Theos-Talk Archives (October 2008 Message tt00253)

Friends,

I would like to make some observations in regard to definite excerpts 
from Edi Bilimoria's letter to the TS International Secretary. 

>In democratic countries such as England, India and America, the 
entire population is given the chance to have its say in electing its 
national leader - not just the Members of Parliament, or Senators, or 
Congressmen.

However in totalitarian regimes such as the former USSR (where all 
men were supposed to be comrades/brothers, but others were deemed 
more 'comradely' than others) the National President was elected by 
the Politburo - the policy-making committee of the former Communist 
party.<

USSR meant Union of Soviet Socialist Republics and its political 
system was called Soviet (Council) democracy which was a form of 
democracy in which citizens' councils, consisting of elected 
delegates, formed organs of power possessing both legislative and 
executive power. The soviets begun at the local level and onto a 
national parliament-like assembly. But along with the state political 
system and its administrative hierarchy, there existed a parallel 
structure of communist party organizations, which allowed to its 
Politburo to exercise large amounts of control over the state. State 
administrative organs took direction from the parallel party organs, 
and appointments of all party and state officials required approval 
of the central organs of the party.

To remain on a very symplistic level we could compare the role of the 
communist party in the political system of the Soviet Union with that 
of the Queen and members of the House of Lords, as unelected 
representatives of the people, in the British. 

However, the operation of communist party had very little in common 
with the idea of communism as had the operation of British 
aristocracy with that of liberalism. After all the Trotcky's 
bolshevic revolution was financed by the Wall Street and 
International Financiers. 

Watch this series of video interview with professor Anthony Sutton: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3sCpsq55uic

Quite interesting is also video "1932, A True History of the United 
States of America" by LaRouche PAC:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RgcdRCWEt4Q

Best regards,
Anton


--- In theos-talk@yahoogroups.com, "Pedro Oliveira" <prmoliveira@...> 
wrote:
>
> [Dr Edi Bilimoria, a leading member of the English Section of the 
TS,
> has given me permission to post the message below which was sent to
> the International Secretary of the TS at Adyar. PO]
> 
> 
> Dear International Secretary,
> 
> Response to Proposed Amendment to Rule 10
>  
> In democratic countries such as England, India and America, the 
entire
> population is given the chance to have its say in electing its
> national leader - not just the Members of Parliament, or Senators, 
or
> Congressmen.
> 
> However in totalitarian regimes such as the former USSR (where all 
men
> were supposed to be comrades/brothers, but others were deemed more
> 'comradely' than others) the National President was elected by the
> Politburo - the policy-making committee of the former Communist 
party.
> The equivalent situation now is the recent proposed amendment to 
Rule
> 10 which consitutes an attempt by a ruling elite to dis-empower and
> disenfranchise the entire membership in an organization - the
> Theosophical Society - founded on the pillars of freedom of thought
> and speech, liberty, and the right of each individual to think and
> exercise his own intelligence.
>  
> Whilst I am not opposed to Rules to ensure that no one holds office
> for a completely indefinite period of time, I am deeply concerned by
> the implications of the amendment to Rule 10, which, if implemented 
would:
> 
> 1. seriously vitiate the core ethos of the Theosophical Society
> concerning individual liberty and freedom of expression and voice,
> thus encouraging apathy
> 
> 2. deny members any real say in the election of its International
> President and so encourage apathy
> 
> 3. by allowing just the General Council Members the right to vote,
> create the ideal conditions for campaigning for or against 
individual
> candidates, lobbying, individual preference, cronyism and politics,
> along with the exercise of hidden agendas and vested interests, all 
to
> become a serious danger.  
> 
> For example this statement: "Each General Secretary shall thereafter
> consult his Governing Body before casting his vote, BUT VOTE 
ACCORDING
> TO HIS OWN JUDGEMENT" [my emphasis] is far more likely to produce a
> vote according to the individual preference (or prejudice) of a
> General Secretary than a vote that truly represents his 
consultations
> with his Governing Body.
> 
> I regard the following statements in the proposed amendment as
> judgmental and subjectively construed:
> 
> "Popular election by the full membership of a worldwide, 
multilingual
> body is fraught with complications. Not least among those
> complications is the fact that most of the voting membership will 
have
> little or no knowledge of the candidates they are voting upon, and
> hence their vote cannot be well-informed. The persons most likely to
> have direct knowledge of and the most opportunity to become
> well-informed about the candidates are members of the General 
Council.
> They are likely also to be among the most experienced members of the
> Society...."
> 
> Comment: There are a large number of members of long standing who 
are
> immensely well informed and well meaning, but who prefer not to 
become
> involved in the administration and governance of the Society; hence
> steer clear of committees, etc. and hold no official office. To 
impute
> that they are not well-informed is both ill-informed and 
presumptuous.
> 
> Finally, the contents of a Rule say as much as its timing. Let us
> pause and ask ourselves: would John Algeo and Betty Bland have put
> forward this amendment "in the best interests of our Society" if 
John
> Algeo had won the election? If our honest answer is 'no', then what 
is
> this telling us? That this Rule amendment proposed so very soon 
after
> the last election smacks more of vendetta by some, than action in 
the
> best interests of our sacred Society. At the very least I would 
expect
> that for an amendment of such magnitude, the best interests of our
> Society would be better served by first consulting our membership by
> way of some kind of Referendum, instead of the amendment being 
pushed
> through quietly at high speed.
> 
> I strongly oppose this amendment to Rule 10, which, if implemented
> would gravely disenfranchise our members.
> 
> With sincere wishes and regards.
> 
> Edi Bilimoria
>