Theos-Talk Archives (June 1998 Message tt00541)

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.

>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.

>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.

>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."

>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. . ..

>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."

>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.

>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.

"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?


Kym