“Seth material” search engine (Jane Roberts)

Now: in those terms, and in the terms of this discussion, specifically, all assassins are paid assassins hired by the victims. Again, in the terms of this discussion, many murderers are overwhelmed by a sense of guilt, and the murderous act pinpoints the reason for the guilt—so the victim pays the murderer by giving a clear-cut, unassailable reason for a monstrous guilt that was before formless, and even more frightening, since it seemed to have no particular base, but an overwhelming vitality.

It was, as I believe Ruburt has mentioned, a result of deep contemplation on your part about the bookstore murder, but in a larger context, involving probabilities, murderers, victims, and the beliefs involved.

The men were all united—that is, they agreed to the circumstances. No one was trying to run away, and in a way the murderer was performing a service. Any violence or hatred serves a purpose beyond itself, so that man in a way often performs services of which he is not consciously aware.

(On leaving Nassau October 31, we passed a memorial, though not a statue, dedicated to Sir Harry Oakes, who was murdered. This made a very big impression on us, because Peg has always been interested in the murder, and Peg and Bill asked questions about it of several people. [Discussion of the murder and the landmarks was one of the important parts of their trip.])

It would seem to be the commemoration of a murder to me.

(“Commemorates Oakes, who was murdered.”)

[...] But because you do believe that you can murder a man, then murder does exist within your system, and you must deal with it. [...]

[...] And murder, therefore, is a crime and must be dealt with as such because you have created it and you must deal with it. [...]

[...] No god created the crime of murder, and no god created sorrow and pain. [...]

[...] As long as you can extinguish a human consciousness forever, then murder and killing are crimes. [...]

Since there is no death, in your terms, there is no murder. [...]

For example: Many of you believe in the basis of Freudian psychology — that the son naturally wants to displace the father in his mother’s attentions, and that beneath the son’s love for his father, there rages the murderous intent to kill. [...]

[...] If any of you do (underlined) still believe in the Freudian or Darwinian selves, then you will be leery about impulses to examine your own consciousness, afraid of what murderous debris might be uncovered. [...]

[...] They live their lives as if they are indeed limited in experience not only to a brief lifetime, but a lifetime in which they are the victims of their chemistry — accidental members of a blighted species that is murderous to its very core.

[...] A US congressman was also murdered, along with media network people, etc. [...]

Now: the message is clear: fanaticism can lead to mass suicide and murder.

[...] You make your own lessons, so that these mass suicides and murders are an objective culmination, on those peoples’ part, of other, lesser psychological suicides committed on the part of millions who abdicate their personal responsibility in such a way.

[...] He did not murder her in any way by his birth. He is, therefore, no murderer or destroyer, or contemptible. He is not his mother’s murderer, then, in any fashion, nor responsible for the breakup of his parents’ marriage.

(The newspaper connection also developed because on the front page of today’s paper for June 20th, was the story of a local woman being murdered with a knife. So although I used newspapers while developing the envelope object, I couldn’t have used the particular newspaper which carried the murder story, since this news developed two days later. [...]

Ruburt thinks of a newspaper article, about a murder. [...]

[...] Sharp, something sharp… Ruburt thinks of a newspaper article, about a murder.” [...]

[...] Left alone, men are not murderers, though some may murder. [...]

Without these murders the nation would not know what was wrong with itself. The murders are symptoms, but without symptoms the patient will not realize that anything is wrong with the inner self.

[...] Obviously serious consequences result from these particular recent murders.

[...] Such murders would have been taken for granted in some other nations. [...]

[...] No God created the crime of murder, and no God created sorrow or pain. … Again, because you believe that you can murder a man and end his consciousness forever, then murder exists within your reality and must be dealt with. [...]

[...] Murder is, therefore, a crime and must be dealt with—because you have created it. [...]

[...] There is no justification for murder. [...]

[...] That our dreams come alive at midday; that our feelings and beliefs turn into the reality we experience; that, in deeper terms, we are the events in which we participate, and that murder for the sake of an ideal is still murder. [...]

But what about aggressive or contradictory or even murderous impulses? [...]

[...] To some extent the murderer in whom they are so interested (Son of Sam) sees himself in the same light. These are pseudo-intellectuals all, murderer included—people with some abilities, however, but pretenders to crowns. [...]

[...] To some extent capital punishment is the act of a fanatical society: The taking of the murderer’s life does not bring back the victim’s, and it does not prevent other men from [committing] such crimes. I am aware that the death penalty often seems to be a practical solution — and indeed many murderers want to die, and are caught because of their need for punishment. [...]

[...] A murdered man will not be returned to physical life in the same fashion, whole and intact, as he was before the murder, for example; for he has been taken out of the particular system of action of which we are speaking.

[...] Many changes may occur however in that same point for the murderer who is still within the system.

That intent may be confused, poorly executed, tangled amid conflicts of beliefs, strangled by the bloody hands of murders and wars — and yet no man or woman ever loses it. [...]

[...] If a scientist says consciousness is the result of chance, or Darwin’s theories say that basically man is a triumphant son of murderers, many people object. [...]

(11:40.) To some people wars, poverty, murder, treachery, corruption, are primary experience, and must be dealt with — as requiring immediate action. [...]

[...] Or she might narrowly miss being murdered when a bullet from the killer’s gun hits the person next to her. On an entirely different level and in a different way, she might have no such experiences but be a writer of murder mysteries, or a nurse in surgery. [...]

[...] On the other hand she may entertain no such ideas, but be murdered at the age of 17.

(Forcefully:) We are certainly not condoning the murderer — but no slayer kills someone who does not want to die, either.

[...] A war, in your terms, can be practically experienced as a murderous disaster, a triumph of savagery—or as a sublime victory of the human spirit over evil.

[...] He does not naturally murder. [...]

[...] While you believe that to murder a man is to destroy his consciousness forever, then you cannot murder, and in your terms it is an evil. [...]

[...] There are those who murder, and there are those who seek to be slain.

[...] And if a crime is to be assigned in humanity’s terms, often the victim is as guilty as the murderer, in basic terms, in terms of guilt that no court can weigh.