Theos-Talk Archives (July 2003 Message tt00197)

Hi all of you,

My views are:

This is to all the readers...

What about "Animal Farm" by George Orwell ?

I remember especially this:
The animals often use the word "comrade" between each other. This can
be compared with the theosophical word "brother" or "sister". >:-)

A quote:
"The pigs, being more intelligent than the other animals, establish
themselves as the new ruling elite. Two pigs vie for supremacy. The
charismatic Snowball (Trotsky) is intellectual, dynamic, and bent on
exporting the revolution. Napoleon (Stalin) is pragmatic, ruthless and
concerned with consolidating his power. Using dogs to enforce his authority,
Napoleon drives Snowball out. Snowball thus becomes the scapepig for every
shortcoming and failure on the farm. The principles of the revolution are
unashamedly violated by the self-serving Napoleon and his henchpig,
Squealer. As the famous quote goes: All animals are equal, but some are more
equal than others. In his excesses, Napoleon comes to increasingly resemble
a human. "
http://www.apolloguide.com/mov_print.asp?CID=1812&RID= (Remember all
signs.)

At the end of the story, one could not tell if the pigs were human or not.
So the end of the morale: Never eat pigs !
They are sometimes just like Melons (evil or not). >:-)
I know for sure they will state, that they are better than Melons.

So some are more equal than others !
Now where have we heard that one before ?

Just name them:
Stalin, Hitler, Mussolini, ....and in the West... who did you say...it was
or is...?


But as I understand Wry: Wry said it is only through suffering, that one
develops conscience !

So does that imply one is good when being evil ? No !

Laughs...

from
M. Sufilight with peace and love...


----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Bart Lidofsky" <bartl@sprynet.com>
To: <theos-talk@yahoogroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, July 16, 2003 7:57 PM
Subject: Re: Theos-World Re: What Is Happening In America?


> Pendragon wrote:
> > I always felt the most comfortable when reading the old original edition
of
> > the Theosophist or Lucifer. Just to hold those old volumes in hand, with
> > their yellowish paper half falling apart, gives you quite a different
force.
>
> By not-so-strange coincidence, that was my intention in looking up the
> original quote (for some reason, I thought that it wasn't in the CW) in
> the Beller Library of the New York Theosophical Society. However, as the
> librarian of that library happens to be Michael Gomes, and I needed to
> get his permission to look through the old magazines (they have them in
> bound collections), I strongly suspect that he would have given me the
> information without my having to physically go into them.
>
> I looked up information on the Communards, and found that there are a
> lot of parallels between them and many branches of Communism, which is
> why Zirkoff substituted the word. I have not looked into the other
> mentions of Communism as based in Blavatsky.
>
> In any case, if one looks at the works of Engels, and the works of the
> Institute for Marxism aka Institute for Social Research aka The
> Frankfurt School, and the writings that led up to the creation of the
> latter, it looks like much of what became, in the 1960's, "the New Left"
> is based on total fictions; things like a matriarchal society in the
> past that lived in total peace, that cultures are invented and imposed
> upon people rather than evolving, and that anarchy inevitably leads to
> Communism. This is largely based on extreme postmodernist concepts that,
> because we cannot perceive reality in an entirely objective manner, then
> there is no such thing as objective reality, and that reality is
> whatever the majority believes it is (socialist George Orwell took this
> point of view to its extreme in his work, "1984").
>
> Note that this is not the case with the entire Communist movement; by
> the 1970's, the Soviet Union had largely disavowed the Frankfurt School
> philosophies (as did, to a lesser extent, China after Mao Tze-Tung's
> death). There are many who would be considered to be on the left, even
> the far left, who do not accept this point of view either (notable
> examples include activist lawyer Ron Kuby, political humorist Michael
> Moore, and past presidential candidate Ralph Nader).
>
> In the Quaker Church, there is a concept that they call "consensus".
> They meet together to discuss a problem, and they do not come to a
> decision until everybody understands everybody else's point of view.
> Note that agreement is not necessary; merely understanding. When one
> reaches a point where one has to change the facts in order to justify
> one's opinion, or say that the facts are not facts, then one is blocked
> in reaching the truth. Also, when a truth is reached from the wrong
> direction, it is like creating a skyscraper with no foundation. I have
> no problem with criticism of the United States; it is when this
> criticism is founded on lies and half-truths that I have a problem. But
> once one is willing to start with the conclusion, carefully select the
> evidence that leads up to it, ignore any evidence to the contrary, and,
> if the evidence does not exist, make it up, then it becomes hard to see
> the other's point of view. That, in my opinion, goes against the
> principles of Theosophy, as I see them; it is creating a skyscraper with
> no foundation. Other's mileage may vary.
>
> Bart Lidofsky
>
>
>
>
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>