The NAFTA Three Amigos are about as funny as their Hollywood namesakes

Barack Obama, Justin Trudeau and Enrique Pena Nieto telling their despairing citizens not to fear free trade –Martin Short couldn’t get a bigger laugh! And I think we’ve got a litmus test for professional integrity. The free trade isn’t cut and dry, principly because it’s too big a lie. The TPP is today’s turbocharged shakedown model and up until just recently the media refused to talk about, and never critically. Trumpish isolationism is a buggaboo by which conservative supporters are being labeled racists protectionist xenophobes. The media can harp on these things and be half right, but the real litmus test for unmasking patronizing condescention is the BREXIT. When amigo leaders, pundits and now counter-culture gadflies on the Comedy Channel are mocking the movement that broke the EU, you can be certain their moral character is being laid bare for you, and it’s rubbish. Now Donald Trump is making statements that the facist media can only pretend are extreme. He wants to withdraw from the TPP and he wants to renegotiate NAFTA. The media have buried Trump’s seven point plan with the spin that he’s likened the TPP to “rape”. Apparently that’s hyperbole, though exactly how unlike rape is it? Don’t say it trivializes sexual violence if you won’t honestly report how free trade, debt, “austerity”, and corporate hegemony ravage democratic economies.

3 thoughts on “The NAFTA Three Amigos are about as funny as their Hollywood namesakes

  1. See if the queen abdicates. But before she does, there’s a few things need doing. First of course is sterilizing all her offspring (bet y’all thought I was gonna say demon spawn, didn’ t you? But good manners prevailed), turn her family accounts not only in the ancient accounts in the Bank of England (which, as a crown corporation like the U.S. government, has root and branch in the Sovereign) but also the family assets squirreled away in Swiss banks, not just in Switzerland but their (and those of BoE) subsidiaries in the Bahamas, US and Germany.

    And Turn Them Over To The People. Here I would call any affiliates to be actually subsidiaries in everything but the name. They’re not really analogous to a tree, really. More like a fungal colony or infection. Tendrils everywhere. Since the conjoined twins of Royalty and Corporation are both legal fiction. Like one of the Kings Charles making his case for complete dictatorship in England, while awaiting execution by the Church of England which is meshed with Parliament and both Crown possessions… Rex est Lex was one part (and we did a few posts mentioning that) and the other Latin saying “the King IS the Law, speaking and breathing” and “The law is given by the king, and the king given by God”.

    Then, and probably simultaneously, the xenophobes (who are also real, but whether their radical anti-everybody-but-pure-english agenda makes it into law is still not a given) would have to come up with a way to rid Englands shores of the Dark People who have immigrated under the aegis of being citizens of the Commonwealth Nations. Nobody has in his own being a set philosophy which is pure, just like there’s no ethnic purity. Get 2 people together and it starts to show the differences.

    So, are the Deport Them All! crowd going to prevail, here or there? Was the Brexit movement forced by necessity to accept them as allies rather than comrades? Don’t know. Just like the Trump-eters who propose registering everybody they consider foreigners.

    That will be the test. If they’re really a very tiny part of that movement or just some truly loudmouthed bitches has yet to be seen. In Brexit and America. The only readily apparent thing I’ve worked through is that the ostensible Leaders like Trump himself haven’t disavowed them.

    Are they that important to the Trump party that he CAN’T lead them to a better solution? Are they spoilers from the far left or even middle left who are pretending to be xenophobic assholes, just to tear down the Republicans? I don’t believe for an instant there will be an answer given at a rally. Speaking at a rally one has to cover a lot of bases, a lot of issues, and you won’t get a clear answer to any of the questions from such a speech.

    It’s one of those oil-and-water crowds. Like the Democratic party. Like the constitutional debates that always creep in. Absolute Freedom but with limits.

    If the British Exit Vote turns violent, how will we or even they know who fired the first salvo? And since the violence is likely, will it spread gradually or immediately into “our” political arena?

  2. The English right wing are opposing Corbyn using something that would trigger a constitutional crisis here. They’re promoting right wing voters to change their affiliation to Labour in order to vote down Mr Corbyn in a no-confidence vote. The Labour MPs have mostly signed on. These are the ones usually reviled as Trotskyites and Bolshevik.
    Here’s a quote from a Global Research article which can be found on the right hand side of this page. Right wing putsch is how it starts,

    “These moves are deeply unpopular. More than 224,000 people have so far signed an online petition defending Corbyn. On Monday night, 10,000 protested in Parliament Square in support of the Labour leader. But right-wing Blairites have lined up to insist that this support—which they deride as consisting of “Trotskyites” and “Stalinists”—is illegitimate.

    Alistair Campbell, Tony Blair’s former spin doctor, said that Labour had become a Corbynite “sect” and a “cult,” made up of supporters of hard-left parties. Campbell called on those wanting to oust Corbyn to sign up as Labour supporters in preparation for a leadership challenge. A campaign, #SavingLabour, has been set up to recruit new members on this basis.”

    Not much like Mr Trump, that element of communism. Who lives by the banking system. What if one of the newly registered as Labour “Trotskyites” suddenly “throws down”on a policeman at a demostration?

    What if one of the Trump “supporters” or “opponents”…..

  3. I’m not really worried about Mr Trump’s extremist views. They’re tiresome. But he has promised to lie and use his established business “ethic” as a governmental standard procedure.

    It’s like the logic puzzle: first party says “you must believe everything I say”

    and when second party agrees, the first party states “I am a liar”.

    While it’s refreshing to have somebody announce it up front, I can’t see how any improvement can result from Donald doing as he boasts he did to Gadafi. They taught us in Basic Training we were to believe and obey, no matter how preposterous. It seems that he’s playing the extremists and doesn’t even intend to ever govern them.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *