The Motives of Activists

[Shin'Ar]

But to try to burn the restaurant down because they have steak on the menu will not serve to benefit your ideal, it will only serve to enrage the innocent people that you have abused by acting in extremity. Your cause will not be what is made known, and instead the fame will be in that you would be branded as an extremist and a danger to human life.

I'm puzzled why you even bring that up. In over 3 years of discussing the subject of eating animals, no one ever suggested such a thing, and in fact all the vegetarians were unanimous that they'd never do such a thing.

If we choose 2d over 3d to be our only focus,

No one ever suggested that either, and in fact repeatedly stated that there was no reason to 'choose' but if faced with your 'child, dog and truck' scenario would obviously save the child first. So I don't understand your point here. I'm also wondering whether you even read the article?

I answered this in the dignity for doomed dogs thread. There really isn't any point in me trying to discuss the broader issues of this problem, if the broader issues do not matter to anyone else but me.

My points have been made on these matters as have everyone else's. Time for me to leave it up to others to discuss at this point. I seem to be a thorn in the side of beloved bias here.

[Monica]

There really isn't any point in me trying to discuss the broader issues of this problem, if the broader issues do not matter to anyone else but me.

LOL! We spent over 3 years and 411,338 posts delving deeply into "broader issues."

I seem to be a thorn in the side of beloved bias here.

No, not at all. You are entitled to your opinions, just as everyone else is. We were just puzzled as to why you seem fixated on pointing out violent extremism when none of us are violent extremists.

It's kinda like all of us are gathered together discussing ways we can get to the root issues that can promote world peace, and you keep saying "but there are terrorists!" Well yes of course there are terrorists. And the best way to eliminate terrorists is for the rest of us to do what we can to address the underlying problems. The terrorists have their own karma and we can't control them. But we can do our part to address the underlying issues that spawn violence in the first place.

[Diana]

There really isn't any point in me trying to discuss the broader issues of this problem, if the broader issues do not matter to anyone else but me.

LOL! We spent over 3 years and 411,338 posts delving deeply into "broader issues."

I seem to be a thorn in the side of beloved bias here.

No, not at all. You are entitled to your opinions, just as everyone else is. We were just puzzled as to why you seem fixated on pointing out violent extremism when none of us are violent extremists.

It's kinda like all of us are gathered together discussing ways we can get to the root issues that can promote world peace, and you keep saying "but there are terrorists!" Well yes of course there are terrorists. And the best way to eliminate terrorists is for the rest of us to do what we can to address the underlying problems. The terrorists have their own karma and we can't control them. But we can do our part to address the underlying issues that spawn violence in the first place.

Well said, Monica.

I'm not sure why those here who have compassion for the animal kingdom have repeatedly been perceived as (and accused of being) extremists. :-/

[Monica]

I'm not sure why those here who have compassion for the animal kingdom have repeatedly been perceived as (and accused of being) extremists. :-/

I don't get that either. I mean, heeeeeello, there is a difference between someone discussing the spiritual implications of eating animals, in a spiritually-based discussion forum, and someone who vandalizes medical labs to rescue the monkeys. (And for the record, I've never even heard of any animal activists burning down a restaurant...but maybe I missed that bit of news.)

But whatever...I had a co-worker who called me "extremist" because I didn't eat meat or junk food. I left her alone but she kept leaving candy bars on my desk (which don't even register as edible to me) and insisting that she would "get me to eat meat" which I found highly obnoxious.

Who's the rude, pushy extremist here?

[Shin'Ar]

There really isn't any point in me trying to discuss the broader issues of this problem, if the broader issues do not matter to anyone else but me.

LOL! We spent over 3 years and 411,338 posts delving deeply into "broader issues."

I seem to be a thorn in the side of beloved bias here.

No, not at all. You are entitled to your opinions, just as everyone else is. We were just puzzled as to why you seem fixated on pointing out violent extremism when none of us are violent extremists.

It's kinda like all of us are gathered together discussing ways we can get to the root issues that can promote world peace, and you keep saying "but there are terrorists!" Well yes of course there are terrorists. And the best way to eliminate terrorists is for the rest of us to do what we can to address the underlying problems. The terrorists have their own karma and we can't control them. But we can do our part to address the underlying issues that spawn violence in the first place.

Well said, Monica.

I'm not sure why those here who have compassion for the animal kingdom have repeatedly been perceived as (and accused of being) extremists. :-/

Now you see there! How is it that my trying to point out how extreme activism, and the fact that much of that sort of thing exists in the world, which should not be a shock to any intelligent observant person, gets twisted into the suggestion that I am accusing anyone here of being such?

Where did I say anything that pointed to anyone here as an extremist?

In my mind, either that remark is made deliberately to degrade what I have said because it is a burden to you that you do not want to consider, or you really did interpret something that I said in here as being distinctly accusation. If the latter is the case than I suggest you read what I have been saying all along and try to find a point where I made such a deliberate accusation toward someone, or if it is the first case than I cannot help you there. you will twist things in whatever way you choose to twist them irregardless of my insistence on your error.

And if it was someone else that made such accusations toward you then may I suggest that you make sure that your posts indicate rather then the way they seem to be directed here.

[Diana]

Now you see there! How is it that my trying to point out how extreme activism, and the fact that much of that sort of thing exists in the world, which should not be a shock to any intelligent observant person, gets twisted into the suggestion that I am accusing anyone here of being such?

Where did I say anything that pointed to anyone here as an extremist?

Fair enough. I retract any personal reference.

I'm just not sure why the subject of extremism keeps coming up in reference to any thread/post about compassion for animals. Surely, there are many more people who care about any subject than those who are extreme about it. The percentage of any extremists is very small, so why use that as the basis for making a post here--how does it apply? (I refer to general posts, not specific to anyone in particular.)

[Shin'Ar]

I'm not sure why those here who have compassion for the animal kingdom have repeatedly been perceived as (and accused of being) extremists. :-/

I don't get that either. I mean, heeeeeello, there is a difference between someone discussing the spiritual implications of eating animals, in a spiritually-based discussion forum, and someone who vandalizes medical labs to rescue the monkeys. (And for the record, I've never even heard of any animal activists burning down a restaurant...but maybe I missed that bit of news.)

But whatever...I had a co-worker who called me "extremist" because I didn't eat meat or junk food. I left her alone but she kept leaving candy bars on my desk (which don't even register as edible to me) and insisting that she would "get me to eat meat" which I found highly obnoxious.

Who's the rude, pushy extremist here?

I think you guys are completely missing my point. and I really can't see how because I have constantly made it clear that noone is accusing and I have also clearly stated that I think it is okay to show compassion and have such noble causes.

I used the extreme action of burning down a restaurant as an example of extremity. I am pretty sure that you guys are smart enough to know that and also smart enough to know that I have not accused you of wanting to do such a thing, so what am I left to think about this. It seems like deliberate evasion of the points that I bring up.

We all know that some activists take their causes to extremity and become terrorists.

We all know that there are many people who are so fundamental about their beliefs that they will go to extremes to bring their goals to fruition.

Just because you would not do so doesn't take away from the credibility of what I am saying, and to use that as an excuse to dismiss what I am saying is not the way to have a beneficial discussion.

I bring up the role of extremity in this discussion because it is pertinent to the debate about WHY some people choose the way they do, and WHY compassion and common sense seems to fall by the wayside in these circumstances.

I point out that because of the complexity of society and human nature, that such matters will often result in extremity, and that we should consider these aspects of our reality when trying to make sense of the differences between those who choose one way and those who choose another.

I point out that though what you are trying to suggest is the simple matter of saving dogs from being put to sleep, is really a matter of much deeper and far reaching issues than simple common sense and rational thought processes. Culture, religion, human desire, and many other aspects of the human social experience are at work behind these complex problems.

And they will not be solved by standing one's ground and declaring that it is just a matter of compassion and common sense in complete and utter ignorance of the many aspects that I have pointed out.

Your cause is noble and worthwhile of your compassionate effort and you are to be respected for your concern and interest. More people should care as much.

We love you for your commitment and your compassion and in no way judge you for any of your choices.

That does not mean that as I try to discuss the deeper aspects of this discussion with you, and the things that in my opinion are serious issues that create many of the problems with which you are struggling to understand, that you should take offense or feel as though I do not approve of your compassion or that I am being compassionate.

I hate that animals are suffering. I hate that children are suffering. I hate that there are people that actually considering suffering to be catalyst for evolution. I hate that there are people who ignore such suffering. And I hate that there are people who make such things even worse by their extreme ways of dealing with the problems.

I am a Being of Light and Love.

But I am a being that tries to consider the All in all of its aspects so that I do not fall victim to the ignorance of those who do become terrorists and extremists. And that means understanding that the All, and the human race, is too complex a process of being to tackle with a narrow minded attitude that ignores the details and complexity as though their way alone is the only way that life should be lived.

I agree that compassion is not in the act of abuse or killing, or any extreme activity. I agree that compassion is in mercy and concern and love and respect for all beings.

But I am trying with all of my heart to help you realize that life is not that simple, and that there are many other humans sharing this experience with you that do not share in your definitions of compassion nor will they want to give up their religious and cultural traditions to conform to what you might think is the only way.

Have your say, bring awareness to the problems, but consider the complex issues involved and you will have a much easier time dealing with your struggle and understanding the criticisms you will face as you tackle those issues.

You might even have greater success in your efforts if you actually understand and acknowledge these deeper issues because you may tackle the problems from a different angle because of your higher understanding. And such thinking will also prevent you from ever getting caught up in the more emotional attachment to extremity that is ever present.

What you must battle here is not just their ignorance as you see it, but also your own. It is lack of understanding and evasion of wisdom that really creates the problems, on both sides.

---

Now you see there! How is it that my trying to point out how extreme activism, and the fact that much of that sort of thing exists in the world, which should not be a shock to any intelligent observant person, gets twisted into the suggestion that I am accusing anyone here of being such?

Where did I say anything that pointed to anyone here as an extremist?

Fair enough. I retract any personal reference.

I'm just not sure why the subject of extremism keeps coming up in reference to any thread/post about compassion for animals. Surely, there are many more people who care about any subject than those who are extreme about it. The percentage of any extremists is very small, so why use that as the basis for making a post here--how does it apply? (I refer to general posts, not specific to anyone in particular.)

Well I am not sure why you are unaware of the great number of emotional issues in society that create many aspects of extremist activity, but I am pretty sure that you have seen everything from the activist spray painting a fur coat to people being shot at in boats as they attempt to interfere with whale hunters. And behind the scenes there are wars taking place involving espionage and assassination where corporate economy is involved in these seemingly smaller issues.

To pretend that these issues are just little matters of spaying a pet, or choosing to be a vegetarian does not consider the real dynamics surrounding the complexity of these problems.

Wouldn't it be great if life and its solutions were that simple!

You could just post a video of a slaughterhouse and the whole world would become vegetarians and not one more cow would become a hamburger.

Wouldn't that be great?

[BrownEye]

I had a shotgun aimed at me by a group of loggers when i tried to ride the original trail on my mountain bike.

[Monica]

I think you guys are completely missing my point. and I really can't see how because I have constantly made it clear that noone is accusing and I have also clearly stated that I think it is okay to show compassion and have such noble causes.

I used the extreme action of burning down a restaurant as an example of extremity. I am pretty sure that you guys are smart enough to know that and also smart enough to know that I have not accused you of wanting to do such a thing, so what am I left to think about this. It seems like deliberate evasion of the points that I bring up.

Thank you for the explanation, Shin'Ar. It didn't change anything for me because I already understood your point. I just don't see the point of discussing that point, because, to me, it's already such a given, so obvious that the world is complex and people are complex and there's no way I could single-handedly change it, so what's the point of discussing something that's impossible?

Maybe I am still misunderstanding you, but your comments seem to suggest that you misunderstood our objective with this discussion. Our objective isn't to change this complex planet overnight just by talking about it on an internet discussion forum! That would be foolhardy!

We are Law of One students, and thus some of us believe in a holographic universe. Because of this, we do see value in any activity that might raise the consciousness of even one single person. We are holographic. That one single person might send out ripples...

Ever heard of the Power of One?

This discussion might not directly save many animals. But, in contrast to what you seem to think we're doing, I see what we're doing as vitally important. I see it as probing deeply into the root issues of how otherwise spiritually-oriented people can attempt to justify what is obviously a contradiction to the core principles they believe in.

Again, thank you for expressing your views, Shin'Ar. Speaking for myself, I'm not trying to evade anything uncomfortable. I'm just not really interested in discussing the complexity of the world because it's already obvious to me.

[Unbound]

We seek within.

[Diana]

We are concerned little with ethics, for they may be debated, but rather work with balance of nature.

I agree: ethics, morals, right and wrong, are subjective and change with time, circumstances, and societies. I do think there are underlying truths or tendencies in a universe such as: change is constant, all things are in motion (or vibrating as in String Theory), and all life is sacred and important (arbitrary examples).

I will add that beyond balance of nature or symbiotic equilibrium within a system, which one might say is passive (in that one merges harmoniously with what IS), there is evolution of consciousness which can be actively envisioned and worked with, transcending linear time and "hooking" into systems outside of time, working with all that COULD BE.

[indolering]

We are concerned little with ethics, for they may be debated, but rather work with balance of nature.

I agree: ethics, morals, right and wrong, are subjective and change with time, circumstances, and societies. I do think there are underlying truths or tendencies in a universe such as: change is constant, all things are in motion (or vibrating as in String Theory), and all life is sacred and important (arbitrary examples).

I will add that beyond balance of nature or symbiotic equilibrium within a system, which one might say is passive (in that one merges harmoniously with what IS), there is evolution of consciousness which can be actively envisioned and worked with, transcending linear time and "hooking" into systems outside of time, working with all that COULD BE.

I basically agree with you here - spiritual evolution is a primary motive for advanced 3D humans. But I would say that ethics are much more than temporal or arbitrary judgments - I think they stem from the Creator in His aspect of Love. The ethics of societies may vary and change from time to time but I think there is an underlying constant in basic ethical considerations which I feel emanates from the highest spiritual realms. We can see the same basic ethics manifest in societies ancient and modern, here and abroad. There are variations and nuances but there are themes which remain constant.

[BrownEye]

I was going through the meat thread and this stood out to me. I had pasted it as a misinterpreted quote, which was quickly misinterpreted yet again right after I quoted it.

42.7 Questioner: I would like to try to make an analogy for third-density of this concept. Many entities here feel great compassion for relieving the physical problems of third-density other-selves by administering to them in many ways, with food if there is hunger as there is now in the African nations, by bringing them medicine if they feel that there is a need to minister to them medically, and being selfless in all of these services to a very great extent.

This is creating a vibration that is in harmony with green-ray or fourth-density but it is not balanced with the understanding of fifth-density that these entities are experiencing catalysts and a more balanced administration to their needs would be to provide them with the learning necessary to reach the state of awareness of fourth-density than it would be to minister to their physical needs at this time. Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is incorrect. To a mind/body/spirit complex which is starving, the appropriate response is the feeding of the body. You may extrapolate from this.

On the other hand, however, you are correct in your assumption that the green ray response is not as refined as that which has been imbued with wisdom. This wisdom enables the entity to appreciate its contributions to the planetary consciousness by the quality of its being without regard to activity or behavior which expects results upon visible planes

So, while someone took the wisdom quote as the answer to backing out of an active stance of compassion, it was also not mentioned as appropriate.

Also from my understanding, this blue ray wisdom is describing clairvoyance and knowing the metaphysical workings beyond the veil.

[Monica]

I basically agree with you here - spiritual evolution is a primary motive for advanced 3D humans. But I would say that ethics are much more than temporal or arbitrary judgments - I think they stem from the Creator in His aspect of Love. The ethics of societies may vary and change from time to time but I think there is an underlying constant in basic ethical considerations which I feel emanates from the highest spiritual realms. We can see the same basic ethics manifest in societies ancient and modern, here and abroad. There are variations and nuances but there are themes which remain constant.

I agree. There are, apparently, guidelines for the STO and STS paths, and even a threshold of polarity for each. Ethics come into play for those on the STO path.

This is why I think the idea of 'anything goes' shows a misinterpretation of these concepts.

[Parsons]

Sure one can picket the store. One can hand out pamphlets. One can do exposes on animal cruelty, and all of these things might have some affect for the betterment of 2D beings. But if we act without consideration of compromise, and do not consider how our consequences are going to affect others, whether they might seem void of compassion toward the animals they eat or not, we do not act in the best interest of our humanity. If we choose 2d over 3d to be our only focus, and excuse that as an honor and responsibility, we are simply slapping the food out of the mouths of our neighbors simply because we choose to believe that we are somehow better than they. They may be ignorant, and desensitized, but they have as much right to choose their path as we do, and to walk that path just as we walk ours, free from persecution because others might not agree with our ways and choices.

Act on your compassion, act on your compulsion, but never act in extremity without concern for humanity.

One might consider 2D to be as important as 3D, and that there should not be any priority. But we all know that one would rush to grab the little boy first and worry about the cat later.

Our lesson in this density is that we must bring harmony to humanity, and in order to accomplish that we must consider compromise for the sake of all.

I agree strongly with your sentiments here. You seem to be able to express this much more succinctly than I am able.

Allow me to try explain again my sentiments towards this whole situation of 2D animals not being treated with the respect/reverence they deserve:

The quickest and simplest path that I can see to solving both problems is to help awaken the 3D entities that are causing the problem in the first place with their behavior. Only when they realize on their own that they are not treating our 2D brethren with the proper respect will the problem stop. If there is demand for this in our current 3D society, there will always be animals being farmed for food.

If people realize this practice of eating flesh is inappropriate unless it is treated as a sacrament (read this somewhere in Q'uo material, will try to find link when not at work), then there will no longer be any demand for this and both the 3D entity and 2D entities will benefit greatly and be more harmonious.

Edit: Of course when I am looking for the quote I can't find it again.:@

[BrownEye]

[BrownEye]

[BrownEye]

---

[indolering]

Once again, Charlie tells it like it is, and explains why we need to wake up and do something to challenge the Orwellian nightmare....

[Cyan]

For a great long while, I had a dream in mind in my evolution, in my desire to develope machines. And I saw that in the plant form is the perfect form of growth, but without mobility, and to add mobility to the plant form would be difficult, and timeconsuming.

Instead of adding mobility to the plant form, i created these little animals that carry pieces of the plant to all over the world. These were found to be good but the plant wanted more.

At this point agriculture and such seemed like a good idea.

But due to the need of man for food combined with agriculture + veil = enslavement to survivalism. This happened with all attempts to get other plants and animals to work with man to maintain their edible plant friends so that they could focus their edible into one compartment and all their non edible = friend category in the other. But this had a effect of leaking brutality over due to cognitive dissodance inherant in man.

So the next logical step would be for man to start developing along lines of expanding habitable zone on planet both up and down (underground and higher altitudes) and space and underwater. Then through that expand the "new earth" that is designed from the point of view of plants evolving towards 3rd assisted by human made 1st/6th made companions with the occasional actual human in the system for communication and so on. So that the plants would experience 3rd D next and create a unique environment where the humans convert to oversight role on watching this aspect of evolution.

So the reason the "white man" was given this control is, in my dream view, that because the red man was so relucant to "do his job for earth" and thats to build as large a possible base for as many possible different animal life forms as possible. Because the victory is dependant on technology and technology is depedant on providence.

Not sure if that helps anyone but i thought i'd write it down.

[TheFifty9Sound]

I know I'm pretty late to the game in the extremist/activism debate, but I haven't been around for a while, and I just felt the need share this excerpt from "Still Life With Woodpecker". I'm not accusing anyone here of "tunnel vision", but I believe this is an interesting perspective on how these debates even begin in the first place, and why they can get so nasty.

“...ideas are definitely unstable, they not only CAN be misused, they invite misuse--and the better the idea the more volatile it is. That's because only the better ideas turn into dogma, and it is this process whereby a fresh, stimulating, humanly helpful idea is changed into robot dogma that is deadly. In terms of hazardous vectors released, the transformation of ideas into dogma rivals the transformation of hydrogen into helium, uranium into lead, or innocence into corruption. And it is nearly as relentless.

The problem starts at the secondary level, not with the originator or developer of the idea but with the people who are attracted by it, who adopt it, who cling to it until their last nail breaks, and who invariably lack the overview, flexibility, imagination, and most importantly, sense of humor, to maintain it in the spirit in which it was hatched. Ideas are made by masters, dogma by disciples, and the Buddha is always killed on the road.

There is a particularly unattractive and discouragingly common affliction called tunnel vision, which, for all the misery it causes, ought to top the job list at the World Health Organization. Tunnel vision is a disease in which perception is restricted by ignorance and distorted by vested interest. Tunnel vision is caused by an optic fungus that multiplies when the brain is less energetic than the ego. It is complicated by exposure to politics. When a good idea is run through the filters and compressors of ordinary tunnel vision, it not only comes out reduced in scale and value but in its new dogmatic configuration produces effects the opposite of those for which it originally was intended.

That is how the loving ideas of Jesus Christ became the sinister cliches of Christianity. That is why virtually every revolution in history has failed: the oppressed, as soon as they seize power, turn into the oppressors, resorting to totalitarian tactics to "protect the revolution." That is why minorities seeking the abolition of prejudice become intolerant, minorities seeking peace become militant, minorities seeking equality become self-righteous, and minorities seeking liberation become hostile (a tight a****** being the first symptom of self-repression).”

[BrownEye]

Within hours of seeing the video, the USDA's Office of Inspector General sent investigators who found evidence of "egregious inhumane handling and treatment of livestock."
-
even if animals are headed to slaughter, California law says they must not be subject to "needless suffering."

[BrownEye]

75.15 Questioner: The chink then, as I understand it, was originally created by the decision of Jesus to take the path of martyrdom? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is, in relation to this instrument, quite correct. It is aware of certain over-balances towards love, even to martyrdom but has not yet, to any significant degree, balanced these distortions. We do not imply that this course of unbridled compassion has any fault but affirm its perfection. It is an example of love which has served as beacon to many.

For those who seek further, the consequences of martyrdom must be considered, for in martyrdom lies the end of the opportunity, in the density of the martyr, to offer love and light. Each entity must seek its deepest path.

[Monica]

75.15 Questioner: The chink then, as I understand it, was originally created by the decision of Jesus to take the path of martyrdom? Is this correct?

Ra: I am Ra. This is, in relation to this instrument, quite correct. It is aware of certain over-balances towards love, even to martyrdom but has not yet, to any significant degree, balanced these distortions. We do not imply that this course of unbridled compassion has any fault but affirm its perfection. It is an example of love which has served as beacon to many.

For those who seek further, the consequences of martyrdom must be considered, for in martyrdom lies the end of the opportunity, in the density of the martyr, to offer love and light. Each entity must seek its deepest path.

I've seen people here at B4 refer to Jesus as though he were foolish, and to any sort of compassion-based activism as 'unwise' and 'unbalanced.' As though they, in their advanced 5D or 6D wisdom, know better than us lower entities who haven't learned the folly of such things yet.

They seem to miss the 'perfection' and 'beacon to many' part.

[zenmaster]

Being unwise and unbalanced has nothing to do with perfection. I think that's what you might be missing.

[Monica]

Being unwise and unbalanced has nothing to do with perfection. I think that's what you might be missing.

Explain?

[zenmaster]

You are attempting to contrast your perception of lack of balance with lack of perfection.

[Monica]

You are attempting to contrast your perception of lack of balance with lack of perfection.

I can see how it may have seemed that way, but that idea didn't even occur to me, so no, that's not what I was doing.

[zenmaster]

Of course not, only the other people were doing it.

[Monica]

Of course not, only the other people were doing it.

What other people? It's just you and me, zen.