Apr 20, 2024

Killing a Few for the Benefit of Millions

Todd Hayen

Since when has this (the title of the article) become the mantra of civilized humanity? I grew up in a time when this thought would never enter your mind, even if it seemed practical in a given circumstance. Remember when you were a kid and you were asked the impossible question: If you had to kill one of your parents to save the other, which would you choose? Although most of us had a problem with this (I am certain some did not) it was the kind of question our little minds could not fathom.

Knowingly killing people for any reason other than self-defence is not a good thing. Although we seem to have been pushed into this inhuman belief system—that killing can be good—there are still times when it makes sense to do just that. Maybe that is true—that it “makes sense” to kill people for the “good of others” in certain situations. If you fed some of these particular scenarios into a computer, there isn’t much doubt that the computer would spit out the instruction: “kill some to save others.” If it is just about saving lives, it would more than likely say: “Kill 49% to save 51%” That’s just sensical, isn’t it? But is it human? No.

Then what is human? For one thing, being human often does not make a lot of “sense.” Here is an example of “not” being human:

Picture this: Three adults are stranded on a barren island and one of the adults is the mother of a newborn infant. Let’s say it is clear that these three adults would perish if they didn’t eat something, and there was nothing on the island to eat. So, they decide to sacrifice the baby and make a meal of it.

No true human would do such a thing: sacrifice one for the survival of three—particularly sacrifice a baby. They would choose to perish, all of them, before taking on such a task. Now, I’m sure some of you would argue with me here and say, “Who are you to say, ‘no true human would do such a thing’?” Ok, ok. It’s my article so I can say what I want! But if you are complaining, it is duly noted.

But do you get my point? Why is this? Who knows, but I can guess. It has something to do with a deep-seated knowing that physical life is not “all it is touted to be.” Back in the day when most people believed in God, and believed in the sanctity of spirit and soul, this was clear in most people’s heads and hearts. People were much more likely, at that time, to make decisions based on this awareness. Sure, lots of people (or so we are told) feared God and feared hell, so they were careful not to go against God’s rules in order not to make Him angry. And there certainly was not a lack of “inhuman” behaviour with the wanton torture, murder, and rape present. But I don’t believe that was the motivation behind the actions of the majority of people (although it seems today’s view of history wants us to think this).

I believe most people who believed in a higher power understood, in their heart of hearts, that putting the physical body, and the material world, in second position to spirit and soul, which held first position, was just the way it was. Not because of fear, but just because. I actually do not think it requires belief in some elaborate structure of God to be human. I think this “humanness” is innately present within us when we are born. We just “know what is right” and we act accordingly until something teaches us not to. We are born human until we are taught not to be human. And after looking at the world of today, it seems that “teaching” is all but complete. As we started to ponder such things, we began to create a description of “what this is” and the human conception of God was born. I am not saying humans invented God, I am saying we invented our limited description and definition of God.

Don’t get me wrong. The ancient days of god-fearing men and women were not the most humanistic of times. Far from it. The flesh was, for the most part, king then as well, maybe in some places and ways even more so than now. Although the humans of distant times certainly didn’t have much regard for the flesh considering how quick they were to desecrate it.

We have always dealt with this problem of indiscriminate killing, it is just today there are far more people than there used to be, and far greater human constructions that can kill than there used to be—atomic bombs for one, technology in various ways, and now, the manipulation of genetics. The “few to kill to save many” has turned into, the “millions to kill to save billions.” Or at least that is what they tell us, that is always their excuse and reasoning, “it is for the well-being of many, of all of us. It is a minimal sacrifice for the multitudes.” Obviously what they tell us has little relation to their true intentions.

I am always reminded (forgive me to my frequent readers) of the ants that build the bridge over the river for the other ants to cross to safety. These ants give their lives for the benefit of the colony, for they surely die in their noble pursuit. But they do it on their own accord. The queen ant doesn’t force them to the sacrifice. Ants also do not have free will (at least we don’t think they do) so who knows exactly why they do anything.

Can you see the paradox? To be human is indeed to sacrifice. We sacrifice our life to save the baby we choose not to eat (of course the baby perishes as well, but we don’t really know that until our last breath). So why can’t we sacrifice our lives to save many others we don’t even know, isn’t that what we really are doing when we save the baby? Ah, yes, but there is a keen difference—we do it voluntarily. If we are forced to sacrifice for others, either by physical force, emotional, pragmatic, or psychological coercion, then we are being tricked. This decision to sacrifice for others must be made voluntarily, as it is spoken to us from our own hearts. Only then will it “work” and only then will the decision be a human one. “I’ll go,” says the hero of the story when the house is burning down, “You stay here in safety, I will go and save the dog for little Jimmy.” If a gun was put to the hero’s head and he was told to face the flames of destiny or otherwise die on the spot with a bullet fired into his head, then the entire meaning is lost, even if we knew he would have gone anyway without the threat.

This coercion by others to save others with our sacrifice is also based on an assumption. The assumption is that it actually will save others. Rarely is this assumption correct. I, as were most of you reading this, was never convinced that if I took the vaccine it would have any impact, good or bad, on anyone else. There was never a certainty in my mind that “millions will die if we don’t all get vaccinated.” It was a very flimsy declaration and was never in any way convincing. I do wonder if it had been proven to me that my taking the vaccine would actually save others, if I would have taken it. Very likely I would have.

This finally brings me to the primary point of this article. Why is it that we no longer understand these details about being a human being? Why is it that we can be so easily manipulated into thinking that when an authority entity tells us that refusing a vaccine, for only one example, is selfish and “inhuman?” When any of us, or most I would suspect, would go back into the fire to save the dog for little Jimmy, if it was a completely voluntary decision? Why is it that most people do not believe that and denigrate the unvaccinated for being cowardly?

Vaccination status is only one example of this. How about our complacency with people in power (Bill Gates for example) deciding to medicate millions accepting with no ethical question at all that many will die as a result of his program? How about his bionic mosquito program? Or the self-spreading viral vaccine I wrote about a while ago? How about GMOs, 5G, just about all medications, Chem Trails, fluoride in the water, on and on and on? Sure, we used to have “informed consent” regarding a lot of these things, but not anymore. Do I give a mosquito informed consent when I allow it to bite me and suck my blood depositing the latest genetic sci-fi technology in my bloodstream? Thousands will die when these horror film abominations are released to the world. But, we are told, millions will live who otherwise would have perished. Don’t believe it for a second.

We have truly moved into an age where the agenda depends on our human awareness of right and wrong to be easily manipulated into accepting “what is best for all of us” as we march to our own certain death. And trust me, if it actually were about “what is best for all of us” we might have an argument, but it isn’t. It is what is best for them and whatever strange dystopia they are building. Are they lizards from outer space intent on destroying humans so they can take over the planet? They may as well be. Yes, they may as well be just that.

Todd Hayen PhD is a registered psychotherapist practicing in Toronto, Ontario, Canada. He holds a PhD in depth psychotherapy and an MA in Consciousness Studies. He specializes in Jungian, archetypal, psychology. Todd also writes for his own substack, which you can read here