Theos-Talk Archives (July 2008 Message tt00114)

Autocratic control over a country is a double edged sword. Autocrat
can ruin a country, if he is bad, or he can take country to any height
if he uses power wisely and unselfishly keeping always good of people
in mind. China is criticized much because it is not democratic. But
the fact is China's economic growth has been around 10% for last
thirty years. This is a great miracle. I don't think any democratic
country ever grew at this speed for such long period. For common man
bread and butter matter most. And that means economic growth is most
important.
In India there is democracy, but most of good economic decisions are
spoilt by politics. Democracy also gives freedom of playing dirty
politics. India has democracy for last 50 years, but it's economy is
far behind communist Russia or China and even many monarchies. 
I think in economic development communist Russia is more advanced that
democratic Brazil, Philippines or many democratic countries in terms
of per capita income. 

Anand Gholap

--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@...>
wrote:
>
> Hi Konstantin,
> 
> I was hoping you might comment on the underlying issue, if you feel 
> comfortable doing so regarding your homeland.  One of the concerns in 
> the West with the fall of the Soviet Union was that monarchists might 
> disrupt the transition to democracy in some of the ex-Soviet states 
> or satellites.  That didn't happen anywhere, and I don't know if any 
> restorationist movements ever got any headway at all.  (Noises were 
> heard about Romania more than anywhere else as I recall.)  But then 
> what you have in Russia with Putin leaving office [BUT NOT REALLY] 
> looks like another example of presidency for life.  And the extreme 
> popularity in Russia of a man out to destroy civil liberties and 
> castrate the press constrasts rather strongly with the extreme 
> unpopularity in America of his counterpart playing the same role 
> here.  That suggests that the monarchical atavistic urge is not dead 
> in the hearts of the Russian people.  I pray that Bush has killed it 
> forever in America.
> 
> Maybe it's a universal in any country that killed its royal family or 
> fought a revolution to get rid of it.  I remember during my visits to 
> France in the 1980s it seemed like the cult of Princess Diana was 
> every bit as strong there as in England.  They killed their own 
> monarchs so now had to worship someone else's.  In an earlier 
> generation one could argue that Grace Kelly channeled some of the 
> same energies.
> 
> Paul
> 
> --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Konstantin Zaitzev" 
> <kay_ziatz@> wrote:
> >
> > --- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "kpauljohnson" <kpauljohnson@> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> > > 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.
> > 
> > At least, from my personal experience of email exchange with thim I 
> > can conclude that he isn't arrogant.
> > I have to explain that besides of being a F.T.S. I'm also an ULT 
> > associate.
> > Some time ago ULT began a campaign against his collection of 
> Blavatsky 
> > letters which included some dubious letters which by many 
> theosophists 
> > are regarded not genuine.
> > It was proposed to bombard him by emails expressing discontent by 
> his 
> > editorial policy, and I also wrote to him. Nevertheless, he replied 
> in 
> > a quite friendly tone and even sent me the first volume of the 
> > letters, atter I expressed my considerations why one of the letters 
> > cannot be genuine.
> >
>