Why Are They Killing us and Polluting our Planet?

[Eelco]

Or perhaps this is the answer . . . .

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_qIkXfxyB-8


I wonder how any of us would score . . . ? Twonk!

Wha ha ha ha ha ha.
Thanks for the laugh. this is hilarious..

WIth Love
Eelco

[BabaRa]

OMG Eelco, now I'm wondering whether animals have these conversations about us . . . . .

I have often thought that. Even our pets. We pick up our cats and small dogs and move them around when WE want. What about what they want. Due to leash laws our dogs have to be kept reigned in most of the time. They don't always get to go in and out when they want. . . And the poor birds that many keep as pets in cages.. not to mention the animals in zoos.

So is the comfort we get from our pets our loosh? hmm .. and in some way are we setting up a chain of events?

[modwiz]

In a way I hoped this is happening. with the dawning of the new age and all that.
As for simply holding a different idea of reality. In my experience there is not much thats simple about it. To me it feels like being pulled from one end of the spectrum to the other. Causing me to become rathere inactive because of self persevation..
I could definitly use a big dose of conguency between my thinking and my actions....

About that last bit. I tend to think that in order to survive or forgive we have to come to some agreement with the loosh eaters. we could maybe let them wither and die, but would you want to? I am unsure of how deep this rabbit hole goes, maybe I should wait for modwiz to fill in some of the blancs, but for now I cannot escape the fact that if they are farmers. In their eyes they are not doing any harm, other than producing a fine meal. sort of like what we do with fois-gras.
WHo knows there are nolooshians that forgo the eating of it like the vegans do over here. just thinking out loud...

With Love
Eelco

Just a quick comment. The farming of any sentient being, and I consider animals sentient and plants at another level, is of questionable "moral" validity, IMO.

When we open a loosh discussion things should get interesting.

[modwiz]

I have often thought that. Even our pets. We pick up our cats and small dogs and move them around when WE want. What about what they want. Due to leash laws our dogs have to be kept reigned in most of the time. They don't always get to go in and out when they want. . . And the poor birds that many keep as pets in cages.. not to mention the animals in zoos.

So is the comfort we get from our pets our loosh? hmm .. and in some way are we setting up a chain of events?

Some of the thoughts you posit here are why I am not a pet owner.

The part I highlighted is an especially juicy path to explore with regard to loosh. I do want to say that loosh is not a food/energy source intended for us. However, we do see something akin to this with energy vampires. All food is ultimately energy consumption. Loosh is best viewed in the scavenger category. It is energetic sewage for/from us.

[Calabash]

So loosh is "stilled" from negativity- anything north of the middle line gets more and more delicious? And it's an energy which is milked from us? So what happens to the spirit at the point of ultimate loosh at say, death from torture/suicide? Is a soul really penalised for being driven to that point? And if we go south of that middle line, can we be so peaceful and/or happy that our loosh is so disgusting they leave us alone?

One thing which has always confused me. . . . . If we are 3D and the reps are 4D, (a) how do we get to 5D without going through 4D? and (b) if the reps are 4D, how come they are "higher" (as in more advanced) than we are and how come more advanced doesn't include spiritual? Unless it does and we are just part of the food chain like everything else and we are wrong to think humans are special or apart. Perhaps being a part of the whole (consciousness) means that we are being continually recycled, and there is no other purpose at all. What a strange thought . . . . . apologies.

[modwiz]

So loosh is "stilled" from negativity- anything north of the middle line gets more and more delicious? And it's an energy which is milked from us? So what happens to the spirit at the point of ultimate loosh at say, death from torture/suicide? Is a soul really penalised for being driven to that point? And if we go south of that middle line, can we be so peaceful and/or happy that our loosh is so disgusting they leave us alone?

One thing which has always confused me. . . . . If we are 3D and the reps are 4D, (a) how do we get to 5D without going through 4D? and (b) if the reps are 4D, how come they are "higher" (as in more advanced) than we are and how come more advanced doesn't include spiritual? Unless it does and we are just part of the food chain like everything else and we are wrong to think humans are special or apart. Perhaps being a part of the whole (consciousness) means that we are being continually recycled, and there is no other purpose at all. What a strange thought . . . . . apologies.

So many points to address that I will pick one and do my best to couch it in words that stay within your belief parameters.
Although there are organisms (life forms) that are more "dimension"/frequency range specific many are trans-dimensional. A rock exists in a more two dimensional existence, yet we can perceive it in our 3 dimensional mind focus. Most of the higher beings are trans-dimensional. Obviously?, certain beings find our dimension quite restrictive and unpleasant vibrationally and avoid it. Reptiods seem very comfortable in our dimension, probably owing to their underdeveloped emotional bodies not being able to "feel" the oppressive nature of Earth 3-D existence.

Besides, they are motivated.

The loosh discussion is still in the future for me. Unraveling misconceptions, from my point of view, will be a big part of the heavy lifting. Guessing what loosh is, unless one guesses correctly, can lead to getting ahead of the discussion and forming ideas that could be poorly founded.

I am curious as to where you see distillation entering the process? You call it "stilled". Loosh is no more distilled than a shark distilling whatever it eats. It eats the energy represented by is prey. Prey may be our subjective projection on the process, although the term is valid for our consideration and communication.

[Calabash]

I am curious as to where you see distillation entering the process? You call it "stilled". Loosh is no more distilled than a shark distilling whatever it eats. It eats the energy represented by is prey. Prey may be our subjective projection on the process, although the term is valid for our consideration and communication.

Stilled directly in the body by inducing fear and thus increasing its vintage/strength. Perhaps a better word would have been "concentrated"? Or maybe there is no such thing, other than in my imagination . Thank you for responding about the frequencies and I look forward to our first forum loosh lesson in the New Year. (I hope you don't get put off between now and then lol - don't know what I'm lolling for, I won't be lolling if it happens . . .

[modwiz]

Stilled directly in the body by inducing fear and thus increasing its vintage/strength. Perhaps a better word would have been "concentrated"? Or maybe there is no such thing, other than in my imagination . Thank you for responding about the frequencies and I look forward to our first forum loosh lesson in the New Year. (I hope you don't get put off between now and then lol - don't know what I'm lolling for, I won't be lolling if it happens . . .

Strength would be equivalent to what is put out organically. Things that release adrenaline seem to be very charged and the more the release the more intense the loosh. Though even that information distorts a bit when some adrenaline is released during moments when pleasure is derived. Let us say, bungie jumping or parachuting. In this case we might make vintage be able to work. You could say there are different "notes", as in flavors. So, wine is wine but , there are varieties. If an alcoholic is unable to imbibe the preferred alcoholic beverage then, even a 'vintage' that is not particularly pleasing to them will be consumed. I really have not investigated or read about the "picky" consumption habits of the flora and fauna of the 4th dimension and beyond.

To elucidate further would push this conversation more than I want to at this time.

[Seikou-Kishi]

The same questions that we ask of our pets we could also ask of our children. Our children do not get to do whatever they like whenever they'd like to do it. We do not consider our children to be subjugated lifeforms because children eventually grow to adulthood and usually realise that the rules laid down by their parents were rules intended to serve their best interests when the child's own wishes could not do that. Children might like only to eat sweets and to stay up all night. The parental rules against both of these things, most children realise in growing up, are self-evident examples of parents doing "the unpopular good", so to speak.

In the same way, we can say the same things about our pets. The difference is, pets remain pets their entire lives. They do not progress from "pethood" into a phase of consciousness or intelligence matching that of the people who looked after them during their pethood the way children emerge from their childhood as the intellectual equals or superiors of their parents. But we have ways of knowing how pets feel.

When children go to school, pet dogs often become despondent and miss the children, pining for weeks on end. When children attend a day school, it is very common for dogs to go and wait by the door at the time they are due to return (dogs seem to be able to keep track of the time very well). Dogs particularly display affection very openly. It is not simply a case of Stockholm syndrome or an acknowledgement of the fact that some people give them food. Social animals like dogs live in groups and it doesn't matter to them if the group is a specially homogeneous group. Look at the dogs who pine by the grave of a dead "pack member".

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QlAK6Tb6Bhc


I think it's clearest with pets like dogs that humans are not doing to animals what "they" are doing to us. With farm animals, it's less clear. It has been shown that cows grieve when their calves are taken from them. No amount of supplying food for them could detract from the fact that we care more for the meat of the baby than the grief of the mother. With other things, though, it's less clear. Cows, for example, have developed over centuries of interaction with humans to produce much more milk than they would ever have done in the wild. Without human interaction in this case, the cows would suffer terribly. Sheep are another example; they have had their woolly fleeces bred into them through centuries of selective breeding. Without regular shearing, their fleeces eventually overtake them, making it difficult to move. Not only that, but they become host to infestations.

The way the farming industry treats baby animals, by pulling them away from their mothers, is an act of cruelty against both the mother and the child. Other aspects of farming are necessary. Another thing I think is cruel about the modern meat industry is the way animals are killed by conveyor belt. Can you imagine how dreadful it must be for a cow to have to witness the slaughter of another cow? And then to see that a host of inhuman machinery is ushering it to the very same spot? Most of the cruel aspects of modern farming and the meat industry have their root in the assumption that animals do not feel the way that we feel. They might not have the intelligence we have, but it is a mistake and a crying shame not to realise that they feel grief and separation anxiety or that they feel desperation when they see another of their kind being killed.

People think "well, people have to eat!" when mention of these things is made. Vegetarians will make the argument that people do not need to eat meat, but many of us cannot manage the level of hyperbole necessary for vegetarianism (lol, sorry, calm your jets) and do not wish to derive our protein from sesame seeds. In any case, from the idea that we have to eat (and that we eat meat), it does not automatically follow that calves should be rent from their mothers or that animals must be slaughtered wholesale in front of their terrified herd-mates. When we eat meat, what stops us being grateful to the animal we killed and acknowledging that for our nourishment we took the life of an animal? That gratitude would stop us being cruel to the animals that are in our mind if not in theirs destined for our dinner plates. It would help us realise the kindness to those who yet live in separating an animal away from its herd-mates before we kill it to take its meat. It would also encourage us to render the animal unconscious first. Hanging an animal upside down while it's conscious and slitting its throat to let it bleed to death as it frantically struggles to free itself is not compassionate and it should be beneath every human, meat-eater or otherwise.

I once said that my family declined to hunt for sport even when they hunted for food, claiming that the difference was not immaterial. If you take an animal because you intend to feed your family, how do you share in the wickedness of the man who hunts an animal only because he wants the "glory" of having killed something magnificent? It reminds me of those videos that have done the rounds recently of animals being skinned alive. I am not against fur as a material for clothing. If a sheep is killed for its meat and its skin, rather than being wasted, is turned into gloves, what is the harm in it? Better and more respectful it is to the life of the animal that nothing goes to waste. But when the animals are skinned while still alive? What excuse is their for such barbarism? When their skinless bodies are left to die on a pile of dead and dying animals? How does a human being reach the point at which it will not only see that happen, but contribute to it?

"I'm going to take your skin to make a fur coat, but I won't even grant you the mercy of a quick death first." Utter B*****ds! An animal that is killed can produce food to feed many people (or animals). Not just the meat but the organs too. Its bones can be used in soup or fed to the dogs, or both in turn. Very little of an animal has to be wasted. Those animals not routinely eaten by humans could be used for animal food. Your cat doesn't care if it eats beef or the flesh of a sable used in the fur industry, but why reduce an animal's life to one part of the animal's body? The sable-marten, worth it's weight in fur! Literally :-(

Farmers could take a lead in this, if they had the courage to take a course that might in the short term be the less profitable course and if they had faith in the human population that such compassion would be rewarded as it should be. There is much in the attitude humans have towards other animals that is undesirable, and a lot of it is like the attitude "they" have towards the rest of us, who simply wish to live our lives in peace. If humans had the compassion to look at the animals they keep and say "you will one day die to feed my family, but I have the technology to give you a good life and an easy death, and the respect to ensure that nothing of you is wasted", humanity might move on leaps and bounds.

We don't actually have to completely forswear animal products. If we can treat animals well, kill them quickly and privately and not demean what we take by wasting what their bodies provide, we can really show that their lives have value in the truest sense and not value only in the economical sense. When I die, I would most like a Tibetan sky burial. Why? Because my death is inevitable, and I would rather my body fed the birds than rotted away in a coffin or was burned away in cremation. With current human society as it is, one that only cares for economics, I would worry for the day animal-rights extremists like PETA prevent the commercialisation of animals as in modern agriculture. When that day came, it wouldn't spell the end of the domesticated species' suffering, but their end all together. It is no coincidence that the most populous animals on earth after humans are those which are farmed.

Source: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bW7PlTaawfQ


The remark was made that perhaps we are to the animals what "they" are to us. People who do not care what we kill as long as we get what we want. And perhaps we are. Perhaps, even, we deserve this "they" above us while we behave the way that we do. Do not judge the character of a man by the way he treats his equals, but by the way he treats his lessers. Those willing to kill us for economic reasons (like Bill Gates' and his CO₂ equation) have attributed the same value to humans that most humans attribute to animals — that is, a value that matters only in a business ledger. Perhaps if we were the sort of people who didn't kill foxes for sport, and truly respected the life we take from animals by using every possible "resource" that life provides, people wouldn't crop up amongst us who were willing to kill us for their own selfish reasons, too. Perhaps compassion and gratitude towards "lesser" animals would act as a buffer zone preventing the mindset that withholds compassion and gratitude from humans. It is not a great leap to go from saying "animals are only worth what we can get from them" to saying the same of humans.

My father told me when he was taken on his first big-game hunt, his father told him to take a slice from a bone of his first animal, carve an image of the animal in it, and wear it around his neck on a length of waxed cord as a tribute to the animal that died to feed his family. My grandfather was against displaying the heads or antlers of animals as "trophies" because he said it was a boastful show of having killed something grand, rather than an act of tribute. My father showed me buttons his mother had made. She'd slice the bones and sand and polish them and make buttons. My father always intended to create a ring for my mother by carving the bone of an animal. He'd designed it down to the last detail; it was to be a signet ring with a relief of a deer against a black enamel background. Animals don't have to be simply the input of a callous steak-making machine. When we celebrate even the smallest life, the preciousness of all life is exalted. How can humans truly live but that they take their place in the great circle of life?

[Eelco]

Just a quick comment. The farming of any sentient being, and I consider animals sentient and plants at another level, is of questionable "moral" validity, IMO.

When we open a loosh discussion things should get interesting.

I agree on the distinction between plants and animals(sentient beings). And even though we can discuss the "moral" of farming animals or keeping pets The vast majority of our consensus "reality" does not make that distinction when it comes to caring for one or the other..

Can't wait for the loosh thread. So vultures and Hyena's are scavengers and sentient beings right?

With Love
Eelco

[Eelco]

Wow BabaRa,

You seem to have opened up a line of questioning that seems to steer us in the direction of our own Morale.
Viewing the "THEY" as mirrors for our own behaviour as a race..

Thank you for opening the can of worms.
I am learning a lot..

With Love
Eelco

[modwiz]

I agree on the distinction between plants and animals(sentient beings). And even though we can discuss the "moral" of farming animals or keeping pets The vast majority of our consensus "reality" does not make that distinction when it comes to caring for one or the other..

Can't wait for the loosh thread. So vultures and Hyena's are scavengers and sentient beings right?

With Love
Eelco

My term 'questionable morality' stems from the idea that it is good to look at and question things. I am aware of the "english" the term primarily casts on usage and there is a little of that there from my personal viewpoint and value system.

I have no issue with hunting for food. A food animal like a deer is born into a situation where a natural death is being killed and eaten. Removal of apex predators like wolves necessitates that something fill that void. Since humans are the reason for wolf decline, looks like they should assist the coyotes in filling this void in the ecosystem.

I just grabbed an analogy and kept it simple. Deer was my go to animal.

[modwiz]

Another clarifier. I am not comfortable keeping a pet with some reasons mentioned by Babs.

I had a dog when I was in my teens and a cat for twenty years. She lived until I was 41. I cried more for her than either of my parents. Parents I loved and was in excellent relationship with. Of course.

My cat, Stinky, taught me more about love than any other corporeal being to date. I've had the pet experience........and teachings.

Pets are wonderful companions and teachers.

Wonderful memories. As close as my breath.

[Calabash]

Though even that information distorts a bit when some adrenaline is released during moments when pleasure is derived. Let us say, bungie jumping or parachuting.

Orgone as opposed to loosh? Does one change to the other through hormonal fluctuations and, if so, are there any others? Must be . . . .

[BabaRa]

Do not judge the character of a man by the way he treats his equals, but by the way he treats his lessers.

I loved your entire post SK, (your background sounds so interesting) but the quote above truly stood out for me. . . .

And after I read it (the entire post that is) the word that rang in my ears was: Intention