Rediscovering the Beatniks and the McCarthy era brings us back to a precipice some of you remember all too well. The modern age lived in a time where fear ruled over reason, media was dictated to by corporations and governments. By the end of the 1960s, the reaction changed everything in western society.

"We will not walk in fear, one of another. We will not be driven into an age of unreason if we dig deep into our history and remember we are not descended from fearful men". Edward R. Murrow: US broadcast journalist & newscaster (1908 - 1965)

Then on You Tube, I recently surfed over an old favourite beatnik: one William S Boroughs. Well known for his unorthodox, perhaps crass writing. His sharp insight into the nature of modern democracy is undeniable.

In thanksgiving 1986, exactly 20 years ago, this is what he wrote:

"Thanks for the American dream to vulgarise and falsify until the lies shine through Thanks for the KKK for nigger killing and feeding their Nazis. Thanks for Kill-A-Queer-For-Christ-stickers....You have always been a headache and you always were a bore. Thanks for the betrayal of the last and greatest human dream".

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7Z_08o108E

As we hide in fear, "the war on terror", our prejudice make a mockery of democracy. To the Arabic world, the democratic dream equals the betrayal Boroughs so eloquently wrote about. The more we push it, the less they believe it. You lose the dream, and no one believes in society on any level.

Democracy was the most civil concept, the greatest dream mankind ever had, yet it can only work when we take courage, take some risks. Learn that the stock market thrives in a free thinking society. Stifle that creativity, and all motivation, with the dream, just dies. We are very close to that precipice again. Democracy ambulated past the 1950s. Will she make it this time?

Will she indeed.

I wanted to comment about what Rudd, Howard and Labor are all on about. Though, in my usual style it I will address it with some newly introduced concepts which hopefully wont be viewed by Left-wing, non political scientist cencorists as 'troll like'.

I watched intently Rudd discuss the Bonhoffer critique. And i perceived that he was trying to give some kind of dashing warning. Anybody whos anyone political knows that Labor and the Left lash Liberals as if they were imminantly Nazi. Correct?

But what everybody fails to realize is that Australia is gripped by a mass movement. Ooops, I mean mass leaning. Australia is leaning en-masse, to the Left. Correct?

So if this turns out to be true (it is reflected in electoral outcomes and general attitude), then it must be encumbant upon the elceted to produce democracy, OK. But as Saintfletcher alludes too, Australia appears to be in the late afternnon of its democracy. Correct.

And its all the 'nazis' fault right? Wrong.

If we have Labor dominant in every state (8 gangs), and we have a diminished Liberal outfit, who is the stronger. Consider that one has the use of an omnipotent, omnipresent shadow government.

What I make of the Rudd/Bonhoffer declarations is as follows.

Labor is getting fighting fit for the putsch on the Commonwealth at the next election. They are aware. And to make it look as if there actually is a semblance of democracy in Australia, the Left are going to split Labor. There will be the Beazley Fasci-comm faction, and the Rudd Soc-Dem faction. That way, they can close all future debate about a monoparty state.

Done.

In democratic societies as well as communist societies there are always elite groups who take control and set rules in place to make sure that they have more than any one else.
In the West it’s big business and the global companies, politicians and other wealthy individuals In communist countries it’s groups like the Chinese communist party and in Saudi Arabia it’s the Shieks and their family dynasties .
The communist revolutionaries promise the people freedom from oppression when they want their support to fight wars , but when they win their human nature always takes over and they become the oppressors.
Usually setting themselves and their friends and families up with the best of everything.

The one shining difference is that in the capitalist democracies the people have the VOTE.
And this places some pressure on the politicians to be mindful of the people wishes. It’s the ONLY thing that makes the capitalist system any better than the communist system.

But if capitalist societies start to become too imbalanced in such a way that the masses become more and more less well off and poverty and discontent leads to a break down in law and order.. Then the people may elect a politician who promises to restore law and order by using strong measures, such as stationing the army on the streets. You then have a military dictatorship. Capitalist societies have gone this way before.

For example the people in France could elect a military dictator if they kept having more and more widespread outbreaks of violence like the recent riots where 20,000 cars were torched if I remember correctly.