THE MEXICAN REVOLUTION, which began in 1910 and ended in 1940, transformed Mexico. During the course of those 30 years, tens of thousands of men and women fought in battles in many regions of the country to end the Porfirian dictatorship and to determine the course and goals of the revolution that had overthrown it. In a nation of 15 million, a shocking one million were killed while two million migrated to the United States to escape the violence (many of them subsequently returning), a movement which established the paths of future migrations

http://www.solidarity-us.org/site/node/2938

Linguist and political activist Noam Chomsky remains as vigorous as ever at the age of 84.

His popularity - or notoriety as some would say - endures because he is still criticising politicians, business leaders and other powerful figures for not acting in the public’s best interest. At the heart of Chomsky’s work is examining the ways elites use their power to control millions of people, and pushing the public to resist.

In this episode of Talk to Al Jazeera, Noam Chomsky sits down with Rosiland Jordan to talk about the two main tracks of his life: research and political activism.

And it is his activism that keeps this US scholar engaged in the public discourse well into his ninth decade.

"The activism for me long antedates the professional work," Chomsky says. "I grew up that way. So I was a political activist as a teenager in the 1940s before I ever heard of linguistics."

Discussing US politics, he attributes the growing popularity of the Tea Party movement, and the fanatical opposition to President Barack Obama in some quarters, to what he calls "pathological paranoia".

"It’s something that exists in the country. It’s a very frightened country, always has been," he says.

At the same time, Chomsky sees Obama himself as a man without a "moral centre".

"If you look at his policies I think that’s what they reveal. I mean there’s some nice rhetoric here and there but when you look at the actual policies … the drone assassination campaign is a perfectly good example, I mean it’s just a global assassination campaign."

On Israel's continued expansion of settlements in the West Bank, Chomsky says "there was no effort" by Obama to even try and curb it.

http://www.aljazeera.com/programmes/talktojazeera/2013/01/201311294541129427.html

from Slavoj Žižek

...

At the end of October last year, the IMF itself released research showing that the economic damage from aggressive austerity measures may be as much as three times larger than previously assumed, thereby nullifying its own advice on austerity in the eurozone crisis. Now the IMF admits that forcing Greece and other debt-burdened countries to reduce their deficits too quickly would be counterproductive, but only after hundreds of thousands of jobs have been lost because of such "miscalculations".

And therein resides the true message of the "irrational" popular protests all around Europe: the protesters know very well what they don't know; they don't pretend to have fast and easy answers; but what their instinct is telling them is nonetheless true – that those in power also don't know it. In Europe today, the blind are leading the blind.

read more: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2013/jan/16/west-crisis-democracy-finance-spirit-dictators/print

A Thai magazine editor has been sentenced to 11 years in jail for defaming the country's king.

Somyot Prueksakasemsuk, 51, was charged in April 2011 with the offence of Lese Majeste over two articles published in the Voice Of Taksin magazine.

He pleaded not guilty because he was the editor, not the writer of the article.

The writer was not charged.

In a statement to the court Mr Somyot also argued that His Majesty, the King of Thailand had previously said that he did not object to criticism.

Thailand's strict lese majeste law prevents criticism of the monarchy.

Mr Somyot was arrested after he collected 10,000 signatures on a petition to change the law.

The European Union said it was "deeply concerned" by the sentence imposed on Mr Somyot.

"The verdict seriously undermines the right to freedom of expression and press freedom," the EU delegation in Bangkok said in a statement.

Amnesty International, which considers Mr Somyot to be a "prisoner of conscience", described the court ruling as "a serious setback for freedom of expression in Thailand".

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2013-01-23/magazine-editor-jailed-for-defaming-thai-king/4481022

In one sense, Inequality for All is absolutely the film of the moment. We are living through tumultuous times. The [UK] economy has tanked. Austerity has cut a swath through the country. We're on the verge of a triple-dip recession. And, in another, parallel universe, a small cohort of alien beings – or as we know them, bankers – are currently engaged in trying to figure out what to spend their multimillion-pound bonuses on. Who wouldn't want to know what's going on? Or how it happened? Or why? Or if it is really true that the next generation down is well and truly shafted?

And yet… what sucker would try to make a film about it? It's not exactlySkyfall. Where would you even start? Because there are some films that practically beg to be made. And then there's Inequality for All; the kind of film that you can't quite believe that anybody, ever, considered a good idea, let alone had the passion and commitment to give it two years of their life.

read more : http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/2013/feb/02/inequality-for-all-us-economy-robert-reich

From En Passant

...

Because Labor is a capitalist workers’ party and its role is to manage capitalism these overriding priorities rub off on some of the Labor members of Parliament. Defending systemic profit elides easily into making individual profit. Without a strong radical current in politics the Labor Party’s shift to the right and its total embrace of the market means that individuals can succumb to the temptations that managing capitalism offer.

The same could Eb said of trade union officials, balancing as they are between labour and capital, operating as the retailers of labour power to the bosses. The destruction of rank and file organisation and control over the bureaucracy that the Accord produced removed the most vital layer of democratic oversight of the officials.

The outbreak of sudden family syndrome among 2 (so far) members of Gillard’s Cabinet indicates a government in crisis. To lose one Minister may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose two looks like carelessness. Well, actually Mr Wilde, it looks more like rats leaving a sinking ship.

Of course Evans and Roxon are resigning to spend more time with their family. I am sure if Labor were in a dominant position in the polls, looking likely to be returned with a big majority, they would still leave politics. I also believe in Santa Claus.

The crisis in Labor is a consequence of its explicitly pro-business policies and views.

The task of the radical left today is to build an alternative to Labor. Such an alternative must, given the systemically rotten nature of the ALP, not replace ‘bad’ Labor with ‘good’ Labor but work towards the day when the mass of workers, the vast majority of society, overthrow the whole rotten system.

This new society would be a thoroughgoing democratic system in which production is organised to satisfy human need, not to make a profit.

http://enpassant.com.au/2013/02/03/labors-crisis-is-about-politics-not-personalities/

-----------------------------------

Noble words indeed... One of the major missing point here is that narcissistic individualism has taken over the majority, if not all, the minds in the population at large... By this I mean that the intent of say a Labor Party — a social conscience party in principle — has vanished (or is still vanishing) from its own ranks, by attrition of numbers... 

Even many of the "lower class" poor people — those who, one would think, would be inclined to be socialists — dream not of equality and human needs, but of being rich and human wants. Filthy rich — this is largely promoted as satisfaction of wants and ambitions. This is mainly due because the dreams have been manufactured to entertain the illusion of possible achievement beyond mere survival, here on earth or for the believing poor after death — apart from a few fabled pond-frogs that get kissed on a good day. It's part of the culture that we have fostered upon us since we accepted religious dictums and kingdoms, and more recently, since we started not to share our inventions. 

Now if you go to a company with an "idea", the first thing you'll be asked is "do you have a patent?"... This is only a small example of a symptomatic problem in which we all are at an acceptable sociopathic level in search of a buck, Them and us, gazing into each other's eyes, because it is human survival nature to be "individually" so — while a social context, in which we share, is a decision often enforced by necessity of defence. This has been the evolution of human societies since pre-history. protection and survival. When necessity is weak or ritualised by paranoia, then our psychopathic nature has a good chance to take over, unless we decide otherwise to be kinder and peaceful.

But not all of us will decide so or at the same time, complicating the problem by the square of zillion. Even religions are full of psychopathic ideals wrapped up in goodness presented with a bow on top. 

It is sometimes very hard to be kind, as the people whom we are kind to don't share the same level of kindness-giving or are plain takers without an intention of sharing. We are all at different stage of give and take and to keep a harmonious balance in a massive array of conflicting beliefs, is not easy. It's easier to take the straight "let me have it" or "this is mine" attitude in a system of grab-all to win: conservatism. Being kind in a social system has to be written in law as to give human rights and welfare to those "who are less fortunate". As I have written here before, there are bell curves of purpose, of need, of ability, of beliefs, of ambitions... So we have to set the bar somewhere on averages as to help the most people possible... 

One major problem is that "lefties" have been on the decline for a long time. Many lefties have developed a small old capitalistic pot belly. it will take another long time before more lefties could gain critical mass — that is to be the majority of socially dedicated individual, especially in that huge sea of narcissistic individualistic persons... The underlying currents of such narcissism are somewhat hidden and are sneaky.

At one stage or another, it would take an enormous amount of energy for everyone (or even for 50 per cent plus one) to agree to move a pin and write a legalese document about it. 

The present proportion of greedy people in the western world versus socially aware people is largely skewed towards the greedy. In the developing world, most people are unaware of the rich/poor dynamics apart from local conditions, or when they do have a revolution, they need to align themselves with psychopaths to have the numbers and the power — thus defeating the purpose of this endeavour. 

Presently, a Labor Party will struggle to stay afloat without having social-capitalism as a prop. And to some extend, we have to accept that... We have got to help the Labor Party manage the conflicts between environment and progress, and between rich and poor... The other side, the rightwingnuttery led by Tony Abbott has only one speed: greed — with a dollop of grease called charity (tax deductible) to oil the poor bits into the corners that would look untidy otherwise.

Even amongst the "workers" group, the concept of richness has been cultivated by various means, including our general information channels, mostly the media, that favour narcissistic individualism — by using individuality as a catch (be yourself, be creative) — and credit. 

Credit has opened up comforts to the masses — as well as benefitted the rich of course — but credit has also softened our social brain into a paste that turns us into comfortable entertained survivors-ish... We can't buck the system singularly without loosing our comforts. The repo-men would soon be at the font door. And there is Buckley's chance that we can organise a "simultaneous" revolt. And discord would soon follow in the revolutionary ranks, due to our various levels of sociopathy — defined by: at which point does it become attractive to walk on top of someone else to further our career or acquire more comforts?... We cannot go towards a more socialistic soiety without the elimination of credit — or at least have a massive control of it, like nationalisation of the banking system.

So there, the Labor party has no choice under the law of numbers than to be a socialist-capitalist party, with a slightly better social welfare program than the Libs (conservatives). At this stage, there are several policies that could be deemed of a social nature including the "carbon pricing" (geared to reduce our carbon emissions and our impact on global warming), the NBN (geared to improve communications for all), the "mining rent tax" (geared to share the resources that "belong to all") and a plethora of targeted government welfare.

On the other side, the Liberal party can be describe as far more sociopathic in the sense that it's everyone bum-fight to get there as long as one sings the same song and whoever wins is declared the winner. The looser gets charity, as we're not so inhumane. In order to make him look socially welfare-aware, Tony has proposed the silly "nanny" help to families (which of course would benefit richer families), that's about it...  This is where we're at. 

To make things more palatable to the greedies, of course, the Libs ride on promises of less tax, including the destruction of the "carbon pricing", the privatisation and reformatting of the NBN for peanuts to a consortium of rich people and so on... Welfare will retooled to be based on charity, casinos will become blood sucking machines if they are not already...

Be prepared for the uglier society, should Tony Abbott gets his mitts on the levers. 

Even if the Labor Party is ambiguous, conflicted and schizophrenic, we have to help it through the needle of the camel, not hammer it because it feels good to hit ourselves on the head.. Sure there is room for improvements but then the Labor Party still has too many catholics. 

Meanwhile, the other side of politics is not conflicted at all. "Global warming is crap" is one of its direct no-nonsense motto. As well, greed and charity mix well in minds who believe in creationism (as some of the LNP want to push in Queensland, where else: the USA?), who are subjects to queens and kings and profits (for some, the rest can slave on) — pure and simple, sharing the same ideal in narcissistic individualism... 

Gus Leonisky

Hi Gus.

To be fair to John, I think you should have posted the 'front-end' of his piece, so as to give proper context ....

'..... Labor’s crisis is about politics and policies, not people. It doesn’t make much difference if Labor is led by Gillard or Rudd or some other snake oil sales person – the pro-profit and pro-business policies of the party would be much the same.

Labor’s foundational relationship with the trade union bureaucracy means the Party, like that bureaucracy, balances between labour and capital. Its ambition is to win power and manage capitalism. These two elements combine in the ALP as a capitalist workers’ party.

The Labor Party’s embrace of neoliberalism – let the market rule, curb union power, shift wealth to the rich and business – more appropriately make Labor today a CAPITALIST workers’ party. The contradictions between the two define the party’s nature but one can dominate over the other as is the case now.

Neoliberalism is Labor’s response to the crisis of profitability in much of the developed world.

The ALP’s first priority when in government is to defend and improve the profit system and profitability. All the talk about Labor values and fairness is so much bunkum to hide the reality of the ALP – that it rules in the interests of capital and the capitalist system.

When Labor does introduce progressive and pro-working class policies it does so for the benefit of capital as a whole or because it is driven to do so by the working class and/or social movements.

When profitability globally is falling then Labor joins in and often leads the attacks on jobs, living standards and the welfare state to try to restore profit rates.

The chimera of Labor values is clear after 5 years of the Rudd and Gillard Labor Governments. Poverty under Labor has increased. The gender pay gap is greater now than under Howard in 2004.The share of national income going to capital is at its highest and that to labour its lowest since records began to be kept. Inequality has increased under Labor.

The vilification of refugees sees Labor joining the Liberals in a bidding war of reaction and racist hysteria. The ALP has continued and refined the racist Northern Territory Intervention. Labor has followed the conservatives and continues the orgy of the killing of innocents in Afghanistan. The Gillard government is setting up a US defence base at Darwin as part of the Americans’ China containment strategy.

Even the repeal of WorkChoices sold us the snake oil of Fair Work, in reality WorkChoices Lite.

All of these reactionary policies flow from Labor’s Grundnorm – ruling in the interests of capital and their profits.

When the long boom of the 1950s and 60s collapsed after the tendency for the rate of profit to fall reimposed itself, politicians around the globe abandoned Keynesianism and embraced neoliberalism.

The election of the Hawke Government in 1983 bought this ideology of the rich to Australia. Neoliberalism is a response to the crisis of profitability, a crisis which Marx argues flow from the way capitalist production is organised.

The underlying cause of crisis in the ALP is the crisis of profitability in much of the developed world.

This expresses itself in all sorts of seemingly unconnected crises at a political level.

For example the Independent Commission against Corruption is daily reminding voters of the political bankruptcy of the New South Wales Labor Party.

We shouldn’t accept the few rotten apples argument. Parliamentarians are about running capitalism, a ruthless dog eat dog society of brutal competition to claw one’s way to the top and ‘earn’ more profits. MPs fiddling travel or corruptly enriching themselves are a reflection of the outcome and ideology of capitalist competition – the more dollars you have the ‘better’ person you are.'

Incidentally, I completely disagree with your thesis that Labor's 'problem' is a few 'rotten apples' ... I'm more inclined to the view that 'the fish rots from the head down'.

Cheers.

The Australian Financial Review commissioned a poll of 5000 voters in the 54 most marginal seats.

It shows an average swing against Labor of 4.8%. If that were uniform across Australia Labor would lose 18 seats or thereabouts and Tony Abbott would be Prime Minister with a comfortable majority of well over 30.

It won’t be uniform. The polling shows a swing back to Labor in Queensland, possibly winning 6 seats but with a rout on the cards in New South Wales, with up to 10 seats lost.

This more nuanced state by state break down suggests Labor could lose 7 seats and thus government.

Labor is gone in two senses. It will not win the election unless there is something of major proportions that sees the Liberals squander their lead.

Even if unemployment fell to 3% Labor would lose, such is the visceral hatred of the Party and its leadership, especially in the Western suburbs of Sydney. Labor would be blamed for not reducing unemployment even further.

Unemployment is increasing and is now about 5.4% with predictions it will accelerate in the second half of the year.  Gillard might be tempted to go before that trend bites, say after the Budget when they can try to buy votes.

There is a second sense in which Labor is gone. It is no longer seen as the party of reform, the natural party for blue collar workers. This is not because of the changing demographic in the workplace or the creation of an aspirational working class or shifts away from manufacturing to services.

While Labor has always been a capitlaist workers’ party, today it is a CAPITALIST workers’ party. It is the party of reformism without reforms.

Its embrace of neoliberalism is consistent with its social democratic role. It has always adopted the dominant economic ideology of the time – keynesianism during the boom times of the 50s and 60s and neoliberalism after the tendency of the rate of profit to fall reasserted itself globally in the late 60s and early 70s. The rise of Thatcher and Reagan in the UK and US expressed the changed ideology of the bosses in their attempts to restore profit rates, and the election of the Hawke government in Australia in 1983 saw the introduction of neoliberalism with Labor characteristics, namely the class collaboration of the trade union leadership.

The consequences have been a destruction of rank and file organisation in unions, a collapse in union membership, a massive fall in strikes and other industrial action (to less than five percent of their halcyon days of the late 60s and 70s), and  a massive shift in wealth to the rich and capital from workers and the poor.

Labor has disguised its neoliberalism to some extent with talk about equity and justice and sharing the burden but the reality has been that the share of the national income going to capital is now at its highest since records began to be kept and that to labour its lowest.

In the era of subdued austerity in Australia, the land of the long working day and increased personal debt coupled with the shift of wealth to the undeserving bosses and rich has seen workers quietly fume at Labor. With no left wing working class alternative  the solution for some workers is to vote Liberal, Katter Australia Party or National.

Workers are naturally reformist, looking for change from above to better their lives. This comes out of their very existence as people forced to sell their labour power to the boss to survive. Reformism flows from the very way capitalism is organised.

But the desire for reforms to better workers’ lives conflicts with the reality that profit rates have fallen over time. In response globally the ruling class and its politicians of both left and right have launched an assault on wages, jobs, living standards and the welfare state and public education and public hospitals.

Labor’s embrace of neoliberalism and its inability to provide meaningful and progressive reforms lays the groundwork for the victory of the Liberals and National Party at the next election.

Abbott will take a meat axe to the public service as part of a strategy of cutting down the forest to let a thousand weeds blossom. This will increase unemployment to Queensland levels – over 6%.

Abbot will do to Australia what Campbell Newman is doing to Queensland – slashing and burning public services to ‘make space’ for the private sector. Unemployment in Queensland is 6.2% compared to the Australian average of 5.4%.

Real unemployment and underemployment mean the figure for under utilisation of labour is perhaps around 13%.

That is another source of disillusionment with Labor – the hidden un- and underemployed.

The contradiction between the idea of reformism and the reality of reformist neoliberlaism that is Labor today explains the underlying hatred of Labor by many workers. In New South Wales 16 years of labor and the exposure of sections of the former Labor government as seemingly corrupt only adds to the flight to the Liberals.

The fact that the Liberals will be worse doesn’t register with many workers.

The lack of a left wing working class party, a revolutionary socialist party, as  a pole of attraction for dissatisfied workers, makes the Liberals or the Greens seem a voting option for large numbers of workers.

The lack of union struggles in any decent fashion to defend jobs, to fight for better pay and conditions and other matters compounds the sense of hopelessness and despair many workers feel.

It makes workers susceptible to racism, sexism and homophobia.

When the wreckers in the forthcoming Liberal Government unleash their attacks on workers, their jobs and pay and conditions, they’ll couple that with attacks on the other, the different, the outcast. Aborigines, gays and lesbians, refugees, will be at the forefront of conservative attacks.

Labor has laid the path for these attacks, having done much the same in office. With a worsening economy and the party of the bosses in power later this year, coupled with the sure surrender of the trade union leadership to Tony Abbott, the result will be a worsening economy and increased attacks on outsiders to distract attention away.

Is there an alternative to the failure that is Labor? The need now for a revolutionary socialist workers’ party is great. But we cannot hurry history. Workers will have to learn the lessons of struggle and history, with input from the revolutionary left where we can to patiently explain the way forward and our view of the world.

Labor might be gone but the class struggle continues, often hidden but sometimes breaking out into the open.

Is Labor Gone?

I'd rather have the rotten Labor fish head than the healthy Liberals (conservatives) fugu fish any day... With the Libs come the born to rule bulldozer that would be ugly for this country... Gone would be the environment at hundred miles an hour, as well as any hope for the planet or any sense of scientific reality... At least, with Labor being smelly as it is, the country is still doing fine for most people... I am not waiting for a Tony Abbott led revival (donwfall) that would do nothing else but hammer the little guy, though it could be what we need to start a revolution...... 

I still maintain that the social ball has slipped, due to narcissistic individualism strongly cultivated by media and entertainment industry (including the cult of celebs) to favour the rich while giving illusions to the rest. 

Hi Gus.

I understand your sentiments but, from my point of view & millions of others who've been waiting for Labor to remember its 'heartland' for a couple of decades, what's the difference between being mugged by Labor crooks or conservative crooks? You still wake-up with an empty wallet & a sore head, regardless of who delivers the blow.

I'm with John Passant on this.

Rather than playing stupid games of 'ring-a-ring-a-rosie', where the victims of 'democracy' get to choose only who will be their executioner, I say piss-on both their houses; out with the lot of the evil self-serving bastards.

But, of course, it doesn't really matter anyway.

The current game of capitalistic 'monopoly' is almost over & we are fast approaching the point where the entire system will implode, simply because the middle class whose expenditure is required to keep pumping-up its tyres have been well & truly screwed by the big end of towm.

Once upon a time, you & I would only have to keep a wary eye out for the crooks & sharlatans from the private sector. These days there are just as many sharks in the public sector as in the so-called private sector. Either way, the two sectors combine to ensure that you leave the game with as little as possible & owing much more.

The future is bleak indeed Gus. We'll either wind-up with an Orwell-type existence, where the governmnet owns & controls everything, or in a corporate state controlled by a few fabulously weathly individuals, where we are nothing more than slaves.

Neither Dullard or Lance can stop that in my view.

So it's the same same same same all over again. We've made no progress since we fell of our tree, one million BC... meanwhile we have no choice but to hope for a wind change, because there is no way we're going to have the numbers to get things as we wish since others will want something else and some others something else as well... So what do we do next?... Pack our bags, smoke pot to alleviate the pain of death and rob someone so we can survive five more minutes...?  That's what we're doing anyway, some of us with pain, some with joy and some with no feelings...

Nothing will implode, nothing will explode... it will be more of the same with less of the same and more of the other... Gillard, Rudd, Abbott or Turnbull thus are in the same bag?... Though any of the other three would do less damage than Abbott...

From talking with some Labor people, I note there is still some genuine (I mean it) sharing on offer there. When I talk to Liberals (conservatives), take-all is the name of the game... Unfortunately the Greens would not cut mustard with the lot of them, us...

Democracy is dead.  Back in the 1950s, I used to say that democracy defeats itself. So it has long been dessicated by its sheer construct in which some people choose for the others according to proportion of who is in the "majority" at the time...... There won't be any execution. Sure there are self-serving bastards everywhere, but not all of "them" in public service or in the private sector are bastards... Some (many) people try hard to make things work better. And my opinionated cabeza which is not worth much at this time is that Labor has more to offer on most fronts, including the environment, than the Libs (conservatives) — especially with Tony and his rabble of pirating loonies that include the media... My view — two bob's worth. May be we should join Al Qaeda... without the religious bit.

-------------------------

This is what Tony Abbott said when asked to justify his slush fund to attack Pauline Hanson:

“Obviously in hindsight, I shouldn’t have done it. But if I had my time again and it was necessary to make an alliance with some pretty unusual people to stop a very serious threat to the social cohesion of the country, well, I would do it. I mean, how else were we going to stop One Nation at the time?”

Soon after that, John Howard adopted the Pauline Hanson racist policies for himself and his party, that party in which Tony Abbott is still wallowing in...

The failure of the Egyptian revolution to translate its goals into a coherent strategy aimed at the exercise of political power by the people has been attributed to the widely held view that it was, uniquely, a “leaderless” revolution. It is not a view that I share, at least not as formulated. And this for two fundamental reasons: 

I would suggest firstly that all popular revolutions are in different ways “leaderless”. I have quoted elsewhere no less an authority on the subject than Napoleon Bonaparte – by virtue of both having played a part in the great French Revolution of 1789, and of his having ultimately hijacked it. He says:

“A revolution can be neither made nor stopped. The only thing that can be done is for one of several of its children to give it direction by dint of victories.”

What is it that drives a people to suddenly throw off the shackles of fear, subservience and docility? Why, when and how do they make that gigantic leap of faith, that enormous transition from coping with oppression, subverting it in various small ways, and endlessly foraging for the means to survive within its nooks and crannies, to that of confronting it head on, with all the courage, unity of purpose and explosion of the imagination and creativity that such a leap implies?

I would suggest that nobody actually knows.

Real popular revolutions are best understood retrospectively. The great Nabil El-Hilaly, a leftist human rights lawyer who spent a great part of the last 30 years of his life defending Islamists, used to say Egyptians were like the Nile, 9 months of low water, and three months inundation. But while Egyptians have known for thousands of years the season of the annual inundation, and styled their calendar accordingly, El-Hilaly’s metaphorical “popular inundation” remains, I would argue, largely unpredictable – and in this, it is much more akin to the “lean years” of drought, of Biblical/Qura’nic fame, than of the seasonal-regularity of the annual inundation.

There is no mysticism in this. Years ago I came across a quote by Bertolt Brecht (I have since lost the source, and would appreciate any suggestions from readers more scholarly than myself). He said something to the effect that the problem with understanding human behaviour lay not in its lack of determination but in that the determinants were too many. And, once you move from individual to mass human behaviour, the determinants are multiplied exponentially. Too many determinants, contemporary Chaos Theory has shown, inevitably produce unpredictability.

read more: http://english.ahram.org.eg/NewsContentP/4/63287/Opinion/Egypt’s-revolution-as-it-might-have-been;-as-it-co.aspx

After decades of ideological built up and political opposition, the Muslim Brotherhood is now the ruling regime in Egypt. Though Mohammad Morsi was democratically elected as the Egyptian president, and although the current constitution was democratically ratified by the majority of Egyptians, still Egyptians at large are not entirely happy with the prospect of the ideologically outdated and politically heavy-handed Muslim Brotherhood ruling over their homeland. It is precisely this paradox that spells out the moment of an epistemic breakthrough. 

read more: http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2013/02/201326124432686900.html

Read Gus' article at top.

IN RECENT DAYS, new Republic Clubs have held stalls on university campuses at Australian National University, University of Western Australia and University of Queensland, where hundreds of students have shown a renewed enthusiasm for an Australian republic. Republic Clubs are also forming in coming weeks at the University of Western Sydney, University of Adelaide, Macquarie University,University of New South Wales and the University of Sydney.

The university “O Week” season has seen the establishment of many new Republic Clubs and the generation of a great deal of interest.

http://www.independentaustralia.net/2013/australian-identity/republic/uni-clubs-stir-up-talk-of-a-republic/

We should have a referendum in September about changing the constitution to a non-royalty affiliated system of governance (as well as a preamble dedicated to Aboriginal people)... This would be a first step towards republicanism by denying the royalty of England's influences upon this country rule... The sooner the better... 

And of course we shall boot Tony and his merry morons to smithereens as, should the referndum result be for a change towards republicanism, this dubious catholic little man would not budge from sleeping with the anglican queen — stuffing us up with his own royal addiction...