Theos-Talk Archives (April 2009 Message tt00202)

Dear friends,

In December of 2008 when I arrived in Adyar there was too much tension. So much tension that I think it will take many years for me to participate to an international convention again. In my first days there, some people talked to me and mentioned they would not even say hello to Kim Dieu and others. My position was to tell them this is not right, we have different ideas and views, but we cannot exclude anyone who thinks different from us, especially in a Society whose first object is Universal Brotherhood. For some people though is very difficult to separate their persona from the ideas they defend. So  they end up excluding people, not talking to them, and this is not right.  

In a post of Mr. Warwick Keys (January 25, 2009), he mentioned that a "volatile  observer"  attacked the "reformer" Kim Dieu during the meeting of the International Council, and that no attempt to restrain or remove the observer from the chair was done.  At the end of the GC meeting, some observers usually are allowed to say few words. This kind of procedure I've seen during the International GC meeting in 2007 and also in 2008.  

The observer to which Mr. Warwick Keys refers, is me. First of all there are no "reformers", there are willing to be "reformers".  Now what I said during the GC meeting and I repeat here is the following: Kim Dieu is too long president of the European Federation (13 years), and  maybe its time for a change. This was taken as an innapropriated comment and as Mr. Warwick suggested , I should have been removed from the meeting. 

Now during the opening of the meeting, they were accusing  Radha Burnier of fraud and manipulation,  and used such words many times. This of course - from their point of view - was not inapropriated.  Their conspirancy theories are also not inapropriate, when they say the UP is trying to take over the T.S.Nothing they do is inapropriate. 

I have nothing against Kim Dieu, who  is a dedicated theosophist. My comment even if it was taken as a personal attack, in fact was not.  I believe that a person who proposes such changes in the by-laws (as for example, to reduce the number of times a President is re-elected etc), should settle an example. Being 13 years President of the European Federation and planning to go on for 6 years more, certainly its not the best example that someone who is defending such changes can give.  

Now they criticize the International President, they accuse her of fraud and manipulation, but when a critic was made to  them, that is not appropriate. Appropriate is only what they do. This is the kind of openess they are preaching. 

Now I travelled to India paying my own expenses and I am not a payed employee or have any of my expenses covered by the T.S., as many of those present in the International meeting have. I've been working a lot to try to make the Greek Section stronger and in fact this is my major concern at the moment. But the fact that I have not a chair in the International Council, wont prevent me from expressing my views on relevant matters related to the T.S., wherever I am.

To resume the opposition group thinks that everything they do and say is right. They complained that some members could not participate to the GC meeting, and they complained why an observer was not asked to leave the meeting. What an irony! Its obvious that the freedom they talk about, is limited to those who support them excluding those who have a different view. They took their seat during the International Council and accused the International President for fraud and manipulation. Don't forget that they made such attacks to a person who just had a stroke three years ago and is around 86 years old. That is so noble of their part, that is so appropriate. 

Here I close with a question to them: "Why do you see the speck in your brother's eye, but do not notice the log in your own."


Erica L. Georgiades

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