​A few weeks ago, after ten years of continuous hard service in all weathers, one of my car magnet ribbons was finally too tired, faded and peeling to be of further service. I retired it to the waste bin. Throughout its ten years of display, it flew in the face of popular sentiment. At the peak of the time when so many vehicles were proudly displaying those familiar yellow ‘Support Our Troops’ bumper stickers and magnets, mine was blue and white and featured a dove. It said ‘Make Peace. It Spreads’.

I guess that for many, their 'Support Our Troops' vehicular embellishment is a patriotic gesture and that to make any contradictory or dissenting statement may seem offensively counter-cultural. Perhaps unsurprisingly therefore, my ribbon was the only one of its kind that I have ever noticed in Canada. (Although I have seen a few of a similar ilk in the US, most notably in Oregon.) It was and remains such a rarity, that I can’t even find a photo to show you.

From the evidence of ‘my ribbon vs. everyone else’s’ ratio, it is clear my beliefs on the subject of aggression are in the minority. That said, I’m sure that every single one of those who sported the yellow ribbon fervently wished that their loved ones, friends, or soldiers in general, did not have to be in strange lands, laying their lives on the line. Nonetheless, it always struck me that such a widespread expression of opinion served in some way to support sending troops to god knows where in the first place.
 
I cannot help but wonder if people actually fear being contrary about what is obviously a sensitive issue. In the meantime, notional ‘wars on terror’, peace keeping missions and unsolicited interventions in the politics of other countries, carried out in the name of protecting democracy, seem almost de rigueur. We are well beyond the era when Peaceniks abounded and anti-war feelings were at least moderately acceptable in society; but can so many really subscribe to the acceptability of aggression as a solution to anything?
 
I once took a Rorschach Test that concluded my deepest desire, above all else, was to achieve peace in all things. I’ll happily own that, yet I would not necessarily describe myself as a pacifist, if only because I have never been in a situation where war or conflict has directly affected me or forced me into any kind of choice, either in thought or action; and I can even conceive of situations where I would endorse that aggression seemingly must be met with aggression.
 
Consideration of all of this led me to the one thing I can do: Ask for etheric input. So for your consideration, here is AAM’s verbatim input on the subject.
 
“The need to engage in conflict outside of one’s personal relationships or circumstances which immediately affect, or may be controlled by the individual, is a feature of the midterm soul state of being.
 
It stems from the innate belief (that multiple lifetimes of experience have yet to dispossess the individual of) that defence or protection of someone, or something, is not only necessary, but a worthy component of a lifetime’s journey.
 
Since all midterm lifetimes feature a dissociative element, wherein the individual looks for purpose outside their own state of being, this may manifest itself in many forms. Those who own this particular dogma may find expression for their deepest need in some form of militaristic service or authoritarian exercise of power, wherein they are able to control the actions of others, even to the point of determining their right to life or death.
 
It is a phase that is unique in the mindsets of all of those who have selected this particular pathway. At varying stages of their development, these souls will experience an imperative at levels ranging from the need to protect one individual or small group, through to a nationally based motivation. At its maximum level of impact, it may incorporate all levels.
 
As the strength of the dogma wanes, as it inevitably must if the individual is to progress on their ascension pathway, the attraction becomes less of a passionate sense of serving a cause and fulfilling a purpose. It transmutes to become a casual attraction to something embedded within soul DNA, that the individual may decide to respond to, if only so as to provide for their livelihood.
 
Those who seek power for power’s sake (who themselves are inevitably young souls) will exploit those possessed of the protective dogma. Without recourse to spiritual conscience, which is a formulation of later stages of soul development, they will pursue harmful agendas that do not serve the highest good of all, nor their individual highest good, did they but know it. Indeed, they will be convinced of the rightness of their beliefs and actions.
 
Thus, the learning curve of one plays upon the willingness of another. Young souls may, with ease misappropriate the intentions of midterm souls, despite the latter being better placed to incorporate awareness of that which they bring about and perpetrate. 
 
Since the majority of the human population currently experience their existence as midterm souls, there is no shortage of those who are willing to carry out the behests of aggressive and self-focused motivations. The supply of such minded individuals is significantly augmented by those who were never scheduled to work through this particular dogma, yet feel themselves obliged to incorporate its thinking and actions as part of their being during a lifetime. Ego, the collective consciousness and peer/societal pressure all elevate sentiments which make scaled aggression appear acceptable.
 
Were it the case that no one was prepared to hold their own interests above all others, and were the predilection of the need to dominate not a feature of so many egos, there would be no need for aggression or conflict. The destructive nature of oppression and an unwillingness to let others live out their lives in peace, following their own pathway, is only recognised at the most immediate and basic of levels. Yet this is a piece of spiritual wisdom that all must come upon if they are to progress to their next level of soul development. 
 
The aggrandisement of the dogma, in itself, serves to perpetrate the acceptability of acts of aggression. Even passive sponsorship of aggression is harmful. Lionisation of those who participate in conflict may be deemed appropriate where protection of a peaceful society is necessary to preserve the advancement of the learning they have achieved; yet so much aggression has been based upon misguided ideals and the pursuit of dominance for dominance sake.

Suppression of those who have achieved learning that has led to an achievement of balance and a peaceable existence across all of the elements of balance we have previously outlined to you, is a spiritual misfeasance that only results in further lifetimes of repeated learning. 
 
The wisdom of this learning must be broadly perceived so as to incorporate the true nature of all that should be understood. This, in turn, must be acted upon.
 
I am Archangel Michael and so it is.”
 
So, what would I conclude from this? That we’re an easily influenced species and a significant percentage of us are susceptible to harmful acts of aggression that we must ultimately recognise the futility of and stop?

Yes, but that’s rather obvious and as you already know, messages from the etheric can be subtle and easy to misinterpret for our own ends.
 
Behind AAM's input is the implication that if we allow ourselves to tolerate or offer tacit support to aggressive domination of others, we simply serve to perpetuate the very thing we all need to rid ourselves of. If we can’t, we are not part of the solution, we are part of the problem. And we need to be the solution.
 
But if we limit our beliefs about the need for the cessation of aggression and suppression to the fellow members of our species, we’re missing the bigger picture. The ‘do no harm mentality’ should apply to all species. 

If we don’t see that and act upon it, we’ve still got an awfully long way to go.

If you’re expecting that I’m about to embark upon a philosophical and deeply meaningful diatribe at this point, don’t worry, I was just struck by something I saw today that I’ve been reflecting upon.

It was a true story about two cows that formed a firm friendship. One was blind and the other acted as its seeing-eye/guide cow, until cruel fate separated them. But then a rescue sanctuary took a hand and reunited them, providing a wonderfully happy ending for both.

It’s a great story, but it wasn’t the caring between the two cows that caused me to be reflective. Nor was it the care shown by the rescue sanctuary – wonderful as it is.

The video of their re-encounter, shared on the Internet, garnered countless views and a huge number of comments. One of the ones that attracted the most attention and responses, raising it to the top of the viewing list, was the following:

I loved this story until I read some of the ignorant comments about “animal torture”.  Why does this have to be a vegetarian thing? I’m a farm girl, we raised animals for food the way God intended, but I never saw a man care more for animals than my daddy! Farmers are not the animal’s enemy. Sad to see so many ignorant comments. If u want to rescue animals, u should do it. It’s a nice thing to do. If u don’t wanna eat meat, then don’t, it’s your choice.  but don’t judge that what u do not know.

This is my fourth blog about farmers and their ‘caring’. I’m not certain if, in this case, it means providing care for the animals in the sense of feeding, watering, tending to health issues etc.; or if it means care for in the emotional sense of the word, as in care about the animals and want the best for them, because there's a huge difference.

If it’s the former, great. Clearly the author’s 'Daddy' looked after their animals well and I accept that. At least, up until he sent them for slaughter, prematurely ending their lives, depriving them of (on average across all commercially farmed animals) a staggering 91% of their potential natural lifespan. That, to me, certainly doesn’t qualify as caring in the emotional sense at all. I have difficulty reconciling truly caring in an emotional manner, with having a creature put to death for profit.

On the “Farmers are not the animal’s enemy” front, it called to mind another argument I saw recently,  that farmers who look after their animals and show them compassion (i.e. they care for them) are the equivalent of those who assisted the Jews during the holocaust. I pointed out that using this parallel, farmers were the equivalent of concentration camp guards, albeit ones who didn’t beat the prisoners in their charge, and perhaps spoke nicely to them on the way to the gas chambers. I have to admit that I can’t imagine that anyone who is not, in any objective analysis, an enemy, would willingly let a helpless creature they (emotionally) cared for, go to their death. Can you?

So, do farmers care for their animals? Can they care? Really, truly?

I’ve given it a great deal of thought and I conclude that perhaps farmers can care for their animals, if only in some kind of emotionally withheld way. If they cared full-on, in the way they might care about their kids, or their farm, or their livelihood, or the money, they couldn’t afford to expend the emotional output of being attached to those who will ultimately be their victims. It would be devastating, surely? In fact, I think there must be a different set of emotional norms that farmers are subject to, because the animals that some care so deeply about are only kept because of the profit that will eventually be derived from them. 

Even then, I’m sure it is likely that many would feel bad for the animals they consign to slaughter houses, even though they are coming from their (now almost legendary) ‘humane’ farms that make killing helpless creatures seem acceptable because they have provided a better life than that experienced by factory farmed animals...

I would have to say that if they really cared in an all-out, nothing held back, manner, they wouldn’t kill them at all and convert their farms to produce something without a face that was edible; or even start their own farm sanctuaries (even though that’s not quite as profitable); or get another life. And yes, I know it’s not that simple. I know farmers are often economically bound.

But let’s return to the comment that set me musing, because it provides a 'get out' clause that lets all farmers off the hook and means that caring doesn’t have to be emotionally giving. It explains why it’s OK to care, but not really care that much. And that’s because farmers are doing things “the way God intended”!

Can we assume we know this to be the case because it’s in the Bible? And can we safely assume that we know everything in the Bible is true? Can we safely set aside concerns that it was written by men who could basically write anything to justify their actions? And is it safe to ignore the fact that it wasn’t written at a time when eating meat was a lot easier way to feed people in a parched land with poor irrigation, than growing crops. But should we give pause to the fact that the same tome we are relying upon is also full of socially repugnant things (ritual sacrifice, slavery, abuse of women etc.) that are described as not only legitimate things to do, but prescribed as the way things should be? And can we in all  reasonableness ignore that fact that if we were to do any of them today, we’d be jailed?

Even if we can, in good conscience, ignore some of the factors above, is it reasonable that an all-loving God would create wonderful, gentle creatures and then not only countenance their killing, but tell men (and I do mean men), through a book he didn’t actually write (but presumably OK’d somehow), that these same beautiful beings that he so carefully crafted (and maybe cared for too?) were put on earth for men to torture, rape, abuse, terrify, murder and eat. Perhaps he added that it was alright if men cared for them first? Why would a benevolent loving God choose to apply different standards of care to different beings? Why would He not cherish them all, as representative aspects from and of himself? Can we seriously rely upon the old standard that God created man in His own image?

Here’s what I know, as a channel.

God DID NOT put animals here for us to mistreat. They are here because their lives have value. Because their experience of the ascension pathway, albeit different from ours, is every bit as valid and important as ours. Because we can learn from them, and they from us. Because it is important to learn to co-exist and respect their lives. Because it is vital that we all learn to care not just for them, but about them. And as we do so, we may become less than heinous ego driven aberrations that believe it’s all about us. We may truly come to appreciate the connection of all things, and in so doing, advance and grow beyond what we have become. If you want to ascend, it’s key.

I know this because an archangel told me.

In 1969 I was taken to the cinema to see the movie ‘Ring of Bright Water’. If you’ve never seen it, it tells the story of a London dwelling man called Graham (played by Bill Travers) who sees an otter in a pet store, takes pity on it, buys it and ends up leaving his job to move to the wilds of Scotland where the otter (which he names Mij) can live freely.
 
The viewer watches in moderate discomfort as the otter charmingly but effectively wrecking Graham’s life. Ultimately though, Graham recognises that Mij has saved him from the crushing mundanity of his suburban life, as much as he has saved the beautiful wild creature from cruel captivity. They form a unique intra-species bond. 
 
A happy ending looms, and in the penultimate scene, the two are walking side by side, Graham on a track, while Mij makes his way playfully along in the water filled ditch at the roadside. He joyfully romps ahead of his human companion, only to be intentionally killed by a shovel wielding ditch digger. In explanation, the hapless labourer offers that he thought it was "just an otter”.  
 
That day, I left the movie theatre in stunned horror and great distress. How could the man have killed the otter and not known what he was doing? I simply didn’t understand the phrase “just an otter”. What did “just” mean in this context?
 
Years later, I know precisely what this means. Let me illustrate.
 
A little while ago, I saw an advertisement on the Internet showing this precise picture, captioned exactly as it is here. 

I was shocked by the implications. The posters of these two advertisements utterly failed to recognise the unique soul within the body. Or if they did, they had chosen to accord it no respect or worth, as if it were something inconsequential.

​This suggests a mindset that believes non-human creatures are “just animals”, which by implication this means:

• They don't matter.
• They are not important.
• They have no rights.
• They are irrelevant.
• They are nothing.
• They have no identity.
• They are depersonalised chattels.
• They have no worth other than a fiscal value.
• They have no purpose or reason for existence other than to be a source of profit.

I struggled to comprehend this, until the following parallel was suggested to me.
 
If an alien race came to visit our planet, they would have to be immensely sophisticated in all aspects of their existence, capable of undertakings far beyond anything we humans can currently aspire to. It is likely that whilst we would certainly make an effort to communicate with them, but to them, our efforts would seem beyond primitive and indecipherable, so much so that they would be unable to tell that we were attempting a dialogue, or understand that we were trying influence them in any way. And if they did recognise our efforts or even common frames of reference with them, they may simply choose to ignore what they saw. From their perspective, humans may appear to have very little intelligence.

Perhaps they might treat us with a certain degree of benign decency; at least that is, until they got hungry. Then they would randomly take specimens of humanity and consume them, probably in vast numbers. And because of their all-round superiority, we would be utterly powerless to do anything about it.   
 
So how would we react? 

• We would be mortified that another species could have so little regard for our right to life. 
• We would be angered that these beings could rip apart families to consume our children, or relatives. 
• We would grieve terribly for the loss of friends and loved ones. 
• We would live in constant fear of the knowledge that it could be our turn next. 
• We would expect such a sophisticated life form to realise the error of their ways and recognise us for what we are: distinct individual beings with personalities, intelligence, emotions and souls! 

 ​
Nonetheless, to them their treatment of us would be nothing incorrect, because from their perspective, every last one of us would be of no consequence or worth. After all, we would be ‘just a human’.
 
If you consider yourself to be anything more than “just a human”, is it really such a huge step to realise that there’s no such thing as “just an animal”? Do you fully understand that until you are able to identify the sentient spirit in other beings, accord them respect and not deny them their right to their existence, there can be no progress upon your ascension pathway? Time to wise up.

I know this because an Archangel told me.

Can you imagine yourself at a time when you are a newly born infant?

Of course, you can’t remember it, so just imagine it.

You are unblemished; untouched; a clean slate; a blank piece of paper. Pure.

But you’re not much in the thinking department, so those around you will make decisions on your behalf.

From the time you are born, to the time you become fully aware that your choices are your own, they will do what they consider to be right for you.

What is good, appropriate, normal and acceptable will not be your choice, it will be theirs.

They will decide everything about every aspect of your life until the day comes when you choose to think and decide for yourself.

Those decisions taken on your behalf will stay with you for many years to come.

As such, you will grow up to be the object of reasoning based upon tradition, culture and societal norms, with maybe just a little bit of contemporary thinking thrown into the mix.

You will effectively be the product of those who are in a position to influence you; so in many ways, you are totally at their mercy.

It’s the way things are.

 
What shapes you in these formative years will create a set of habits that you may never question or see a need to break free from.

If you are so inclined, you may never actually think for yourself at all.

Instead, you can carelessly adopt the choices that were imposed upon you.

There is no need to challenge what is good and bad, right or wrong about most things that happen in your life.

Your upbringing will have already dictated how you should act and respond to much of what you will face.

You may have a rebellious phase at some point. You may even disavow everything you get from your key influencers.

But most people don’t.

Somewhere within you will be implanted attitudes towards politics, religion, values, race, sex, and a host of other things that were, in their origins, never truly your own.

In all likelihood, you will be content to be a reflection of the vestiges of your upbringing, if only because to change deeply rooted beliefs is unsettling.

It’s the way things are.
 

The most common habit you are unlikely to challenge is your attitude to what you eat.

What you are fed as an infant automatically becomes right, normal and acceptable.

But did you know that almost all children are born with an innate love of animals?

They’re fascinated by them. They want to touch them. They want to get close to them. They want to hug them. They want to engage with them.

They recognise something in them that reflects a part of themselves.

Yet those responsible for you will probably feed you their flesh.

You won’t make the association that what you’re being fed is the very same thing that so attracts you.

Instead, you will be taught to eat a nameless, faceless commodity that is simply called ‘food’.

Later, you may see pictures of animals with smiling faces advertising the things you eat.

It will all seem very pleasant and normal.

You won’t suspect that behind the pretty pictures is an industry that causes terror and untold suffering to the billions of the creatures you once felt so kindly towards.

If at some point you do make the connection that what you have loved is now on your dinner plate, the horror you feel will be assuaged by those who put it there.

You will be told “It’s alright. It’s the way things are meant to be. It’s what they’re here for.”

If you don’t accept these ‘truths’, the chances are people will be angry with you. You’ll be forced to eat what you had believed was your friend.

For the sake of not getting into trouble, or because you don’t want to upset anyone, you’ll probably go along with it.

For a little while, you may feel guilty or sad. But you’ll get over it. You must. You won’t have a choice.

To protect yourself, you’ll need to push the ghastly truth of their demise out of you mind. You’ll need to bury it in the recesses of your mind and not let it surface again.

You’ll bury it deep.

It’s the way things are.

 
As you get older, it’s unlikely that you’ll be too troubled by the dreadful knowledge that dwells within you.

You’ll look around you and see that everybody is doing the same thing. And that makes it O.K. doesn’t it?

If anybody tries to say it’s wrong, or bad, or immoral, or unjust, they’re weird. It will be acceptable to think they’re strange or mock them.

You may even hear a whole bunch of reasons why they’re stupid to have such outlandish beliefs and you will know better.

Animals don’t have rights. Animals don’t feel pain. Animals don’t suffer. Animals don’t feel grief or fear. Animals don’t mind giving up their lives for our pleasure.

And if you were to suddenly realise that they do (for all of the above), you can always do what you were taught to do from your earliest age: Push this unsettling knowledge out of your mind. Ignore it. Bury it deep.

It’s the way things are.

 
Now it’s possible that as you get older, you may hear some pretty disturbing things.

You may learn that the factory farming of animals is connected to global warming and climate change and that 51% of global greenhouse gas emissions are due to livestock and their byproducts.
You may learn that the planet is being deforested to grow crops to feed the animals we eat, and that animal agriculture is responsible for 91% of the destruction of the Amazon Rainforest.
You may learn that the meat and dairy industry use 1/3 of the Earth’s fresh water supplies or that livestock covers 45% of the Earth’s land, resulting in the desertification of 1/3 of it.
You may learn that 90 million tons of fish are pulled from the oceans every year and that for every 1lb of fish caught, 5lb of unintended marine species are caught and discarded (left to die) as ‘waste’.
You may learn that 110 species per day are made extinct due to animal agriculture and rainforest destruction; or that the oceans now contain colossal ‘deadzones’ caused by pollution and habitat destruction.
You may learn that there’s a link between eating animal flesh and cancer.
You may learn the full, gory details of animal slaughter.
You may discover that there’s no such thing as ‘humane killing’.
You may learn that even those things you have been led to believe are harmless, like drinking milk and eating cheese and eggs, only come about as a result of suffering and death.

In fact, all in all, you may conclude that reliance upon animals for food is a very bad thing.

But you’ll tell yourself it’s O.K. because everyone else is doing it.

You’ll tell yourself it’s O.K. because by now, you’re so used to the taste of the dead animal carcasses you eat that you don’t really care if your habituated diet, unwittingly forced upon you by those responsible for your upbringing, is gradually but inexorably destroying the very planet you live on.

You’ll get by hoping that it will only get really bad after you’re long departed.

And in the meantime, you’ll tell yourself you can go on with impunity.

You’ll come up with 101 excuses why there’s no real harm in you being someone who helps perpetrate the awful damage being carried out with your tacit approval.

You’re too deeply imbedded in your ways to change.

Let other people do something about it.

Let them try to make a difference.

It’s someone else’s problem.

It’s someone else’s’ responsibility.

Isn’t it?

It’s the way things are.
 

Can you handle criticism?
Can you handle the truth?
Can you handle being challenged?
Can you accept that you’re not perfect?
Can you accept that you are in the wrong?
Can you accept that the beliefs that you were inculcated with as a tiny child were ignorant and damaging?
Can you face the evidence of what a carnivorous diet really does?
Can you not look away when your planet needs you?
Can you change?
 

This is the way things really are:

While you choose to look away, billions of harmless animals will be killed every year, dozens of whom will die horrible deaths, just because of your choices.

​The world will move ever closer to self-destruction for reasons that are directly attributable to the habituated decisions made by countless millions of people just like you, who are too scared to look at their choices.

You need to face the grim realisation that there are other truths besides those you now cling to.

You are not still a victim of the choices imposed upon you.

There are NO reasonable excuses for ignoring the evidence, other than mental infirmity or psychopathy.

So imagine yourself at a time when you are a newly born infant.

Of course, you can’t remember it, so just imagine it.

You are unblemished; untouched; a clean slate; a blank piece of paper. Pure.

Recognise that you’re all there in the thinking department. No one around you can make decisions on your behalf.

​You own your choices.

You are not a prisoner of other people’s modes of thinking. You do not need to comply with societal norms.

SO THINK FOR YOURSELF.

You can apply logic, reason, sense, practicality, morality, integrity or even emotion to those choices, without fear of any judgement, other than that which you choose to accept from those who may come to fear you.

Appraise yourself in the context of the world at large. Look at the facts. 

Do you want to be part of the unnecessary cycle of global destruction we are caught up in?

YOU CAN HELP STOP IT.

Reconnect with your humanity and do the right thing.

Allow yourself to be metaphorically reborn with the purity of thought, love of all things and strength of purpose that were once yours as of right.

The ONLY thing stopping you is your choice.

It’s the way things can be.

​Some time ago, I wrote a blog entitled “An open letter to my daughter, Jenny’. It was a heartfelt exposition of my reasons for adopting a vegan diet and an exhortation for her to do likewise. Some while later, I met someone who told me he had read that blog. He wanted me to know that it was “one of the most compelling arguments for becoming vegan that he had come across”.

Yet neither my daughter nor this individual have gone vegan.

Why is that?

I have a theory that there are many more who are attracted to a ‘no harm’ lifestyle than actually pursue it. I know so many good, caring and aware people who I cannot believe would endorse the wholesale planetary damage and unspeakable cruelty they are otherwise complicit in, were it not for some mitigating factor. Yet other than "You just don't give a shit" (as musician Pete Crosbie observed to be the only honest argument against veganism), I struggle to fathom what their reasoning could possibly be.

Even for those who are not animal lovers, the logical reasons for adopting veganism are overwhelming. The most basic research reveals personal medical and environmental benefits so stunning and cathartic, that they would surely cause any right-thinking person to change their choices.

Perhaps there are still huge tranches of the population who are ignorant of how destructive our eating habits are for the planet? That would be odd, because the truth is there for all to see, if you but take the time to look at it.

Perhaps insidious lobbying groups are putting out so much self-interested disinformation about the benefits of ingesting dead animals or their excretions (a.k.a. milk) that many are stupidly blinded to the truth of the harm it does? I don’t think so. The people I am referring to are not mindless followers. They are intelligent, sensitive, socially conscious individuals.

I am aghast that it is possible for any good, caring, aware person to miss out on the moral issue involved. Eating animals implies that we have a right to inflict suffering and death upon sentient beings for the frivolous reasons of pleasure, habit and tradition. Isn't the execution of over 26 billion harmless creatures per year (and this is excluding fish) morally repugnant and unjustifiable when there are alternatives?

I can’t really empathise with why it is that some people use excuses like a partner’s eating habits to justify their own choices. (I was vegetarian for 14 years before my family joined me.) If you have made a decision that was right and important to you, isn't the prevailing climate all about we as individuals standing up for what we know to be right, regardless of any difficulties it may cause us? 

Neither can I relate to the weakness of mind of those who make such claims as “I simply can’t give up cheese”. After all, as author Colleen Patrick-Goudreau so aptly puts it: “Being vegan doesn’t take willpower; it just takes a willingness to choose compassion over convenience". Well put!

When I reflect upon rationalisations for still eating animals, I am persuaded by the parallel between meat eaters and drug addicts. Addicts will say and do anything to justify continuing their habit, even if doing so hurts them and others.
​
So what I’d like to think is that perhaps these good, caring and aware people I imagine to be out there simply haven’t asked themselves some basic questions, like:

• Do I care about my health and well-being?
• Do I care about the future of the planet?
• Do I care about issues like climate change, deforestation and animal suffering?
• Do I care about ending the torture and suffering of helpless, gentle creatures?
• Do I really believe that dead animal flesh is good for me when science tells me otherwise?
• Do I really believe that farming animals for food has no effect upon the environment?
• Do I really believe that my appetite is more important than another’s life?
• Do I really believe that killing billions of innocents per year is OK?

If you, as one of the good, caring and aware people, take the time to reflect upon these questions, according them the gravitas they truly deserve, can you possibly come to ANY conclusion other than “Going vegan is the right thing to do”? Or can you, like an addict, come up with excuses? (If so, do tell me what they are, and I’ll knock them down.)

Or do you feel futile? Is your primary reasoning that deciding to go vegan, all by yourself, will change nothing? I believe that amongst good, caring and aware people, that's maybe the most common fallback position. Their bedrock excuse. Their comforting justification.

But if this is you, let me shed some light on the subject:

One can affect a few. Few can affect many. Many can change the world. 

I ask you. I challenge you. I implore you: Go vegan. Do it today. You can make a difference. What possible excuse do you have not to?

Or is it that "You just don't give a shit?"


NB. If you chose to take me up on my challenge and furnish me with your excuses, please be aware that you can never win an argument with a vegan, because your argument is never with the vegan.

It's with your conscience.

Have you studied the picture at the header of this blog?
 
What affect does it have upon you?
 
Does it do anything to you at all?
 
Speaking personally, it impacted upon me almost viscerally. I was moved to tears. For me, the image oozes tragedy and pathos. Although I know it is merely a picture, an imagined representation, for me it is real. It illustrates perfectly the bond I experience with our animals. The words exactly express my sense of futility at not doing enough to change the cruel injustice that costs billions of helpless animals their lives. I want to hug the cow. I want to tell the human “I’m with you”. My overwhelming reaction is that I am not doing enough to make a difference.
 
Yet in spite all that I’ve just written, this is not a blog about veganism, or helping other beings. It's for you.
 
It’s about the way things affect us, and the importance of how we manage our responses to things that affect us. So read on.
 
When I saw the picture, I was shocked by how a simple image could move me so profoundly and generate such a powerful internal response. I decided to see if it was just me, so over dinner, I showed it to Sharon and asked for her reaction. She gazed at it for a few moments in silence while tell-tale flickers of uncomfortable emotion passed across her face, like fleeting clouds. Then she announced that she found it “very disturbing”.

I was perplexed by this response. I thought it seemed 'tame', so I explained that it made me feel that we weren’t doing enough and questioned why she did not feel the same? “I did feel that at first” she said. “But then I thought about what we’re already doing and all of the animals we have, and I realised that we can’t do any more at the moment. We simply don't have the resources. It’s not that I don’t want to. It’s just that we can’t. If I allowed myself to think about all that the picture means and let it get to me, it would just be too upsetting”.
 
At that point, which could have been the end of the discussion, AA Michael decided to proffer a comment to Sharon. Here it is, only very slightly paraphrased. You may agree that its implications are vast, for all of us:
 
“When something has an impact upon you at such a deep level that you experience it within the core of your being, it has stirred within you an emanation of a vibration of immeasurable force and magnitude. Within this emotion there lies the spark of creation; the seed for manifesting an outcome based solely upon the magnitude of the feelings that you have given birth to. Given free rein, such a state of mind is the substance of a beginning. It is as if a stone has been cast into a pond, from which the ripples begun may go on in perpetuity.
 
However, you [Sharon, in her comments] have overlaid the magnitude of your feelings with a limiting logic, that in its very inception, stifles the possibilities that could emerge. Whilst appearing to substitute the fanciful for what is practical and reasonable, you have instead caused a cessation of a reality that might have evolved to serve the highest good of all. Rather than being energised, you have become enervated in your thinking.
 
Within the 4D reality, there exists endless possibility. The essence of what you experience and what you may bring into being is within you own control, and of your own making. Denial of what may be, will only ensue endless limitations that restrict your contribution to the expansion of the parameters of the possible. Only by fully opening your mind, without reservation or hesitation, to explore potential, will you achieve all that you may for the highest good of all.”
  
Sharon got it straight away. Do you?

There is enough crushing ‘realism’ in the world to dash all of our hopes and expectations for what could be and what we may achieve, without us introducing a limiting (even destructive) mindset of our own. We should all strive to let our imaginations work with our subconscious to maximise our ability to create and bring about what we most desire. If we audit our dreams and live our lives full of “Yes, but”, those dreams simply may not come.

There can be few of us who have not experienced revulsion at the revelations surrounding Harvey Weinstein and his seemingly habituated abuse of women crossing his path. As time has gone on, our response to the slew of ‘star’ names who have been exposed as similar (if somewhat lesser) abusers may have moved from outrage to disappointment, or even ambivalence, as we become less surprised by or even inured to further exposés.

On a positive note, this has provoked the rise of the ‘Time’s Up’ and ‘MeToo’ movements, championing all womens’ right not to receive the brunt of the masculine propensity to dominate the ‘weaker sex’. The obviously well-founded accusations that have opened the Pandora’s box of evidentiary exploitation and manipulation, could and should serve us all well in making our society a fairer and better place. It is surely a given that abuse in any form should not be tolerated.

During the awards season, witnessing the widespread adornment of elaborate dresses and tuxedos with pins supporting the cause, a more cynical observer might suspect that the movements have, at least in part, been hijacked to become more about ensuring equal pay for actresses than any broader purpose. Abuse has obviously become institutionalised in Tinseltown where time is indeed ripe for change, but there remains a danger that the whole overblown spectacle now becomes more about the vulnerable in Hollywood than a campaign against abuse in general.

The majority (but by no means all) of those victims who have now stepped forward to level their indictments have revealed that the abuses perpetrated against them fell short of actual rape. Nonetheless, they all seem to have felt compelled to go along with what happened to them and subsequently accept it, ignore it or otherwise pretend that it did not happen. Why? They universally state that they were afraid, not necessarily for their lives or well-being, but because to not do so would have meant that opportunities may have evaporated, that parts would not be available to them, that their careers would have been jeopardised, or their livelihoods otherwise threatened.

Coercion is a powerful imperative, and being subjected to such pressure is an unconscionable thing. I have nothing but sympathy for those who were raped, and can think of few things more awful to go through. But there are some questions that should be asked about how the whole ghastly melee could have been handled:

• Were the victims deprived of their freedom of choice?
• Were there other choices the victims could have made at the time?
• Were there other choices the victims could have made subsequently?

There exists in this whole scenario an unsettling possibility that at least some of those who have now come forward to denounce their tormentors acquiesced to what transpired because in the moment of choice, when they could have prevented it, they decided that on balance, to go along with the unwelcome attentions of the monsters that preyed upon them was the lesser of the evils they faced. by their own account, they chose opportunity and the possibility of career advancement over removing themselves from the events that threatened them. They kept silent for (in many cases) years, because the personal career backlash that may have resulted from speaking out was considered worse than acquainting the world at large with what was going on.

We all know that people have to go through what they go through. They chose it before incarnation. However, the etheric were anxious to pass broader comment, so here is their input. as dictated by AA Michael:

“In all things you have freedom of choice.

Whilst you may not (apparently) control that which befalls you, at all times you are able to be in mastery of how you respond. 

In all those situations you face, your weighing of the relative merits of the likely outcomes which may be extrapolated from what is occurring, prompts your decisions and subsequent actions.

Decisions based on the course of action that best meets your needs or appears to be for your personal highest good will inevitably lead to a life littered with errors of conclusion.

This is a vital part of the learning process and experience all must go through.

Over time, analysis of your adjudications will inevitably cause you to conclude that you are unable to escape culpability for your own actions.

​Responsibility for our response to what befalls us, in all things, must be accepted. 

It may take a multitude of experiences or lifetimes to arrive at this wisdom, but it is so.

If a society observes and seizes upon the lessons being offered to young souls (who have not yet grasped the import of the truths that face them) and relies upon their outpourings to form their own understanding which subsequently directs intentions and pathways, wrong turnings are inevitable, for all.

Thus in all things, individual discernment is imperative and the power and value of personal choice must be recognised and assumed.

Situations must be viewed from the perspective of a neutral observer, wherein an individual's role in all that is becomes evident.

There are, in all things, many wrongs to be righted in the world you have created.

Effective corrective action must begin with a thorough examination of that which you do that contributes to your individual state of being and thus to the world at large.

These passings [the whole Hollywood abuse scenario] simply serve to illustrate a far wider and more significant learning point that may be misconstrued.

There is more understanding to grasp here than is evident.

For the old souls amongst you, there is a need to understand and apply this message in all aspects of your life and being. “
 
It is certainly not the case that this input exonerates or mitigates on behalf of the Harvey Weinsteins of the world. Far from it. Neither does it lessen the hideousness of the experience of the victims. Nobody should be subjected to the kind of coercive and threatening behaviour that Weinstein (and all his ilk) obviously used.

​But none of us should ignore the role we play in the outcomes of what faces us. Every day we face choices where we weigh up consequences. The most obvious course of action to take is perhaps the one that seems to best serve ourselves in the short term. Yet in the long run, it is often that route which may seem harder, but serves the highest good of all, that may lead us down what is ultimately the easiest and safest pathway. 

NB. This theme is hardly a new one for the etheric. I was last instructed to write about in June 2016, in the blog entitled 'The Dire Perils of Victimology'. The mere fact that they want me to address it again (albeit from a very different perspective) is, perhaps, quite revealing...

I regularly read articles about the spread of veganism throughout the world. In case you are not similarly inclined, here are just a few snippets of news from 2017:

• VEGAN ALTERNATIVES MAKE UP 40% OF NEW ‘DAIRY’ STYLE PRODUCTS.
• UK’S VEGAN ‘MEAT’ MARKET TO GROW 25% WITHIN THE NEXT 4 YEARS.
• NEARLY 50% OF AMERICANS SUPPORT A BAN ON SLAUGHTERHOUSES.
• 40% OF CONSUMERS ARE TRYING TO INCLUDE MORE VEGAN FOODS INTO EVERY MEAL.
• VEGAN MARKET IN CHINA PREDICTED TO RISE BY 17% BY 2020.
• DEMAND FOR VEGAN FOOD HAS SPIKED BY 140%.
• MORE ‘MAINSTREAM’ RESTAURANTS ARE NOW OFFERING VEGAN MENUS AT LEAST ONE DAY PER WEEK.
• GLOBAL PLANT BASED MILK MARKET SET TO REACH $21.6 BILLION BY 2022.
• SWITZERLAND HAS BANNED THE BOILING ALIVE OF LOBSTERS.
• GOOGLE TRENDS SHOW A 90% INCREASE IN VEGAN SEARCHES.
• MORE THAN 1.5 MILLION AMERICANS OVER 17 ARE NOW VEGAN.
• VEGANUARY 2017 HAD OVER 59,500 PARTICIPANTS GLOBALLY.
• 44% OF CONSUMERS IN GERMANY NOW FOLLOW A LOW-MEAT DIET.
• 'GOING VEGAN’ IS PREDICTED TO BE THE BIGGEST FOOD TREND OF 2018

This is all cheering stuff, isn’t it? It’s easy to imagine that slowly but surely, the message is getting through and that ultimately, a vegan lifestyle will proliferate to such an extent that it predominates global eating habits.

Yet the momentary glow I get from reading statistics like those above, can easily be extinguished by those below.

• THE UNITED NATIONS REPORTS THAT THE DEMAND FOR MEAT IS INCREASING AND WILL HAVE RISEN BY 70% BY THE YEAR 2050. THIS WILL REQUIRE THE SLAUGHTER OF OVER 300 BILLION ANIMALS ANNUALLY.
• OF THOSE CHOOSING A VEGETARIAN/VEGAN DIET, 84% ABANDON IT.

Statistics, as we all know, can paint any picture we choose to see.

Clearly, if progress is being made, there’s a long way to go before the majority of the population will look at the carnage of theriocide and ask themselves “How could we ever do that?”

In the meantime, those of us who care and want to make a change cannot afford to be complacent.

Not for one moment.

I am constantly surprised when I meet individuals who have no knowledge or awareness of what a vegan is. I have even met one individual who, when I explained that I was vegan, thought that the word meant I came from the planet Vega, and I was having a joke with them!

Awareness is critical. You’d have to be an alien visitor not to know what a vegetarian was, but veganism still takes people by surprise. It’s still a minority that have full-blown knowledge of the suffering and death that is still caused by eating dairy, eggs, or any product that comes from another creature. If nothing else, knowing of the harm that is perpetuated in our names may be a way of provoking thought and consideration, and if this is the beginning of change for some, we should all be broadcasting the desperate need to end this suffering, loud and clear.

If you’ve listened to AAM’s channeled pronouncements on the subject, you’re already aware of this. But if you then couple that input with the import (if not the actual words) of previous blogs such as ‘Actions Speak Louder Than Petitions’ or ‘Time To Shout About What You Believe In’, you might find yourself asking “How much of a difference am I making personally, in ensuring that the message gets out?”

For most people, the greatest issue is possibly one of platform. What opportunities do they have to espouse beliefs and prick the consciences of those around them? We don’t all have blogs, websites, or even people who are interested in hearing what we have to say. If you’re one of those who doesn’t, have you ever thought about using yourself or your vehicle as a vegan billboard?
​
The internet is replete with websites that offer clothing espousing veganism. They are almost limitless in the varying styles (and degrees of taste!) available. Some companies will make items to your personal colour specification, or even with the precise wording you want. Elsewhere (although often on the same sites) a vast range of vegan bumper stickers, car magnets and decals are available. The ones that adorn our SUV mimic the 'Intel Inside' logo (see the mini version below - it's much bigger in real life). And if you see me out and about in warm weather, the chances are I will be wearing one of my vegan T shirts (my personal favourite one is above, but no, unfortunately that’s not me modelling it!)

I have no problem broadcasting exhortations to those around me. Consider the alternative: The fashion industry likes to make us walking advertisements for their brands and products. Many people will pay vastly inflated prices for fairly ordinary items of clothing, just so that they may be seen to be associated with a vogue name. For my part (and many years ago now), I used to only purchase Ralph Lauren clothing simply for the cachet I felt the little polo player logo offered. But how facile a choice that was. What a waste of an opportunity for me to proclaim something that was worthwhile; something that I actually believe in.

So why don’t we all become walking adverts for the vegan cause? How many of you reading this are prepared to make a point to your friends and those around you? Don’t you want to stand up for what you believe in? Don’t you feel that strongly about it? Don’t you want to make a difference, even in such an undemanding, passive manner? Are you afraid?

Well, it could be that when faced with a real live vegan, a carnatarian’s response could run to anything from disdain and teasing, to out-and-out abuse and ridicule. When habit and deeply held beliefs are challenged, even in an ambient fashion, conflict may ensue. Recognise that if this were the case, a perpetrator would be displaying another sort of fear. That fear is a deeper and more unsettling one than anything which will be experienced by the hapless vegan, because it is borne out of an insidious, deep-seated knowledge that carnism is a despicable act of cruelty that is fundamentally wrong, at any moral, intellectual or spiritual level you may care to explore it on. Reactionary responses are always a possibility.

Does that mean that you should hold back?

In truth, the worse thing I have encountered is people whispering behind my back (literally) as some of my T shirts use double sided messaging (why waste a selling opportunity?). More often, I have been the recipient of interested comments, approbation, thanks, and even a request for to “Give me a high five, brother” (from a shelf stacker in Superstore!). But most significantly, what I wear has prompted questions and raised awareness. I see no reason why it should be any different for you.

So, the next time you decide to update your wardrobe, think about adding something that is meaningful; something that might just make a difference. Don’t be afraid to be a walking advertisement for a kinder way of living. Be proud of what you believe in and let everybody else know about it. Ralph Lauren really doesn’t need you. Animals do!

It is a seemingly inevitable feature of my attempts to persuade people of the value of personal veganism, that I reach a point where my efforts are confronted (and often dashed) by an absence of ability to create a sufficiently powerful motivation in my audience to bring about change. Indeed, this is a phenomenon I have discussed in previous blogs (albeit from a slightly different perspective), where the potential of differing influencing strategies has been explored.
 
Today, something struck me about my preferred ‘hardcore’ methodology of ‘telling it like it is’. It may be uncomfortable, distressing and downright off-putting for people to hear truths about their carnatarian living, but to have its implications explained in any other way, is a shameful act of concealing harsh realities that cost lives.
 
I am put in mind of the attitude of the European population during WWII. From 1942 onwards, there were frequent, verifiable reports of man’s inhumanity to man, that filtered their way to the Allied powers. The existence of extermination camps was known and whispered of in the corridors of Government. Yet it was not until the first of these hell holes were liberated, and photographs of barely alive, skeletal human forms, and deeply distressing images of rotting corpses in mass graves were published, for all to see, that it became ‘real’. The population en mass was finally forced to accept the horrors of what had come to pass, and righteous outrage followed.
 
Just like the Nazi death camps, slaughterhouses try to keep their activities a closely guarded secret. Nonetheless, we all know what goes on there. The dairy industry tries to fool us with images of smiling bovines, allowing us to pretend to be (happily) ignorant of the vile practices that lurk within. Most of us will never have to watch a fish gasping desperately for breath or writhing in agony before its lungs explode, yet we must know that their ending is not a pleasant one. Bees are drugged by smoke, and countless numbers are ‘squished’ by industrial collecting methods, before the honey they have made to feed themselves on is stolen from them, and still we allow ourselves to believe that they make it just for us. I could go on...
 
The difference between one of our darkest historical eras and now, is, perhaps, that we actively choose not to see, and we make that choice with impunity. Most of humanity could/would not concede that animal lives are as significant as our human ones. Thus, the theriocide that so closely parallels (yet vastly eclipses) the terrible genocide of the Nazi’s moment in history, never meets with disapprobation, let alone the revulsion or distress that it actually warrants.
 
Yet were we to see it, were we to even get a glimpse of the horrors that are carried out with our tacit approval, I wonder how many of us would not feel the same heartbreaking level of pity for those rankly abused and mistreated beings, that we can still feel for concentration camp victims?
 
If you are a vegan, you might have made that life-changing choice without even seeing the nightmare world that we have created for animals. You might be one of those who believes that, like you, your fellow human beings will change as a result of natural progression resulting in an abandonment of lifelong habits.
 
But my take is this. Habits die hard, particularly those based upon selfish self-interest. We don’t change quickly. Our ignorance is a comforting bliss. We need emotional imperative to prompt major change. Imagery obviously affects us powerfully and can shake us out of complacency and create that imperative. If we as individuals are forced to confront our own carelessness to the suffering that we are passively endorsing, we are more likely to do something about it. We are more likely to change. As vegans, we should not shrink from revealing the awful truths that are all around us. Indeed, it may be our duty to do so. There are things we all need to see.