Theos-Talk Archives (April 1998 Message tt00159)

How would one go about defending these shelters? Would defence be to the
death? To kill another human being for our own survival...is this
theosophy? Compassion, indifference to individuality in defference to all?
Would the same thoughts lead to turning away the sick and injured from
treatment, if the amount of medicine were limited? I love my children with
all my heart and mind, and humanly this is good. Theosophically it is not
enough..I should feel no more compassion for my own child than I would for
a child of a stranger. I know little about the people you mentioned,
but from a simple person viewing theosophy simply, to take such pains to save
oneself and ones own close companions, to encourage spending money to
promote one's own survival and being armed to shoot those who might hinder
my survival over their own, does not seem very theosophical, nor
charitible.
Yes, we live in this world, and it is a violent one, but we are supposed to
be aware of the broader picture. To die in a nucluar war would be better
than to watch others die around us while we sit safely "dug in" and heap
karma around us. I am striving to become better than I now am, but I will
never be better than my fellow man.

> From: "Bjorn Roxendal" <roxendal@usa.net>
> Subject: Re:GWB
> Date: Tuesday, April 07, 1998 12:48 AM
>
> Govert Schuller wrote:
> >
> > Edward Francis, now her ex-husband, organized the purchase of a large
amount
> > of weapons. She did not know about this. Francis got caught for using
a
> > false name. The purchase otherwise was completely legal. The logic of
the
> > weapons was entirely defensive. If you have well-constructed and
> > well-stacked fall-out shelters, while many right-wing survivalists know
> > about that and have made threats to come and get you when, god forbid,
the
> > shelters should be used, it would be wise to have the means to defend
them.
> > Using a false name was to keep secret from these right-wingers the
details
> > of the purchase, the world of weapon-dealers being relatively small.
>
> To have shelters makes sense in a world where nucear terrorism or war is
a
> possibility that cn not be ruled out. Who can GUARANTEE that there will
not be a
> nuclear war? And if you cannot do that, then it seems to make sense to be
> prepared to survive, IF it would happen.
>
> To be able to defend your shelters make sense also. During periods of
government
> disintegration, which is quite likely if the shelters need to be used,
these
> shelters may be a target for takeover or abuse in other ways. If you
build them
> you should be able to defend them.
>
> The Francis episode is an example of how media jump at the opportunity to
blow
> up a story. As Govert stated, the crime was not buying the weapons but
using a
> false name to do so. This certainly was not in any way malicious, but
rather
> motivated of a desire NOT to draw undue attention to the shelter project.
> Thoughtless, yes, but there was no bad intentions behind it.
>
> Bjorn
>
>
>
>