Re: [WDDM] Direct Democracy

["Ted Becker" <becketl(at)auburn.edu>]

Dear Lata:

I was at the founding of WDDM in Athens ten years ago...but after long
talks with the original organizers, I told them I did not think an
organization was needed. I did favor a Newsletter, which Dr. Jiri Polak
has worked at faithfully and superbly for the past decade.  That is one
achievement of WDDM.  The other is the website maintained by Mirik.  He
puts in a lot of time and while the discussions are pretty much as
limited as you describe, the core or nucleus of those devoted to this
idea and ideal stays alive by and through it.  In addition, I am
personally grateful to the WDDM website for putting up 10 translations
of Becker's Laws of Political Economy--which is now available to many
people...and which, I believe, explain a lot of why WDDM is (a)
relatively ineffectual and (b) vulnerable to the critique you levy
against it.

The biggest problem by far is that those with money and power give us
zero resources--despite many efforts by many of us in the DD, or as I
prefer to call it, the DDD Movement.  Take George Soros as an example.
He's supposed to be favorable to democracy, particularly in East Europe,
and we couldn't get a Euro, dollar or pound from him to help with our
two conferences.  It's very frustrating.  But we keep on trying and even
now are making some serious efforts to get something done...but I
wouldn't bet on it...despite the obvious fact that all of the national
and global oligarchies are leading the world off a cliff.

So, if you have a spare hundred thousand Euros, then please put it into
a conference we want to do in Prague next year sometime.  It'll be a
huge success.  If not, have a little mercy on all of us who have been
struggling for a loooooong time to make our movement impactful.  We are
operating against some pretty powerful people in this world and try to
stay together in any way that we can.  In that way, WDDM has been a HUGE
success, that is, it survives...and will...with or without you.

Ted Becker

> > > Lata Gouveia <latalondon(at)yahoo.co.uk> 10/26/2010 5:30 AM >>>
Aahahahah!!!!!!!!!

Welcome to the real world!!
To think that you, as an intellectual elite can set the agenda on
anything of
actual consequence is foolish.

Who are you?
This agenda setting job... who gave it to you? Why am I not using WDDM

correctly? Why am I not staying up to date? Why do I get bored every
time I try
to figure out how WDDM works even though I am passionate about DD? Why
is WDDM
not more appealing to even me?

Something is wrong with this picture, gentlemen. Your approach is
flawed. Your
little elitist club has shown no concern towards promoting Direct
Democracy and
engaging people. This is not just a problem, this flaws your raison
d'etre. It
confirms my worst suspicions, ahahahahah.....

You claim to have an interest in this concept but you keep acting from
an
intrinsic assumption of hierarchy, trying to lead, set the agenda, talk
people
down on their ability to think and READ. Who the hell are you to tell
me I am
off subject, sir? You are off subject... and wasting our time.

You don't realize how incoherent your methodology and approach is in
terms of
the cause and principles you claim to hold dear.

Keep your little debate, your little group, your little righteousness.
WDDM has
no voice... not one that reaches further than your computer screen. But
that
doesn't matter to you, so long as your intellectual ego feels
vindicated.

If you don't get the people on board, DD will never happen.
I am actually interested in DD and feel most unwelcome by you clowns
so...
imagine if I wasn't interested, like the majority of people.
That's what you are dealing with, if you areserious about DD. How to
win people
over. Debate that,

Gentlemen.... may you all a fruitful and meaningful life







________________________________
From: Giorgio Menon <giorgio.menon(at)pd.infn.it>
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Tue, 26 October, 2010 9:54:36
Subject: Re: [WDDM] Direct Democracy

Il 26/10/2010 11.52, Georges Metanomski ha scritto:
> So far, Metanomski show that we not only ignore what's "debate', but
don't
> know how to read.  Seems hopeless.
Couldn't agree more