Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00545)

> Date: Tuesday, June 23, 1998 1:42 AM
> From: "Kym Smith" <kymsmith@micron.net>
> Subject: General Koot

>Govert wrote:
>
>>Thank you for explaining. C.U.T. is as 'extremist' as the
TS is
>>'cultish.'  You have a copy of the report?
>
>I learned of this through the newsletter of the SPLC
(Southern Poverty Law
>Center) - I've not a copy of a court transcript or
anything.  Would you like
>the address (snail or e-mail) of the Center?  I can send it
to you and other
>info I have via private e-mail correspondence - totally up
to you.


Not necessary. Found their website.

>>The only illegal part of the transaction was that he used
an
>>assumed name to hide the purchase, not from the
government, but
>>from extremist rightwingers in Montana, who have made it
known to
>>the organization that when push comes to shove in a
situation
>>where precautionary survivalist plans have to be
implemented,
>>that they would come after the food and other suplies of
the
>>organization.
>
>This really doesn't make sense - and either way, C.U.T.
would somehow have
>assumed that such a "survivalist" situation would occur.
Rightwingers could
>come in and take MY food should such a thing happen - but
I'm not
>stockpiling guns due to such a risk.  I fail to see the
logic of C.U.T. there.

Yes, C.U.T. thinks that there is a substantial chance for
such a situation to occur, substantial enough to be
prepared. But we hope it will not happen. Better safe, than
sorry. You are not at risk regarding rightwingers, because
you probably have not food for more than a week. Sorry if
you don't catch the logic.

>>The hostility of some inhabitants of Montana
>>towards C.U.T. was made evident with some drive-by
shootings and
>>the burning of a cross on Church property.

>Again, this is also happening to churches with
predominately black members
>and they have not found it necessary to break the law nor
become a
>military-like encampment.


If the issue was only discriminatory attacks from
hate-groups then I would agree, but the main concern of
C.U.T. is survival in the face of societal breakdown as a
worst-case scenario. Meanwhile they are also preparing for a
best-case scenario, in which the world stays relatively
peaceful and we bring our message to as many people as
possible. For this scenario we need some new organizational
structures developed, which is being worked out now.

>>The purchase of the
>>weapons was only for defensive purposes in case of the
>>disintegration of civil authority and the hiding of the
purchase
>>was to prevent it being known in the Montana circles of
>>survivalists militia.
>
>This rationale gives everyone the OK to pack some massive
amounts of "heat."

The U.S. government has failed to provide its people with a
common defense, so the people have to provide it for
themselves.

>>Better they had done the purchase in the
>>open so these groups would know what they might be up
against.

>Ah, yes!  The "mutual-destruction" theory!  If America has
atomic bombs, the
>Soviet Union is entitled to them, also.  We see where
that's led. . ..

This is not the MAD doctrine, but the doctrine of having a
strong defense to deter an attack. In the MAD doctrine both
parties have no defense at all in order to assure the mutual
destruction. Quite a difference.

>>The removal of the weapons was a part of a deal with the
IRS. It
>>was a condition to keep tax-exempt status. This did not
mean the
>>abolition of second amendment rights of individual
members.

>I am always tickled, and, at the same time terrified, that
those who quote
>the amendment fail to notice the amendment is referring to
a "well-regulated
>militia."


I read the second amendment as stating that a well-regulated
militia AND the right of people to bear arms will not be
infringed upon.

>>Are you prepared to bring the
>>theosophical message to the masses after the radio-active
dust
>>has settled?

>Well, to be honest, I'm not sure I want to bring the
Theosophical message to
>the "masses" even before any bombs drop - especially after
reading your post.

That's o.k. with me, though I fail to see the logic of my
posting having an impact on your desire or non-desire to
share theosophy.


>>My own reading of history tells me that the Masters are
realists
>>and will sometimes sponsor organizations and persons,
which use
>>some military means for defensive purposes.

>I think this is pure ca-ca talk.  And I am dismayed that
the people on this
>list who claim the existence of the "Masters" would remain
silent after
>reading such words. . .unless they, too, think that
"Masters" being involved
>in the killing and destruction of other humans and nations
is an acceptable
>idea.

Ca-ca meaning French for B.S.? Well you for one did not
remain silent. Maybe Pul Johnson can enlighten us more about
the role of the Masters, HPB, the TS and Annie Besant in the
liberation of India from the British. Another example of the
Masters' thinking on strategy is that they deplored the fact
that the Tibetans did not have a stronger defense to deter
the Chinese from invading Tibet. What suffering and
religious and cultural persecution would have been prevented
if they had a better defense and the west would have come to
its aid. Here again the isue is about defense and the
prevention of tragedy.

>"Masters" directing revolutions and such - well, with the
"compassion"
>clause so dominant in Theosophy, I guess one has to say
that the "Masters"
>were simply involved in. . .mercy killing?

Compassion and justice are for me the key-words and I do not
translate them into pacifism nor situational ethics. For a
more visionary account of Adepts invoved in politics
throughout the ages read
Manly P. Hall's "The secret Destiny of America." It all has
to do with the evolving idea, and its implementation, of
forms of self-governance. Mostly the powers-that-be resist
that evolution and even will prevent with brute force its
enfolding. Realistic idealism will anticipate that
eventuality.

Thanks for reading thus far.

Govert