Re: [WDDM] RE: Season greetings and wishes for a new WDDMCongress in the New year!

["Esi" <esi1mohseni2(at)hotmail.com>]

Sorry for all gramatical and dictation errors in my last letter.

I was tired and did not have so much time.

You find my notices below

From: Antonio Rossin

Sent: Tuesday, January 05, 2010 12:43 AM

To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net

Subject: Re: [WDDM] RE: Season greetings and wishes for a new WDDMCongress in the New year!

Esi ha scritto:

Hi Ant

Human societies with a few isolated exceptions has been and are hierarchical.

Hi Hamid,

I don't know of any absence of hierarchy everywhere human communication exists.
Maybe, there are some human societies without any formal hierarchical arrangement.
But substantially, communication in order to be effective requires core hoierarchy
between speaker an listener, parent and child, teacher and pupil, natural leader amd
natural gregarious people.
< I don´t find any hierarchy in conversations between me and you or am I wrong? If wrong which of us is in higher position?

   I have seen documentary films of primitive tribes in Africa and Amazonas there exist no hierarchy between tribe members.

   You could not even notice parents dominating children. Parents supported children and had friendly relation to them. As reporter described

   tribe members were happy and healthy most of the time.

   I have also had relation to close friends without any sense of hierarchy.

   Or am I wrong? >

Those in power and welfare and those who take order and do the job.
Most of those in power and welfare are satisfied with social reality and don´t
demand for changes.

Provided only their leadership is up.  As soon as their power decreases, they
demand for changes immediately.

< What I meant was changes in relation between social groups and members. The changes leadership demand does not affect hierarchy order and if it does it strengthen the leaders dominance.>

Most changes in human societies in history has been initiated and performed by
those who suffer and are unsatisfied. The wave of unsatifaction and demand for
changes get stronger and weaker by time depended to social reality in different
times. When those in power are clever enough to accept changes evolution and
peacefully and peaceful changes take place.

I don't think so. They accept the changes only which don't decrease their power
in anything. (Direct) Democracy implies the decrease of every hierarchic power,
uo to the reversal of the current hierarchy.  Insdeede, this reversal would be up
even today, with "We the People" being the sovereign, if only the people were
aware of the communication hierarchy which they still unawarely undergo to.
< You are right. Leaders don´t give up their power if they are not forced to. They do it sometimes after defeating in war against lower hierarchy members like french and

   russian revolution. Somtimes when they understand they have no chance to win a war like several remaining monarchy countries in Europe there power of kings and

   queens were limited to ceremonial power >

When those in power has not understood the reality and resist changes
perhaps it initiates revoulutions and bloodshed. In short periods of time in a
society´s history people in lower part of hierarchy don´t mind to demand for
changes of different reasons as fear,  fatique, hopelessity, etc. But this does
not mean that they are satisfied.
I can be wrong but it looks like that you Antonio see only one part of problem
which is lower part of the social hierarchy and forget the higher parts responsibility
for changes.

My humble opinion is, each one of  us should accomplish one's own task
consinstently and responsibly.  This basic task requires each one of us to pay
the utmost attention in the lower part of social hierarchy, which is the part we
live in and should be directly responsible for, first of all the family arrangement
and hierarchy as the paragon.
<  I respect what you are doing but I think it must be combined with change in political system and press on leadership.

    I think peoples political culture and knowledge can affect which kind of political systems can survive, but I also believe existing political system can affect peoples political culture and

    knowledge ( We can not forget that leadership and governing political system control education, culture activities, media and economy).

    Depended on social realities sometimes we can achieve faster result by using more press on leadership to change the political system, and sometimes by education and

    developing people´s political culture and knowledge. Most of the time we should do both jobs simultanously. More dominant and violent leaderships limits and make it almost impossible

    to educate and develop people´s political culture and knowledge.  >

We cannot pretend to build Democracy in the government, which is the higher
part of the social hierarchy which those in power live in and are responsible for.

< No, but we can defend peoples interest and use resources to make leadership to defeat from their position step by step >

What happens in Iran now is an obvious example of that lower part of the
hierarchy are demanding mostly peacefully for changes to more democracy
and freedom of speach.
In other words they take care of their part of responsibility to change the
society peacefully.

Looks like utopia. No governement accepts peacefully more freedom in people,
the History teaches. Let's imagine what the totalitarian fundamentalist theocratical
ones will do.
Buttt...
< You wrote in your letter before that leaders are not alien and we should talk with them and ask for change.

    I meant by what I wrote above, this is what happening in Iran today but as you write below and as I know it is an utopia to change

    anything if people don´t force leaders by different power means and activities. This example makes it also obvious that Iranian people´s political

    knowlege and culture is mature but can not achieve political changes as long as they can not force the leaders to give up.

    As you wrote before you try to educate children and families in democracy and make them aware of their rights but as you see this target is achieved in

    in Iran already but is not enough to change the governing political system. In other words what you are doing in your country is necessary but not enough to

    change political reality. Your work is also opposed by schools, media and all other power means controlled by leaders. >

"I can be wrong but it looks like that you Hamid see only one part of problem
which is higher part of the social hierarchy and forget the lower parts responsibility
for changes."   (your words, dear Friend, see above )
< As I wrote above and before, informing and educating people about democray and political knowledge and realitites are necessary but not enough. Target groups can not be only

   families but even individuals who has no families. This job must also be combined by education of leaders via communication and power means to make any change of the political system

   and relations possible. I must also mention that informing and educating of people is opposed and sabotaged by leaders in different degrees in different countries. Those active in these

   kind of activities in Iran can also be punished by death penalty. Most of the time they work underground and decode their messages and information papers. You perhaps know what

   happened to Pazolini in Italy for his similar activities. >

Tell me please, what about today's Iranian family arrangement? Is it democratic?
There is dialectic communication, i.e. freedom of speech, inside? There is gender
parity?
< Because of Irans history and geography, population in Iran is not homogenous as many european countries. I think most people have a sense of justice and democracy in different

   degrees. I am sorry that I don´t have enough information about all parts of Iran. During shah and his father talking about politic officially was risky. Educated people and people living

   in big cities had higher political knowledged than others. After shah and during a short period when no government had full control over the media, people got opportunity and access

   to many forbidden political books and information. They got also possibility to discuss, and teach each other about all forbidden political, philosophical and other subjects. This period

   improved population´s knowledge in these subjects a lot. The mulla government succeeded gradually to increase censorship again but they have not succeeded to control media as much

   as during shah´s government. Because of instability in the country people are motivated to learn and active to inform each other. To judge after demonstration placards and evidences

   in Iran, populations political knowledge and struggle after democracy is good. >

The answer from ahuthorities are killing, torturing, rubbing and hiding countries
resources in their own accounts outside the country and etc.
I wonder if you are also engaged to find ways to convience people in power to
take their part of responsibility.

Of course. I am advocating the "question the authority" arttitude in people, by
writing articles in the local newspaper and in the internet.  I carried out my share
in an European project.  I contributed on 1998 to the "Awakening Planetary
Consciousness2 Symposium in Lucknow India.  Etc.
< That seems good and respectful for me >

I don´t blame you if you are only engaged in changing the lower part of the
hierarchy because the risks are much lower for you to do so.
Demanding for change of behaviour of higher part of hierarchy has always
been risky for those who dare.

Of course, it is risky for any one who speaks and advocates changes in the
social hierarchy. One risks to be jailed in prison when the public do listen to,
or in a lunatic asylum when the public do not.   But there is a solution - if only
one knows, i.e. is able to control, the communication relationship one shares
into, thus speaking second, after being asked for.
< I don´t think this solution works in Iran and perhaps in many other countries.

   In Iran they kill or torture first and ask after. When people protest, authorities

   answer, if the sacrified was innoscent he is in heaven and has not loosed anything otherwise

   he is punished as he should be.

I don´t neither blame the authorities for their behaviour because it is a part
of human mentaliy to struggle for his own interests before others.
This is the cause of the saying that, power corrupts people.
It is therefore I believe to direct democracy and not indirect democracy via
politician and leaders. If we study history we find many leaders who has
started their carrier as progressive and people loving leaders but by time
they have changed to dictators.

Therefore... power beyond people's control is always a loss for the downsiders
(ourselves).

You are ( or IS if it satisfies Lucas) right that authorities are not ailiens but
humans and that is why I don´t blame them but political systems. It is our
heritage of old-fashioned political systems which change people to dictators
and unhuman characters.
I think most people are aware of facts above but the real problem is how
to change the faulty political systems to better ones.
The obstacle and stop for changes exist most of the time between higher part
of the hierarchies.
The target for me is direct democracy which means split of power between
all individuals in the society. It must be more difficult that all people in a society
get corrupted than a few people in the top.

I don´t have time now to explain more but perhaps and if necessary in the future.

Regards
Hamid

Holy words, Hamid.

< I must add that leadership in different countries has organized and successful methods to support each other. The dominated people in countries does not cooperate with each other as

   well. Leaders by all means try to prevent cooperation between dominated people from different countries. They use many tricky and successful methods for this purpose. Some of methods

   to split people is usiage of religion, nationalism, language differences, and economical means. As an example Irans regime use police and civil forces from other countries against their

   oposition. These forces has been active in very violent and cruel criminal acts against people in Iran. >

regards,  antonio

--------------------------------------------------
From: "Jim Powell" <autoinfo(at)acenet.co.za>
Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 7:08 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: RE: [WDDM] RE: Season greetings and wishes  for  a new    WDDMCongress in the New year!

Hi Ant,

Thanks for the email. Look for *** below

Regards

Jim Powell, Johannesburg, South Africa

-----Original Message-----
From: Antonio Rossin
Sent: 03 January 2010 03:48 PM
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Subject: Re: [WDDM] RE: Season greetings and wishes for a new WDDMCongress in the New year!

Jim and Hamid,

why don't you come closer to reality?  Please open your eyes, and you
will see:

Within the reality that exists, Politicians are NOT the employees of the
voters. They should be, but are not. *** I agree with you that politicians do not act as employees. The description of being employed and having the salary paid is that of an employee. If the voters in each constituency supports a candidate that signs up for DD, and that person wins, then there is a person in the system that will push DD

Politicians in direct democracy sytem are NOT employed experts and researchers who support voters. They should be, but are not. *** These people are selected by the voters, which is OK by me. The voters in DD still have control

Therefore, Direct Democracy which we are minding about, is un-existent, within today's reality.  It should be, but it is not. *** As long as the system of binding Referendum and I the initiative is in place, the voters then have the option of accepting status quo or rejecting it.

Who are the culprit, of this non-existence?  Maybe the main culprit is ourselves, as far as we are unable to question the authority. *** In DD the mechanisms for not only questioning authority, but changing the decisions that are made

Which questioning should start from the crystal evidence that our |"politicians"are not aliens from a distant planet. They are the spontaneous leading authorities of the collectivity we live
in, whom we accept as official authorities without being able to question whether they are, or are not, the employees of the voters, i.e., employed researchers and experts who support the voters. *** The politicians are employed by the voters

Within the existing reality, they support themselves only - except perhaps a too few only - in their enduring struggle for (money and) power. *** With DD this can change

(As a practical consequence: dear DD lower and activist, stop please asking the politicians in office for they to build up Direct Democracy) *** It is up to the voters to put in representatives that believe in Direct Democracy

Regards,
ant

---

*********************************
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reifications (like biological entozoic infections of the gut) are
proto-socio-neurological enculturations and as useful  fictions 
are not  necessarily symbiotic with,  nor necessarily benignly
adjuvant to the welfare of their unwitting and often naive hosts.
Jud Evans.

Freedom in humans consists of the ability to liberate 
oneself  from the tyranny of  reificationalist imprinting.  
Antonio Rossin.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*********************************