George,
l live in Australia which is a peaceful country to live in,and would would
like to see the Mid East be the same, the area is important to both the Ireali
and the Palestinian, the Assassination of Yitzhak Rabin was a sad
day for the region, it offered so much hope.
I have tried to understand the history of the region but it is hard to get
a clear answer,are you be able to assist me with a better
understanding.
Most Muslim groups that they say are now a treat were created by the
West.
I read a book writen by an Australian called Stoker,after he was caught
escaping a prisoner of war camp, he was put in Auschwitz Concentration Camp
where he was forced to stoke the furnaces, so l understand the Holocaust.
It is a pity that one human tribe has to dominate the other, whoever has
the power does it brutally to the other, throughout the history of humans.
I have been doing a study where power really lays, and l cannot
go pass at present 3 groups Vatican/Jesuit General, Freemasonry and the
Zionism/B'nai B'rith.
Regards Martin Jackson
-----
Original Message -----
To: wddm@world-wide-democracy.net
Sent: Wednesday, July 18, 2007 7:40
PM
Subject: Re: [WDDM] about the author of
"Venomous vomits" Hi Antonio, Rather fair and decent post, with slight
exceptions, which I comment inline. Georges.
--- Antonio Rossin
<rossin(at)tin.it> wrote:
> Hi
list, > > Georges Metanomski -- I met him face-to-face at >
Munich a six years ago -- > is a old chap of about eighty who survived
the > Warsaw Ghetto massacre > made by the Nazi at the beginning
of WWII. Later, > as the war ended, he > attended the group
of Infeld, a pupil of Einstein. > So, he became talented > in
Physics and calculus. > > G.M. is working out a updating of
the history of > the scientific knowledge, > trying to lead the
users up to a point where he is > planning his >
"Relativistic > Dialectic"theory ===================================================== A:i he
presents as the salvation of the
world. ===================================================== G: Not
quite. It's Einstein who claimed that "A new manner of thinking is
essential if humankind is to survive". As researcher in his team I
endeavored to define some such NMT without ever pretending that it's the
only one possible, nor that it guaranties the "salvation". I asserted that
the ABSENSE of any such NMT may lead to catastrophe, which has a
totally different logical connotation. ===================================================== A: >
Unfortunately, his theory suffers from too much > hierarchy (with
himself as > the mastermind of a New World Order) and too little >
Dialectic (he doesn't > bear his theses -- that he presents like
axioms, > kinda absolute truths > -- being > criticized by
any
antithesis). ===================================================== G: It
could be fair, if preceded by "IMO". Declared ex cathedra by virtue of
godlike absolute knowledge it's unfair and, additionally, false. Axiom,
unlike Dogma is by definition refutable and so is my RD, axiomatic, thus
refutable, thus essentially anti- absolute. Trouble with chat lists is
that nothing gets remembered, let alone accumulated and the present
list is still trying and failing to define what's "Democracy". I have
presented years ago the RD as part of "Shadow Parliament", which I believe
to be the only way to DD. It fell of course in total oblivion, so I
attach it here for the hell of it. It's also available
in http://findgeorges.com/ROOT/WRITINGS/POLITICS/shadow_eng.html ===================================================== >
Every now and then -- at least yearly, at Easter > because it is the > anniversary > of the Warsaw Ghetto massacre -- G.M. makes
us > remember the Holocaust. ====================================================== A: > Also,
he presents himself as the top defender of the > Hebrew race against > all > those people who do not respect the Holocaust >
memory. He claims against > them: "I spit in your
face"... ====================================================== G: Not "top defender", but a fellow who did his little bit as a 14 years
old kid in Warsaw Ghetto Uprising and elsewhere, whenever called
upon.
Not of "Hebrew race", as IMO there ain't no such animal, but,
by solidarity with victims of Holocaust which I witnessed.
I don't
care so much about those who don't respect the memory of the Holocaust;
it's the problem of their dirty conscience. But I care about those
who prepare the new one and those who support them. With respect to them
I assume the historic stand of Mordechai Anielewicz and Warsaw Mayor
Starzynski, expressed by their "I spit in your
face".
Georges. ======================================================
.
.
BACK TO SITE PLAN
Site Plan
Shadow Parliament
Let us consider the problem of transition towards
DD in a structured form.
1.REVOLUTION.
1.1.FOR.
Eventual arguments for Revolution could be
inserted here as paragraphs 1.1.1, 1.1.2, etc.
I personally do not see any.
1.2.AGAINST.
1.2.1.COST.
Recent Revolutions exterminated hundreds of millions
and ruined continents. A future Revolution may likely
exterminate billions and ruin the planet.
1.2.2.DEVIATION FROM OBJECTIVES.
None of known Revolutions achieved its declared
objectives and most achieved their contrary.
2.EVOLUTION.
As conclusion of 1. Evolution is the desired
way. In very broad strokes it may take one of
two forms:
-Legislation determines action,
-Action determines legislation.
2.1.LEGISLATION DETERMINES ACTION.
This means to postpone all practical DD
procedures until respective legislation is in
place. The only possible action seems to consist
in petitions imploring such legislation.
However, Particracy will just throw such
implorations into the dust bin, as they would
on the one hand imply restriction of its power
and, on the other hand, carry no weight.
The only exception may be implementation of some
form of I&R (Initiative and Referendum). Indeed,
in crisis situations requiring extremely unpopular
measures Particracy may find it comfortable to
wash its hands and to discharge the politically
disastrous responsibility on the shoulders of
manipulated and conditioned people.
Manipulated and conditioned, because I&R is by
definition a snapshot and snapshots may easily
be conditioned by media and demagogy. DD starts
with a continuous "3F" Forum having all 3 functions
namely Initiative, Debate and Decision, with
Debate determining current consensus and
Decision occurring when consensus reaches a
value predetermined by Forum's rules.
Snapshot I&R usually confused with DD would be
in reality the most dangerous dodging maneuver
of Particracy against the true DD.
2.2.ACTION DETERMINES LEGISLATION.
As consequence of all above it seems the only
way left. Which form may it take? I can see only
one, the 2.2.1.Shadow Parliament presented below.
2.2.1.SHADOW PARLIAMENT.
Let us suppose, that we are a group satisfying
conditions of 2.2.1.1. below and having achieved
consensus with respect to some decision.
We will then be in position of putting enough
pressure on Particracy to make it fall in with our
request without humiliating and inefficient
implorations.
Seems fine at the first glance, but after a short
look at 2.2.1.1. Conditions we shall realize that
it is far from plain sailing.
2.2.1.1.CONDITIONS.
2.2.1.1.1.SIZE.
In order to be able to put any pressure, the
Group must count enough members. 1% of the voting
population seems to be a minimum, but of course
it is just a guess. Only practice will tell.
2.2.1.1.2.LOGISTIC.
Consensus of a Group of that size may only be
achieved with help of an adequate "3F" E-Platform.
Short experience with my CN shows that while
such Platform is feasible, adequate and efficient,
its refining and, above all, the apprenticeship
of its use will require at least a generation.
The main difficulty seems to reside not so much
in Platform's complexity, but in mental rigidity
engendered by our educational system making
people unable to understand, let alone to apply
concepts sorting of beaten paths.
Indeed, only very young and uneducated, or rather
self educated people were able to make worth while
contributions to CN.
2.2.1.1.3.SINCERITY.
It is the critical condition: members must be
capable to conceive and accept local, i.e.
personal sacrifices involved by the global
improvement. This short phrase implies a
fundamental change of mentality, replacement of
present egoism with something similar to the
attitude of Israeli Kibbutzim.
BTW I should think that each sincere protagonist
of DD should start by a stage in a Kibbutz, as
it's the only truly DD social group in the
history. (The celebrated Athenian Democracy was
in reality an Oligarchy eliminating from power
the majority: metecs and slaves.)
If Logistics requires at least a generation,
Sincerity will come still later, if ever,
It's necessary condition is the New Manner of
Thinking discussed below.
2.2.1.1.4.SECOND ENLIGHTENMENT
The site dedicated by G. Evans in EVANS ACADEMY
to "Metanomski Papers":
EVANS ACADEMY
or explicitly:
http://evans-experientialism.freewebspace.com/metanomskiindex.htm
has as motto Einstein's assertion:
"A new manner of thinking is essential if humankind is to survive."
A clear call for Enlightenment understood as people's
emergence from obscurantism imposed dogmatically by
established governance, media, education and religions.
The First Enlightenment originated in the scientific
revolution of Descartes, Galileo and Newton, and from
the involved new Reason, wherefrom the alias "Age of
Reason". This new Reason explicated in ontological
and epistemological terms by Kant and in socio-political
terms by the Encyclopedists spread the Enlightenment
over the people and led to the French Revolution from
which emerged the Particratic Oligarchy called
"Representative Democracy".
One may object that we contradict here the denial of
Revolutions (1.REVOLUTION). However, the French
Revolution betrayed in fact its Enlightenment seeds
and instead of emancipating people, changed the form of
their oppression, first in the Terror, than in the
Empires and finally in the Particracy ruling till
our own days.
Still, Particracy is less bad than the autocracy of
the Ancien Regime and, above all, the best, if not
the only step towards DD. So, even betrayed by the
Revolution, the First Enlightenment did not get
completely lost.
Our epoch appears by analogy as origin of the "Second
Enlightenment". Einstein's new edifice of science
reposes on an entirely refounded Reason supplanting
antecedent Absolute Logic with Relativistic Dialectic.
Ontological, epistemological and socio-political
explication of this Reason are still lacking, so that
the Second Enlightenment stays in the bud, in a form
that cannot be popularized and serve to free people
from oppression of the established obscurantism.
And we need it more than did the French people
oppressed by the Ancien Regime. They were confined
in slave labor and misery which was bad enough, but
our established obscurantism goes deeper and calls
into question the very survival of humanity.
That's why we endeavor to explicate Relativistic
Dialectic in ontological and epistemological terms
as a modest contribution to the Second Enlightenment
and to its socio-political outcome, the Direct
Democracy.
Ontological foundations of RD may be seen in
Relativistic Phenomenology
|