The Death Of Trotsky - Original Writing - 1042 Words

I was walking again. I do that a lot, because walking relaxes me. Sometimes it just feels nice to stretch your legs, and get some fresh air. The Moscow air is so fresh that it burns your face a bit, but I know that a little hypothermia is good for the soul. God, I sound like air supply. Anyway, it was cold again. I mean it’s always cold in Moscow, but today it was different, because this walk wasn’t for nothing. I was intent on my purpose, so I moved at a brisk pace. I sped up, but made sure not to go too fast so that the ice pick didn’t dig into my thigh. I was walking to Leon’s house to kill him. As I stated earlier, I intend on killing Trotsky. I knew what would come if I was victorious, but I felt pangs of guilt strike my heart. I became unsure on whether or not I could kill him. After all, he wasn’t an enemy of the party, but a comrade. He may have views that I despise, but he was pure at heart. Maybe, he rejected his perfect life for a better one. There was just a chance that he was one of us, that he sympathized with the workers, and wanted Russia to have the bright future of communist red. I mentally scolded myself. I was intent on killing this man, and some weak remorse cannot stop me. Remorse is an emotion that plays into empathy, and empathy is my enemy. Empathy is something that people who cry feel. It is a tool of the upper class to make the lower class stay low, but I can’t stop it. When I was a child, I learned how feeling is wrong. I learned that caringShow MoreRelatedPower Struggle of Russia1325 Words   |  5 PagesAfter WW1, There was a power struggle for the leader of Russia. High level government workers Joseph Stalin and Leon Trotsky fought for the throne after the untimely death of Vladimir Lenin. 1Joseph Stalin was born on December 18, 1878. His given name is Josef Vissarionovich Djugashvili or ИÐ ¾ÃŒ Ã' Ã ¸Ã'„ Ð’Ð ¸Ã' Ã' Ã °Ã'€Ð ¸Ã ¾ÃŒ Ã ½Ã ¾Ã ²Ã ¸Ã'‡ Ð ¡Ã'‚Ð °ÃŒ Ã »Ã ¸Ã ½ in Russian. He was born in what would now be Georgia in a place called Gori, Tiflis Governerate, Russian Empire. Stalin’s family lived in poverty all throughout his childhood. HisRead MoreKarl Marx973 Words   |  4 PagesKarl Marx Karl Marx was a German scholar who lived in the nineteenth century. He spent most of his life studying, thinking and writing about history and economics. A many years of study, much of it spent in England, he believed that he understood more deeply than anyone who had ever lived before him why there is injustice i world. He said that all injustice and inequality is a result of one underlying conflict in society. He called it a class struggle, that is, a conflict bet the class of peopleRead MoreAnimal Farm By George Orwell1433 Words   |  6 PagesSamantha Taddei Mrs. Mantineo English I Honors May 29, 2017 Animals Farm Research Paper â€Å"All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others.† George Orwell’s novella Animal Farm. Orwell’s goal in writing Animal Farm was to illustrate the 1917 Russian Revolution, and depict a government more tyrannical and oppressive than the one it overthrew. The characters and the events in Animal Farm mirror the Russian Revolution. For example, in the novella Manor Farm is a representationRead MoreAnimal Farm Or Ussr Part II1243 Words   |  5 Pageswork should be considered a product of the time, place, and historical circumstances of its composition rather than as an isolated work of art or text.† Animal Farm and it’s direct correlation with the USSR connects New Historicism and the impactful writing of Orwell with fluidity and ease. New Historicism is a criticism developed in the 1980’s by a Harvard English professor named Stephen Greenblatt. This criticism takes a look at every aspect of the story including the author’s political and emotionalRead MoreAnimal Farm: An Allegory of Russian History Essay903 Words   |  4 PagesAnimal Farm is an allegory of the period in Russian history between 1917 and 1944. It is a satirical story written in the form of an animal fable. In writing Animal Farm as a fable, George Orwell is able to present his subject in simple symbolic terms by treating the development of communism as a story that is taking place on a single farm with talking animals. The characters of Animal Farm represent figures in Russian history during the Russian Revolution. Places, objects, and events of theRead More The Parallels Between Animal Farm and Soviet History Essay example2593 Words   |  11 PagesThe Parallels Between Animal Farm and Soviet History Prior to writing Animal Farm, George Orwell had stated: History consists of a series of swindles, in which the masses are first lured into revolt by the promise of Utopia, and then, when they have done their job, enslaved over again as new masters Together this statement and Soviet History provided a basis for a political allegory which is depicted through Animals and tells of the tribulations which surround certain political idealsRead MoreAllegorical Features Of Animal Farm 2086 Words   |  9 Pages Although Clover screams, They are taking you to your death, the sound of Boxer s hoofs inside the van grows fainter and dies away. This is the symbol of fate of the victims of the barbaric cruelties which were inflicted by Hitler upon his enemies or supposed enemies. Trotsky s portrait as Snowball The name Snowball represents Trotsky, the name Snowball which reminds us of Trotsky s white hair and beard. This name implies that Trotsky had milted before Stalin s opposition to him. SnowballRead MoreGeorge Orwell s Animal Farm1899 Words   |  8 Pagesunder the pen name of George Orwell, began writing Animal Farm. Although born in Bengal, he eventually moved to Eton for schooling. After completing his schooling, Orwell served for the loyalist forces in the Spanish Civil War. At the end of the war, Orwell moved to England. It was in England where he decided to devote himself to British Socialism and writing. The masterpiece, Animal Farm, was created out of Orwell’s love of Socialism and his passion for writing. Although he had trouble at first, on AugustRead MoreThe Point Of View Of Communism, Marxism And Totalitarianism1879 Words   |  8 Pageswho first espoused the political philosophy behind communism, and as Vladimir Lenin, who effected this philosophy’s revolu tionary expression. His speech to the other animals bears many similarities to Marx’s Communist Manifesto and to Lenin’s later writings in the same vein as When Major dies, two young pigs, Snowball and Napoleon, assume command and consider it a duty to prepare for the Rebellion. The animals revolt and drive the drunken and irresponsible farmer Mr. Jones from the farm, renamingRead MoreGeorge Orwell s Animal Farm1392 Words   |  6 PagesFarm so controversial among the â€Å"British socialists† and Western countries was its criticism of Soviet Communism combined with the â€Å"noble and revolutionary† light that the Soviet Union shone under in its birth (Baker). Political satire is a mean of writing that uses humor to criticize a global event, people, or institution in order to effectively better the world. Orwell’s Animal Farm, as a political satire, affected the perception of Stalin’s Soviet Union and acted as the â€Å"most devastating literary

Medi Scientific Articles Versus Socially And Politically...

In this paper, I will be analyzing two types of media: Scientific articles versus socially and politically motivated, biased articles. This paper’s intended audience are my fellow ENC1101 students. This paper will challenge students to do further research then what they see after one search before forming an opinion on a subject. The audience of my paper will be aware of the subject, as the topic has been in the news in ad nauseam over social media, news outlets, newspapers, and personal conversation. I will accomplish my goal of showing similarities and differences between scholarly articles and media with a second agenda by establishing niches, counterclaiming one source with another, and indicating gaps in information. The ideas in†¦show more content†¦In this paper, I will be doing just that; I will be analyzing documents about climate change. As climate change is a controversial topic, there are many sides to this subject. I will be analyzing science-based articl es from NASA, and NOAA and comparing them with the views of scientists, and popular news outlets. What are climate and climate change? The definition of climate is rarely disputed; according to NASA, climate is â€Å"typical or average weather† (Dunbar) Climate change, however, has a different definition depending on where one gets their information. NASA describes climate change as: â€Å"range of changes that are happening to our planet. (Global Climate). However, if one looks to another news outlet, they would get this definition: â€Å"’’Global Warming’ is a sham... A sham perpetuated by a network of dirty government officials, greedy corporations, and bought off scientific organizations† (Scientist Confesses). The difference is in not only information being given, but how a rhetor presents the information. When NASA is outlining definitions, they are straight to the point; they have an idea to present, and they present it. This is drastically different from the Newsmax source. In this source, there is little to no mention of climate change until page 3 of the article to find what the article is even about, one must sift through page upon page of imaginative situations and economic statistics. When reading

God vs. Evil free essay sample

God, like Adam and Eve, suffered consequences. Genesis 3:14-17, God says: â€Å"Because you did this†¦Ã¢â‚¬  referring to the serpent who tempted Eve, then to Eve, and finally to Adam, â€Å"Because you did†¦Ã¢â‚¬  Humankind invited the existence of Evil into the goodness of God’s creation. No longer did God walk in the breeze of the Garden of Eden; no longer did God remain in the actual presence of humankind. No longer did Adam and Eve enjoy the comforts of the Garden, like God, they too were cast out. With their newfound awareness and understanding, Adam and Eve were sent into the reality of all else outside of the Garden. Where other humans and animals did not know God, they did not obey God. Adam and Eve became the first Creation of good to endure the duality of Good and Evil. It was the existence of Evil which made its home in the world outside of the Garden. Natural evil took its rightful hold upon the wonder of the earth before God’s children lived in its presence. The cause of suffering Adam and Eve were innocent to, and yet the grey clouds of cognizance beckoned their attention. It was an actuality quickly seen and felt upon entry. The eating of the Tree of Knowledge instilled wisdom fit for the gods came with a responsibility God was not ready for. As creatures of God, there were consequences Adam and Eve now had to bear. Cast into the world full of â€Å"Natural evil†, they soon discovered their newfound awareness highlighted a different kind of evil: â€Å"Moral evil† (Pojman, Rea. 277). As children of God made in God’s image, their breath of life given by God, Adam and Eve were distinct individuals in this world of Natural evil and chaos. They were given the gift of free-will, the gift to choose their morality, choose their ethic, and their values. Outside of Eden, they were no longer creations untouched by these evils, protected by the Creator God. Eating of the Tree of Knowledge became a blessing and a curse. They now understood the difference between right and wrong, good and bad. Moral evil is introduced into the world when Adam and Eve’s son, Cain, killed his brother Abel in Genesis 4:8. The lessons of moral responsibility catapulted the pure creation of God into the stark reality of God’s separation from them. If God is omniscient, omnipotent, perfectly good, and wholly love, then God created that which God could exist around and within. Evil exists outside of that creation. Hence, God could no longer walk amongst creation; God could not prevent the creation of something God did not create. Though, the essence of God withstands within God’s children. As Adam and Eve produced within the world of duality, God’s essence endured. Humankind’s free-will allowed for the development of soul-making; a â€Å"movement†¦from one level of existence, that of animal life (Bios), to another land higher level, that of eternal life (Zoe)† (Pojman, Rea. 350). It is the journey Adam and Eve’s children faced, upon the exit of Eden. Jews call it the punishment of their defiance; a battle of the evil created within their own hearts. Christians called it the battle between good and evil; God and the devil’s battle for souls. Muslims call it the battle of the jihad; both inner and exterior. All of which refer to evil being separate from God and God’s creation. Yet, when tragedy strikes, when harm or death comes to those that gain nothing more than the lessons of pain and suffering; people of all raise their fists to God. It is easy to forget the transition that took place following the exit of Eden. Just as humankind was separated, God was separated. It was the will of the human heart. And, with the god-like wisdom gained from the Tree of Knowledge, humankind was instilled with conscience and accountability. Natural evil in a living world is unavoidable but Moral evil, no matter the extent is avoidable and it is wholly human. It is the unknown, the unanswered, and the misunderstood that people cry out to God for. For the Jews, Christians, and Muslims, God has heeded the call. A savior, a prophet, the Word, the lifestyle of worship through piety and humility; were given to create faith, hope, and restore confidence in God’s promise to creation. The defeat of death, the promise of life, and the end of suffering is the agreement God made with creation. Though, without the duality of Good and Evil, there would not be a need for this agreement. There would not be a need for a savior, for a revelation, for a new beginning in which God re-creates a world without evil. If Evil was within God’s control and creation, then God would not need to defeat it. If the unknown is wrapped with the understanding of death and God created it, there would be no need to overcome it. The problem with Evil is that it exists outside of God. All major religions that reflect a dualistic relation between good and evil are in effect building upon the separation between God and creation. Catering to the ‘battle’ between good and evil identifies that good exists outside of evil and vise-versa. Both can exist independent of each other, and both can cease, independent of each other. Perhaps the unprepared God in the Garden of Eden did not expect the pure Creation to defy the rules so effortlessly. Perhaps God, being of pure love, is omniscient and omnipotent within the boundary of the original Creation. Yet, because the essence of God is within all that came from the line of Adam and Eve, God is able to remain omniscient and omnipotent at the distance of separation each creation gives. Hence, there is no interference. It is a part of our curse, being conscious to the duality in life. Being that God’s Creation created, and as Creation, we are simply exercising the gifts God gave as God made within God’s own image. By the choice of free-will, we are able to commit Moral evil; we are able to embody the will of Evil itself. It is logical and reasonable to accept the possibility that Evil exists beyond the realm of God’s entire creation. Written in the creation story grounded within the three largest Monotheistic religions: Judaism, Christianity, and Islam; the Tree of Knowledge bore a fruit which enlightened the innocent ignorance of humankind. God laid out the consequences to the act made by the serpent, Eve, and Adam; consequences that were already in existence and simply unveiled to the eyes of the created. It was not a punishment; it was merely the truth of reality. The understanding that outside of the love and will of God stood Evil, the contrast and enemy of all God was and will always be. We, as individuals, are bestowed with the duty to maintain our connection to God, in order to see the fulfillment of God’s promise; to defeat Evil forever. Works Cited Pojman, Louis, and Michael Rea. Philosophy of Religion: An Anthology. 6th ed. Boston: Wadsworth, 2012. P. 277, 350. Print. Bible, English Standard Version 2001. Biblos, 2011. Web. 21 May 2012. lt;http://www. biblos. com/gt;.

The Iran Contra Affair Essays (1663 words) - IranContra Affair

The Iran Contra Affair The Iran Contra Affair was a secret arrangement to provide funds to Nicaraguan contra rebels from profits accumulated by selling arms to Iran in the 1980s. There is much controversy surrounding this scandal, including the presidents knowledge of these events. Throughout the trials, President Regan claimed that he knew nothing about the diversion of funds, or the illegal arms sales to Iran. The following information gathered will prove otherwise. The president not only knew about these arrangements, but also made certain that the contra rebels would be funded. During the trial of Oliver North, he was asked, Do you remember thinking that you were in a den of thieves? North was indignant. I never regarded that I was working in a den of thieves, he declared. I honestly believe I was working for honorable men doing their level best to make this country a better place, and I was carrying out lawful orders to that end. North testified that he had believed that the diversion of arms proceeds had been approved by President Reagan. Throughout the trials North claimed that he was carrying out direct orders from the president, and he felt he was involved in something that was beneficial to him and his country. President Reagan had pushed congress to authorize funding for the Contras, but congress took no such measure. Even so, the president would have it this way. In 1986, President Reagan authorized the CIA to sell arms directly to Iran, and North coordinated this activity for the president. As the foreign funding for the contras ran out, North and his colleagues inflated the price of the weapons sold to Iran and secretly diverted the excess funds from the U.S. to private Swiss bank accounts. It seems impossible that President Reagan had no clue as to what was going on in his own administration. He was the head of the U.S. government. At times he contradicted himself when asked about these events. On October 8, 1986, Reagan was asked by a news conference: Was there any United Sates involvement in this fight over Nicaragua carrying the arms any involvement whatsoever? Reagan replied, Im glad you asked that. Absolutely not. Later, after the government admitted to selling arms to Iran, Reagan stated that these sales would be stopped. He had to have known about these arrangements before the American public found out. Reagans first priority was freeing the hostages, and Iran had already stated that it would free the hostages if more arms were supplied. This is an even greater cause for Reagan to proceed in aiding the Contras. He wanted to stay an adored public figure, and he wanted to succeed where President Carter failed. He would do so even if the law had to be broken. It was well known that the President ran the White House with full authority. He was personally active in national security affairs and attended almost all of the relevant meetings involving the Iran initiative. He, as much as anyone, should have insisted that an orderly process be observed. In addition, he especially should have made sure that plans were made for handling any public disclosure for the initiative. He must take primary responsibility for the chaos that descended upon the White House when such disclosure did occur. The President was in full control and should take responsibility for these actions. Everyone in the White House knew who was in charge, so how could something like this just slip by without him knowing? President Reagans knowledge of these events is fairly obvious. It is just hard to see because he knew how to hide things well. The president always watched the way he would say things, and made sure to say them clearly. He never did say go lie to Congress. He did say, for example, when learning of the contribution of a foreign country that we shouldnt share that with congress. This may seem innocent, but in actuality he is telling these people to lie for him. His knowledge of these events seems pretty clear in some of his statements. On December 8, 1986, Reagan stated, Let me just say it was not my intent to