sin, but rather it would stop this side from accomplishing a whole series of good deeds. The attribute c) also remain unfulfilled, because the removal of this parasitic CEO from the job, was not provoked by the school's council, but by the behaviour of the removed CEO (before the removal he show his incompetence, not reacted to warnings and requests of the council, etc.). In turn the attribute d) is also not fulfilled, because in fact every person who observed this case and who know the person being removed, was perfectly aware that this person deserved for this removal from the job, that he provoked this removal with his own behaviour, and that the possible putting his case to an employment court would serve only to his low goals, not to any good of people. The above checking quite clearly indicates that in the light of totaliztic definition of defence, subjecting the case of this CEO to a court, constitutes a totaliztic sin, not a totaliztic good deed of defence. Thus it can be called with many different names (e.g. black mail, threats, oppression, aggression) - but it does not deserve the name "defence". Also, for undertaking this action, in the future this parasite is going to receive additionally a respective punishment served to him by moral laws.
Checking the situation (2N) indicates, that this situation also does NOT fulfil the definition of totaliztic defence. This is because subsequent features of this situation indicate, that it does not bear the fundamental attributes a), b), c), and d) of totaliztic good deed of defence. Simultaneously, if this female causes somehow with her actions, that the acquaintance that she accuses, lands in a prison, then the total level of moral energy in all interested parties will decrease rapidly in comparison to the situation when this female would not undertake her action. (This decrease in the level of moral energy will result e.g. from the fact, that her acquaintance lands in a prison, that the child of that female symbolically looses the father, that this female makes much more complicated the matter of getting maintenance for her child and thus deprives the child of a chance to receive a support from the father, etc.) When the fundamental attributes a), b), c), and d) of a totaliztic good deed of defence are concerned, then it turns out, that all these attributes are NOT displayed by the situation (2N) for the following reasons. The attribute a) is NOT fulfilled, because if this female does not make her accusations, in fact this would not cause that her acquaintance would commit a sin, but rather it would cause that he would commit several good deeds. (E.g. this acquaintance was willing to pay maintenance for the child, probably he would support the child morally, etc.) The attribute b) is also not fulfilled, because the launching an accusation about the rape, and a possible court verdict against the male, would not serve any stopping the male from committing a sin, but it would rather stop him from doing a whole series of good deeds. (E.g. in future he would be afraid to accept an invitation of any female to visit her in her flat, unless he would be accompanied with a witness who would protect him from a similar accusation.) The attribute c) also remains unfulfilled, because the accusation of a rape originally was not provoked by the male, but by an invitation from the female to spend together romantic evening in her flat. (If the female in fact would not wish intimacy of that evening, she would invite also her girlfriend or a member of family, and would not create from her own initiative the situation "tete-a-tete" which implies intimacy, etc.) In turn the attribute d) also remains unfulfilled, because in fact no outside party, apart from the personal satisfaction of that female, would morally benefit from the fact of accusation of this male. All the above taken together indicates, that in the light of totaliztic definition of defence, the accusations of this female represent a sin, not a good deed, and can be called with various names (e.g. revenge, pushing down, taking back), but it does not deserve the name "defence", and that for the producing such accusations this female is going to be adequately punished in the future by the punishing action of moral laws. 
As this is clearly visible, the analysis of four above cases, confirms the complete agreeability of the totaliztic definition of defence quoted before, with our understanding of a morally justified defence based on our conscience, and with our understanding of other actions - which are not defence at all. In this way the above cases prove empirically, that firstly the totaliztic definition of defence is correct, and secondly that this definition is agreeable with indications of human conscience. Thus the next step, is to prove also theoretically (means prove formally with the use of logical analyses and deductions) that "defence is a totaliztic good deed", and thus theoretically prove that "a decisive undertaking of defence in each case when defence is required, represents an expression of obeying moral laws, and is not only agreeable with the directives of our conscience and statements of moral laws, but it is also agreeable with the logical deductions of totalizm that stem from scientific concepts that totalizm developed so far".
In order to formally prove with the use of logical analysis, that "defence" is a totaliztic good deed, not a sin, it is enough to consider basic attributes of good deeds and sins, and then prove, that defence displays the presence of all attributes of totaliztic good deeds, but it does not demonstrates any attribute of totaliztic sins. According to what was written in subsection A5.3 /?/, basic attributes of all totaliztic good deeds include the following properties:
(1Yes) The active prevention of doing a totaliztic good deed, is a totaliztic sin.
(2Yes) All reversals of the action, which represents a totaliztic good deed, are representing totaliztic sins.
(3Yes) Accepting outcomes of someone's totaliztic good deed, is also a totaliztic good deed.
In turn basic attributes of totaliztic sins include (see also subsection A5.3 /?/): (1No) Constructive prevention of committing a totaliztic sin, is a totaliztic good deed.
(2No) Every positive reversal of action, which represents a totaliztic sin, will become totaliztic good deed.
(3No) Every passive acceptance of the fact of committing a totaliztic sin, as well as every acceptance of outcomes of such a sin, is representing a totaliztic sin.
After we match the above attributes to the examples of totaliztic good deeds discussed before, it turns out, that both situations (1Y) and (2Y) fulfil precisely all attributes (1Yes), (2Yes) and (3Yes), but do not fulfil attributes (1No), (2No) and (3No). In turn situations marked (1N) and (2N) do not fulfil attributes (1Yes), (2Yes) and (3Yes), but in turn fulfil attributes (1No), (2No) and (3N). This in turn proves in the theoretical manner, that the defence is in fact a totaliztic good deed.
Similarly, if one analyses attributes of any other action, which is not obeying moral laws at all, and thus which represents a totaliztic sin, e.g. attributes of described in subsection JD11.1.1 "aggression", which represents an unprovoked attack on someone - who lives in peace, then it turns out, that this action do not fulfil attributes (1Yes), (2Yes), and (3Yes), while it fulfils attributes (1No), (2No), and (3No). For example, for such an "aggression", attribute (1Yes) is not fulfilled, because the prevention of such an unprovoked attack is going to be a good deed, not a sin. Also attribute (2Yes) is not fulfilled, because e.g. defence, which is a reversal of such aggression, is a totaliztic good deed, not a sin. In turn attribute (3Yes) is not fulfilled, because the acceptance by someone, e.g. goods and benefits that are robbed during an aggression, is a sin, not a good deed. Analysing now the attribute (1No), it is fulfilled, because the prevention of aggression is in fact a good deed. The attribute (2No) it also fulfilled, because the reversal of aggression, means defence, is in fact a totaliztic good deed. In turn the attribute (3No) is fulfilled, because the acceptance of outcomes of aggression on someone is a sin. Of course the fact, that "aggression" (as an unprovoked "attack") displays completely opposite moral properties then "defence" (i.e. that it displays attributes of "sin", and does not display attributes of good deed) introduces significant moral consequences. It indicates, that "aggression is immoral", while "defence is moral". This in turn indicates, that unleashing aggression is forbidden by the universal intellect, while undertaking defence from someone who unleashed an aggression, the universal intellect is pointing to us, as a morally correct behaviour. It also indicates, that aggressively attacking someone, is going to always be punished, while defending ourselves or others from an aggression, is going to always be rewarded by the universal intellect.
To summarise all the above, the logical analysis of attributes of defence proves, that defence is decisively "moral" and belongs to the category of "totaliztic good deeds". Simultaneously the logical analysis of other actions, which appear quite similar to defence, but about which our conscience tells us, that they are "immoral" and thus they do not belong to the category of totaliztic good deeds, also unambiguously proves, that the present level of advanced of tools of totalizm, very decisively disallows us to mistake for totaliztic good deeds of defence any activities that are not such good deeds.
Probably one of numerous reasons, for which defence was not clearly seen by people for so long as a "moral" good deed, and was not recognized as a basic moral duty, is the wrong understanding of karmatic consequences of undertaking of our defence. This wrong understanding probably results from the formulation of Christian so-called Golden Rule (stating something along the lines that: "Do unto others as you would have them do unto you"), and from the formulation of Christian equivalents of the Boomerang Principle (e.g. claiming that "what you saw you are to reap"). These Christian formulations imply that: if you kill someone, even if you do it in self-defence, then still you are deserving a punishment. But if we analyse, what to-date findings of totalizm state on this subject, then it turns out, that karmatic consequences for example killing of our aggressor in defence (e.g. in the situation "you or me"), do not mean at all, that from an innocent person we rapidly turn into a candidate for God's punishment. In such a most drastic situation - when we "morally" kill someone in our defence, totalizm states two things, namely (1) that if one day we find ourselves in the situation of our aggressor, then we can be affected by reliving all feelings that our aggressor experienced during a present defence fight, and (2) that both of us, meaning we ourselves, and our aggressor, we both have in our karma the feelings of dying, which is very similar to that one that is going to be generated during a given aggression (otherwise we both would not be placed by moral laws in such a situation, and we would not be given a choice, regarding which one of us is going to die as the outcome of the current situation). The above means, that if we actually kill someone during undertaking a "moral" good deed of self-defence, then (1) in order to also be killed in the future, we firstly need to commit an act of aggression (means, the fact whether we are going to be killed during an aggression, fully depends on our free will, or more strictly on our personal taking part in an act of aggression), and (2) because we already have in ourselves an old karma, which in the first instance led us to the situation that we were attacked and placed in a given position, the undertaking by us a defence, and killing in defence, does not generate in us a new karma, but only slightly modifies and delays the old karma of being killed, which we already carry in ourselves. To express the above in other words, the fact that we undertake a self-defence, from the point of view of karma does not cause at all, that we are going to be punished by a return of a new karma (which we just are going to generate with our defence). But actually the opposite - in reality it means that we are going to be rewarded by (1) an additional delay in return of an old karma, which we already have anyway, and by (2) a beneficial for us modification of this our old karma, because we undertook a "moral" defence. Of course, the example of killing in self-defence, used here, is a drastic example of karmatic consequences of undertaking a defence. Still, in case of undertaking any form of defence, situation is similar. Always, if we manage to defend ourselves with a success, we are not going to be punished for this by moral laws, because moral laws are so designed, that for the undertaking a "moral" defence, we are to be rewarded. After all, receiving a reward for doing everything that is ordered by moral laws, is guaranteed with the "canon of consistency", which is described in subsection JB7.4.
As this clearly stems from logical deductions of this subsection, and also from subsection A5.1, the universal intellect purposely assigned to defence all attributes of especially "moral", exceptional good deed. It is done so in order to clearly let us know, that moral laws decisively ask us to undertake the duty of defence, whenever the situation asks us for it. By assigning such attributes to defence, the universal intellect wishes to forward to us a very important message. If we would try to decode, what this message says, probably we would arrive to the conclusion, that a text of this message should be interpreted as follows: "due to a such design of laws of the universe, that every act of defence displays all 'moral' attributes of not only a very special good deed, but also obeys the canon of consistency, and represents an obligatory moral law, I am stressing the duty to undertake a defence, even if this defence is not devoted to an increase of moral energy. I am also letting to know, that defence is extremely important for everyone, and that no- one is allowed to avoid the duty of undertaking it, when finds himself/herself in the situation, in which it is necessary. Simultaneously, by granting privileges to defence via the operation of moral laws (but by not granting them to an aggression), I am clearly letting to know, that only undertaking a defence is morally correct and is always rewarded by moral laws, while unleashing an aggression is morally wrong and is punished by moral laws".
The unique privileging of defence proves unambiguously, that all those who lead moral life, have not only a permission of the universal intellect to undertake a defence whenever the situation asks for it, but it also indicates, that undertaking such a defence is the basic moral obligation of everyone who leads a moral life. In fact defence is a most important step in the direction of leading moral life, as it allows to maintain our morality, and to not subdue to pressures of immoral aggressors. Therefore all moral people (totalizts) are charged with a non-avoidable obligation, to fulfil this duty of defence in every case when it turns necessary. This duty of fulfilling the obligation of defence, put on totalizts and on other moral people, a whole array of special requirements. For example, they are subjected to a requirement of readiness to undertake a defence whenever a situation of aggression takes place. This means that moral people have a duty to not get too complacent with their lives, and to prepare themselves to defence even in times of peace, to study knowledge of defence, to improve tools of their defence, to watch actions of their potential aggressors and be aware when an aggression is coming, etc.
The above subsection realizes also, that all types of defence are agreeable with moral laws, and therefore that they should be decisively undertaken. So totalizts have a non- avoidable duty, to defend themselves, whenever they face an aggression. They also have a duty to stand up in defence of all other people in the range of their sight, who clearly are facing aggression, but who are unable to defend themselves. Totalizts and people living moral lives, have also a duty to decisively, although according to moral laws, defend from aggressions all group intellects, the membership of which they have. For example, if they are members of some company, social movement, country, or civilization, while the group intellect to which they belong faces an aggression from some other intellect, then totalizts have the duty to actively join the defence efforts of the group intellect to which they belong. They have also a duty to use methods that are agreeable with moral laws, in order to defend themselves, to defend others, and to defend group intellects to which they belong, from aggressions of nature and life events, means to help themselves and to help others in times of troubles (the topic of totaliztic help is addresses in subsection JD11.3). Whenever in our life we face an evidence, that someone's unprovoked aggression took place, and that some intellects can be hurt by this aggression, we must remember that the universal intellect and moral laws clearly order us, that we have a duty to join the defence actively, and that moral laws are going to reward us for the undertaking of this duty.
As this is clearly stemming from the canon of consistency, whenever someone undertakes "moral" actions, means actions which are obeying moral laws and agree with intensions of the universal intellect, and puts into these actions the required amount of effort and motivations, then he/she always receives appropriate moral reward. Thus, there is no slightest doubt, that also for undertaking a defence that is ordered by the universal intellect, the defending people always receive appropriate rewards - if only into their defence they put the required amount of effort and motivations. What is more interesting, the canon of consistency reveals, that various rewards are going to be served to them, even if for the purpose of defence they are forced to resort to killing someone - what actually I already explained during the addressing of matter of karma during killing in defence. Of course, wherever there are some rewards, always is good to know well, what type they are. Unfortunately, so far totalizm was unable to identify all the rewards, with which moral laws lavishly treat those, who undertake an active defence. The detection and description of all of them, requires undertaking long research. However, totalizm already empirically established, that a multitude of different rewards is always granted for defence, and that people who take part in defence, are always receiving them. Let us now discuss example of these moral rewards for undertaking a defence, which are already identified empirically.
A. Karmatic rewards. Already is empirically established, that the beneficial combination of feelings and motivations, which appear during defence, causes that for the same unpleasant outcomes of an action, but once done for defence, while the other time done for aggression, karma that we generate is clearly beneficial for defence and clearly punishing for aggression. Additionally karma generated during defence, is combined with the old karma (this practically means the decrease of the karma to only a small fraction of its actual amount), while the karma generated during an aggression is formed in completely new karmatic algorithms (this means that because of the existence in the aggressor of an old karma, practically karma is duplicated after an aggression).
B. Spiritual promotion to a higher level. Moral rewards for defence, can be clearly observed in the sphere of spiritual promotion. As it is known, a significant proportion of events that affect us in the lifespan, does not result from karma, but from a spiritual education that we are subjected to in our lives. It can be easily noted that out of all these educational events, the ones which have the character of aggression towards us, are ceasing immediately after the time, when in a given type of situation we undertook an effective defence and win this defence. But if we ignore such a defence, or undertake it - but it does not lead to a success, then the situation is repeated again - and with a higher force. This in turn means, that the effort of putting an effective defence against an aggression, is one of primary requirements, which decides about our spiritual promotion to a higher level.
C. More beneficial emotional life. It is also known, that numerous rewards for defending ourselves in a rightful matter, awaits for us in the sphere of feelings. For example the mechanism of operation of feelings, described in subsections I5.5 and A7.1 /?/, is so designed, that it allows for motivations that accompany a defence, to beneficially modify so- called "reactive potential". This modification in turn causes, that in the result of each feeling generated during a defence, a mental anti-feeling is formed, which always is pleasant and always generates moral energy for us. Therefore, one of very clear moral rewards, which is received by all those who undertake the duty of a totaliztic defence, is the enrichment of their emotional life, and making their feelings more pleasant.
D. A discreet help of the universal intellect. Independently from the rewards described before, another one is also already identified rather well. This is the fact known for a long time, that the universal intellect (God) discreetly, although conditionally, helps those who defend themselves. In fact, as this is stressed in subsection JD7, undertaking an active and decisive defence from some form of evil that affects us, is one of two basic conditions, which must be fulfilled for the universal intellect to start its discreet intervention and to start screen us from the effects of this evil (this second basic condition is that we are not deserving this evil with our previous actions). Even if we do not deserve a given evil, but because of the resignation from defence we passively accept its arrival, then the universal intellect, seeing our lack of defence efforts and the passive acceptance of evil, expressed by our lack of defence, does not intervene and does not stop the arrival of evil. This conditional help of the universal intellect, triggered through our defence, is not only expressed with the known proverbs "God helps those who help themselves", but also is confirmed with countless empirical observations. For example, if there is a situation that two people are fighting of similar force and similar skills, if only there are not present some important karmatic reasons, this fight is always won by the person who defend himself, not by the one who is unleashing an aggression. This discreet help of the universal intellect, given to those who defend themselves, is also a reason for well- known phenomenon, that if any group intellect (e.g. a country) being attacked, is undertaking a decisive defence against an immoral aggressor, then independently how overwhelming the aggressor's forces would be, still the defending intellect always finally wins the defence war. This is because of this discreet help of the universal intellect, in spite that totalizm is defending itself from an overwhelming power of evil parasites, and in spite that it appears as if it constantly is bitten, still in fact totalizm gains increasingly greater power, while the entire cosmic empire of evil parasites is not able to suppress the arrival of totalizm to Earth, and the spread of totalizm amongst people.
Concluding this subsection, whenever you are facing an aggression, or see someone's aggression, check whether the intended reaction of defence is fulfilling the definition of "moral" good deed of totaliztic defence, and if so, then include yourself actively into the defence, and fight for the moral cause as much as you can. This is because undertaking the active defence is clearly ordered by intensions of the universal intellect, while our obedience of these intensions is always lavishly rewarded.

=> JD11.1.1.
Antworten to top



Gehe zu:


Benutzer, die gerade dieses Thema anschauen: 1 Gast/Gäste