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.