Theos-Talk Archives (July 2008 Message tt00105)

Dynasties ultimately end because they die off.? The problem with the TS is that because Theosophists live for so damned long it takes a while for it to happen.

Chuck the Heretic


http://www.geocities.com/c_cosimano 


-----Original Message-----
From: kpauljohnson <kpauljohnson@yahoo.com>
To: theos-talk@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Fri, 11 Jul 2008 6:42 am
Subject: Theos-World Dynasty subverting Democracy






Hey,

One passage in Betty's article really strikes me as worth discussing 
here. "Other longtime friends and supporters of Radha urged her to 
step down, but she expressed her wish to stay in office for life. 
Although lifetime service in the office of president has been in our 
history, it is not necessarily a healthy practice, as it allows the 
possibility of an autocratic leadership instead of a transparent 
democracy."

The only edit I'd suggest is to replace "allows the possibility" 
to "ensures the inevitability"-- but then I can trash the entire 
leadership history of the TS with no qualms, whereas in Betty's 
position I can see a need for a certain evasiveness :) But at least 
she gestures in the general direction of the elephant in the room.

I started the primary season without any strong feelings for/against 
any of the Democratic candidates, but almost daily had reason to move 
towards an "anyone but Clinton" position. Why? Mainly because Bill 
Clinton constantly made it evident that he saw a Hillary nomination 
as a restoration of a dynasty-- while also giving people reason to 
dread such a development. Needless to add, hope I never live to see 
another Bush darken the doorway of the White House and the history of 
the world. An idiot like Dubya would never have had a chance if his 
last name had been Smith. But India has had the same problem, an 
ostensible democracy where people repeatedly installed the 
Nehru/Gandhi dynasty because the popular imagination was still stuck 
in the era of the maharajas. And the TS dynastic corruption of 
democracy is arguably worse than either of the above examples, as for 
50 the last 57 years the presidency is in hands of a father and 
daughter. I'd like to think the overwhelming Indian vote for Radha 
was about rejecting Algeo, but surely it is all about blindly 
supporting dynasty.

So now we know that Radha basically feels entitled by TS history to a 
lifetime tenure regardless of her health or the effect on the 
Society. (Assuming the Betty is correct, and she said something 
along these lines the only time we had a personal conversation, in 
Maryland in 1999.) But what evidence is there that John Algeo is any 
less arrogant or entitled-feeling, or wouldn't hang on to the age of 
110 if given the chance? None AFAIK.

BTW, the ARE finally moved away from dynasty, after leadership 
passing from Edgar to Hugh Lynn to Charles Thomas over a 70 year 
span. There is finally a non-Cayce in charge, and no Cayce heir 
apparent in sight looking for a restoration. Are there any young 
Shastrys or Algeos waiting in the wings to run the TS throughout this 
century? I gather not, so perhaps the curse of dynastic corruption 
of [ALLEGED] TS democracy will be lifted within our lifetimes.

PJ 



 


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]