Theos-Talk Archives (September 1999 Message tl00060)

At 08:19 PM 09/16/1999 -0600, JRC wrote:

They *won* Bart. The beat all their opponents, spun the story well, and
got

their control. Don't try now to claim that they don't have it. But beware
of

centralized control. You may agree with the current lot in power, but a
few

years in the future a completely different group, with a completely

different attitude, could be in power - could decide to mandate that

Theosphy goes in a direction *they* choose. And the centralized power
you

seem to find so positive now could easily be wielded in other directions
-

and against you and your Lodge. Wheaton claimed they *needed* this

centralized control to "protect" the Lodges against takeovers ...
against

(they said in an attempt to frighten people) the chance that (for
instance)

another religious group might run a stealth campaign to take over legal

control of a Branch, and then sell off its assets (something that, for
a

variety of reasons, couldn't have been done - and that there had never
even

been the faintest hint of anyway). It seemed to occur to know one that
this

just raised the stakes. That it may be now slightly more difficult for
a

group of radical Hindus (who the hell *would* try to take over a

Theosophical branch?) to sieze Branch assets ... it would now take a
much

<paraindent><param>left</param>    Glad you mentioned a Hindu group. Most
of them are in a position to raise far more funds in a month more than
many lodges have raised in 100 years. In a small town in Texas, they have
already got commitment to nearly 1/2 million in donation and I had the
previlege of getting them a 501(c)(3) tax exempt status two days ago --
of course all pro bono work. But a stealth cult can plan and seize
control in a decade.

</paraindent>

larger group, with more disciplined followers, exactly six years to
take

over the entire National Section. To have, according to the bylaws,
*legal*

claim to everything at Headquarters as well as the assets of every Lodge
in

the country. If the danger they *claim* existed really did exist, all
they

did was take it from being a completely decentralized danger, and
aggregated

it into one huge danger.

<paraindent><param>left</param>

In the early days, when there was a problem in London Lodge, one of the
Founders mentioned that the reason for success of TS was
decentralization, not central control. So centralization is sync with
shrinking of the TS. Of late I know of some members who are not in a mood
to give any large funds to lodges specifically because of this. They are
interested in the funds use locally and with local control nor remote
control.

Some of us who are young are likely to see the developments in the next
millenium.

mkr</paraindent>