Reading between the Slime

The New York Slime reported (10/30) on CETA, as follows

BRUSSELS — The European Union and Canada signed a far-reaching trade agreement on Sunday that commits them to opening their markets to greater competition, after overcoming a last-minute political obstacle that reflected the growing skepticism toward globalization in much of the developed world.

...

On Friday, Wallonia, which has been hit hard by deindustrialization and feared greater agricultural competition, withdrew its veto after concessions were made by the Belgian government, including promises to protect farmers.


[T]he Walloon intransigence has underlined the extent to which trade has become politically radioactive as citizens increasingly blame globalization for growing disparities in wealth and living standards. Across Europe and the United States, opposition to trade has become a rallying point for populist movements on the left and the right, threatening to upend the established political order.

The key word here is “competition.”  Repeatedly the established political order, of which the New York Slime, is a primary cloaca, tells us that these agreements are trade treaties which are a win-win proposition which will promote “good paying jobs at home.”

The image evoked is that of two neighbours trading sugar for flour over the fence.  What could be more innocent, friendly and winwin for both?

But competition is “a contest or rivalry between two or more organisms, animals, individuals, economic groups or social groups, etc., for territory, a niche, for resources, goods, for mates, ...”  (Wiki)  Not so kumbaya after all.

How does the Slime pull off telling a misleading truth?

It does so because of the secondary meaning given to the word “competition” by capitalist propaganda.  Over and over again ad nauseam, competition is spoken of as a healthy thing, like exercise, which brings innovation and better products to market, like getting stronger muscles. 

In this vein the Slime quotes GLOBCAP’s newest poster boy, thus

"Mr. Trudeau said he wanted to “make sure that everyone gets that this is a good thing for our economies but it’s also a good example to the world.”

In actuality, capitalist competition is simply Economic Darwinism.  It engorges and destroys. Why else would this Friendly Trade Treaty require an addendum that “promises to protect farmers”? 

According to Turdeau,  “trade is good for the middle class and those working hard to join it.”   Not, however, if you’re a farmer in the target country.   Just as NAFTA destroyed the Mexican farmer,  CETA is not so good/good for the Walloon.

Nevertheless, having castrated the word “competition” of its true meaning so as to present a glowy picture of capitalist rapine,  the Slime goes on to disparage those who might think otherwise.

In saying that ordinary citizens blame GLOBCAP for inequity and austerity, the Slime insinuates that they are misinformed, childish naysayers.  What the Slime cunningly omits to mention is that despite this “good thing for our economies,”  inequity and austerity are ravaging societies across the globe.   Neither in the United States, nor Spain, nor India and certainly not Africa, do the metrics come close to proving that these Competition Treaties benefit society as a whole. 

The Slime needn’t engage in a prolonged digression from “the story line.”  All it needed to have written was that “citizens blame globalisation for [the] growing disparities in wealth and living standards that afflict countries around the world.   A simply five word clause would suffice to give objective validity to a blame which is otherwise implicitly characterised as a subjective idiosyncrasy. 

When all this mind-mushing is over and done with the Slimes then turns around and slap the reader in the face by admitting it and the competition treaties it champions are the established political order and FUCK YOU.

©

The Grand Duchy of Fenwick Saves the World (Again).

The Grand Duchy of Fenwick and its regional sister the (erstwhile) Margrave of Wallonia have together blocked ratification of the Canadian-EuroUnion Trade Treaty (CETA), after Germany’s Bundesverfassungsgericht failed to do so. 

Fenwickian Flag

Canada’s trade negotiator, Chrystia Freeland, visiblement très émue, returned to Ottawa stating “I am very disappointed.... but it’s impossible.”

According to the BBC  “The deal aims to eliminate 98% of tariffs between Canada and EU... It includes new courts for investors, harmonised regulations, sustainable development clauses and access to public sector tenders.”

What BBC does not tell its readers is that the trade is not really between “Canada” and the EU and that the “new courts” will be stacked in favour of corporations enforcing pro-corporate regulations.

Walloon Minister-President Paul Magnette, explained,

“We have clearly indicated, for more than a year, that we have a real difficulty with the arbitration mechanism, which could be used by multinationals based in Canada, that are not really Canadian companies, and on this point we find the proposals insufficient,”

That was Eurospeak for what we just said.

Neither the BBC nor the corporate-run press elsewhere disclose what these arbitration clauses mean.  However, what they mean is sufficiently proved by Trans-Canada’s $13 billion dollar legal suit against the U.S. government following Obama’s veto of the Keystone pipeline.

In simple English, the arbitrarion or “special court” provisions allow a corporation to sue for damages when it is prevented from damaging a country’s environment.   If you need to read that again, you read it right the first time.

One would never get the true scoop from pro-trade running dogs but what the “trade” treaties are about is establishing a supra-national, unaccountable corporate dictatorship.

Not Amused by That

The prostrated, depravity of the national governments is proved beyond doubt by the fact that none of them had any problem loosing their sovereign prerogatives to some anonymous corporation operating out of a domicile of convenience. 

However, under EU rules, all decisions must be unanimous and under Belgian Law no treaty can be ratified without the affirmative consent of its three, constituent erstwhile duchies, of which Wallonia is one.

Needless to say enormous pressure will be brought to bear on Wallonia to blackmail it into changing its mind before the October 27 deadline.   Needless to say, enormous inducements will be thrust at the Grand Duchy to bring it around and into submission.   If anyone does not think that the Great Obambi is not leaning on Paul Magnette, standing bold and dauntless amidst the wash of servile niebelungen and snivelling quislings that pass for Europe’s ruling elite, he does not know what is at stake or what Obambi is about.

Ave!  Conste Wallonia! 

©

The Real Debate

While the US presidential candidates were engaging in their chronic gutter-sniping, Marine Le Pen, head of the French Front National was giving an interview to Stephen Sackur of BBC’s hard talk.

Sackur:

Let me ask you.. do you see yourself and your movement as part of world wide phenomenon?

Le Pen:

Yes; there is something happening in  the world. The people’s will is clearly emerging against either supranational political powers such as the EU or big financial powers and against a system which for too many years has been defending specific [special] interests and no longer defends the interests of people 

That is Brexit but also all these referenda in Europe which clearly show that the EU is being rejected — in Denmak, in the Netherlands and in Hungary some days ago, and soon enough probably in Italy.

Something fundamental is happening which is the comback of nations, of sovereign states with people and frontiers.  People want to be in charge of their destinies and for a long time they were prevented for doing so.

-o0o-

In so saying, Le Pen staked out a position diametrically opposed to the corporate globalism Hillary Clinton represents.  While Hillary, ever the duplicitous dodger and dissembler, has pretended to have “come around” to being against the trade treaties, she has come nowhere.

The position stated in both the Demorat Party platform and Hillary’s web page is nothing more than a bunch of weasel clauses in search of a stance.   Any fool can see that Hillary remains committed to the “four freedoms” the bottom line of which is that the rich get to buy wherever they want while the rest get to scramble for work wherever they can find it, even if 1000 miles away.

Hillary, no stranger to fanning outrage over politically incorrect transgressions, remained stunningly silent when Trans-Canada, availing itself of treaty-clauses, sued the U.S. government for $13 billion dollars in “damages” after Obama vetoed Keystone.  

While Sanders and Trump are also against the trade treaties, they failed to articulate the fundamentals.  Their opposition was stated in mostly in terms of job losses with Trump adding immigration.  Neither mentioned that NAFTA caused as much job-loss in Mexico as it did in the U.S., as a result of treaty mandated restriction's on Mexico's "right" to support its domestic agricultural sector.   Neither spoke to the fundamental evil of the current trade treaties which is that they are a threat to national sovereignty in all spheres.  It has been left to Le Pen to triumph the cause of nationalism as such front and forward. 

One of the inevitable concomitants of the mass consumer states is that it disables people from distinguishing what is fundamental from what is not.  The overriding habitus of the consumer state is the satisfaction of impulsive and idiocyncratic desires, albeit carefully cultivated and manipulated.  Social policy gets conceived of as a list of disconnected and often inconsistent wants.  SUMMUM WANNA

But some things are fundamental in that their existence or non existence determine all other ensuing issues.  The environment is fundamental because without a life sustaining environment nothing else exists and one’s desire for gender-free access to bathrooms becomes moot.

The nation state is fundamental because it acts as the environment for all subordinated political, economic and social decisions.

At this point, a qualification must be made. The nation state is not an eternal constant.  It was a specific historical phenomenon that began its formation in the 13th century with the Albigensian Crusade which was, at bottom, the suppression of local autonomy in favour of a centralized monarchy. In other words, the nation state was itself the emergence of a supra-manorial and supra-municipal power at a given point in history.

Indeed, the progress of history can  be viewed as the successive emergence over time of ever greater and more encompassing ambits of authority, although there are periodic retrograde retrenchments such as the so-called collapse of the Roman Empire, which in actuality represented a return of grass roots popular sovereignty.  Vive Asterix!

(We know that capitalist propaganda — aka the “enlightenment” — has obscured the true nature of feudalism so that all one can say at this point is that the reader will have to unenlighten himself as best she can.)

But what is a constant is that, at any given historical stage, a given unitary formation of a people (what the Greeks called a “polis”) retains sovereign control of their own destiny.

When nationalism usurped local freedoms what ensued over time was a reclamation of those freedoms in what are now known as the bourgeois revolutions of 1688 and 1789.  When Marine Le Pen refers to the French Republic she refers to fundamental political concord and control among and by the people of France at a given stage of historical development.

The obvious counter-point to Le Pen would be to assert that the new supra-national, global corporate state represents the ongoing evolution of human sovereignty.  The “next stage” as it were.

There are, no doubt, some socialists who might welcome the emergence of a global corporate state on the assumption that once in place it could be taken over by a triumphant proletariat working in the interests of the people.

The only difficulty with that long-term historical analysis is that by then no world will be left — or at least no world worth living on — because global corporate capitalism is not simply avaricious but fundamentally destructive.  It will in fact turn the world into a holocaust on Moloch’s altar.

The counterpoint between the national and the supra-national state boils down to the problem of size which, simply stated, is that you cannot have an infinitely large elephant.  At some point the skeletal structure required to support a mega-elephant is so thick and big that what exists, if it exists at all, is not an “elephant.”

The Roman Empire was a manifestation of the problem of size.  The idea (or at least the propaganda) of Julius Caesar for a Pan-Mediterranean (“global”) super-state of peoples united in peace and prosperity under aegis of Rome was simply not attainable.

Augustus rejected Caesar’s plan for a trans-national constituent assembly because, even if Roman jingoism could be overcome, the mechanics were all but impossible.  Instead, Augustus espoused a policy of “incremental romanization”.  As a result, what is called the Roman Empire was simply a class structure  — a band of romanized provincial middle classes adjunct to and supportive of a one percent elite in the four principal urban centers (Rome, Constantinople, Antioch and Alexandria) ruling over millions of repressed and dispossessed people. 

According to Edward Gibbon “The frontiers of that extensive monarchy were guarded by ancient renown and disciplined valour. The gentle but powerful influence of laws and manners had gradually cemented the union of the provinces. Their peaceful inhabitants enjoyed and abused the advantages of wealth and luxury.”    But assuming arguendo a “happy period” from A.D. 98-180, more recent research has  painted a far more brutal picture beneath the exceptionalist blarney.  The empire was organized rapine — urban centres sucking the life blood out of their hapless surroundings —  and that translated into the misery of many for the wealth and luxury of a few.

The official Christianization of the Empire did not humanize this global, predator super-state; the urban episcopacy simply joined the one percent. The humanising impact of Christianity occurred at the local and feudal level under diocesan bishops guiding and giving voice to popular aspirations.

By analogy, the notion that a humanising socialism could effect a proletarian coup d’etat over a once established global super-state is, in our opinion, an unfounded pipe dream.   There are simply limits as to how big a “democracy” can get and still be a democracy.   James Madison himself made this point in Federalist Paper No. 10 wherein he discussed how the nature and constitutional structure of a republic depended on its size and extent.

It is arguable, perhaps, that at 140 million spread out over a continent, the United States still preserved the features of a true representative democracy; or, at least a democracy that was possible except for the country’s deplorable counter-democratic electoral system.  At 300 million, no form of democracy is possible; what exists is simply a degraded Roman farce.

Extent is as critical as size.  The dream of the 1812 Spanish Liberals for an ultra-marine constituent assembly compromising all inhabitants of Spain and the Americas was unachievable both logistically and in terms of the normal focus of each its constituent parts.  People are naturally disposed to be concerned about things in their proximate environments.  They don’t care about and are in any case not in a position to familiarize themselves with local problems a thousand leagues away.  Thus, apart from the mechanics of communication, size impacts on what people are disposed and capable to communicate about. The Count of Aranda had prophetically made this point in 1788 when he proposed that the only way to save the Empire was to break it up into distinct (albeit allied) sovereign nations — united by ties of religion and commerce and “in all events to the exclusion of England.”

Had his advice been followed there is a chance that an Empire of Sovereign Nations might have survived the Anglo-American onslaught.

In all events, both Aranda and Madison were on to the same problem of size. The ideal size for a parliamentary nation state seems to lie somewhere between 40 and 80 million.  A more accurate assessment would most likely be based on a correlation of population to GDP and other factors. However, what is evident, as a positivist fact, is that the current sizes of the major European states allow each of them to come to an articulable consensus derived from manageable differences. 

European nationalism would never prevent trade; it would rather base trade on priorities established by each of the trading counterparts.  Since the claque that governs the United States cannot conceive of priorities other than the financial bottom line, globalists like Clinton can’t conceive of differing priorities.  Doesn’t everyone believe that happiness is profit?  Actually not.  Profit like manure is necessary to fertilize productivity but right thinking people do not idolize dung.

With these considerations in mind, it can be seen that Le Pen’s call for a devolution of powers and a return to nationalism is not as reactionary and counter-historical as socialists of the internationalist mode might make it out to be.  In fact, in Latin America, liberationist and leftist thought currently rejects one-world globalism in favour of national and local political-economies based on and congenial to ethno-historical formations. 

The Gazette would prefer a Le Pen who was more to the left than she apparently is, although by troglodyte U.S. standards she out-lefts even Sanders.  That said, Le Pen is  about fundamentals and, on that level, the real debate last night was not between Trump and Clinton but between Le Pen d’Arc and the Whore of Globalism.

There can be no doubt where the Gazette stands.

©

Oh What a Lovely Encore!

In an editorial dated November 11 2008, the NYSlime, called on Obama to continue Bush’s wars by other means. Urging a withdrawal from Iraq, the editorial went on to endorse war in Afghanistan: 

“The United States and its NATO allies must be able to defeat the Taliban and Al Qaeda in Afghanistan AND keep pursuing Al Qaeda forces around the world.” 

(Please to note “around the world”.) 

Written in Slimeze, the editorial was a de facto endorsement of neo-con full spectrum interventionism.

Today the Slime reports on, and endorses sub silentio, a New War in Africa. 

“The Somalia campaign is a blueprint for warfare that President Obama has embraced and will pass along to his successor.”

With inestimable aplomb, the Slimes states that the current strategy will not repeat the “mistakes” made in Afghanistan and called for in its editorial of 11/11/08.

The Slimes quietly omits the Administration’s construction of a new drone base in Niger to serve as a key regional hub for U.S. military operations.

Once again, the P.N.A.C.’s  9/2000 white paper (Rebuilding America’s Defenses) serves as the ongoing blue print for a fully continuous foreign policy that has remained in effect since 9/2001.  The difference between Obama and Bush is simply a modulation as to which part of the spectrum will be active in any given place or time.  It's ultimate effect and secret purpose is nation destruction.

In all events what the Slime has just told anyone who wants to have a brain worthy of being used, is that the Annointed One, will continue the policy of nation-destruction which she and her boss so ably executed in Libya, Syria, and Afghanistan — not to mention Yemen.

 
One correction needs to be noted. The New York Slime  speaks of this issue as a matter of United States foreign policy. That is anachronistic and misleading.  There is no such thing as “American” foreign policy.  There is simply a global corporate policy with economic, diplomatic and military aspects, carried out by a prime enforcer.

Pity the elephants.

©

Reading Hillary's Entrails

For the few who might be interested in what Hillary Clinton might actually try to do as President (as opposed to whatever committee-honed palaver she might serve up to targeted groups as expedience dictates), her May 2013 speech to Banco Itau (Italy) serves as an interesting omen.   As release by wiki-leaks, Hillary said,

"My dream is a hemispheric common market, with open trade and open borders, some time in the future with energy that is as green and sustainable as we can get it, powering growth and opportunity for every person in the hemisphere."

Now, although the denizens of the United States might be oblivious to nuance, “open trade” (otherwise known as “free trade”) has been the banner of Liberal hemispheric hegemony since ... well since 1796, at least, when the United States (quietly backed by Britain) induced Spain into signing the Treat of San Lorenzo which granted the U.S. “free sailing” rights down the Mississippi River.  This, of course, was the opening gambit of Manifest Imperialism, which ended up with free-hoofing rights to  California and Oregon.

In 1796, Spain possessed the lion’s share of the hemisphere, and it was the Anglo-American ambition to seize those lands for themselves.  Free-trade was their banner.  To make the point and the objective clear, British Foreign Secretary, George Canning, proposed the announcement of a “doctrine” to President Monroe whereby the United States would declare that the meddling of any European country with the newly independent nations of the Americas would be regarded as a hostile act.  Ipse dixit.

The year the doctrine was unilaterally announced, 1823, was no coincidence.  Argentina had achieved independence in 1818, Venezuela-Bolivia-Chile in 1819 and Mexico, the jewel in the crown, in 1821.  The fruit was ripe for the picking and the U.S. (backed by Britain) wanted it for themselves.

What is called the “independence” of the Ibero-American nations was just a partisan slogan for the collapse of the Spanish Empire.  Spain certainly did not recognize the independence of its colonies. The independence of Mexico was not recognised until 1836; of Chile, not until 1844 and of Argentina not until 1857.  Striking the wedge, the United States and Britain recognised the independence of these countries in...well, as luck would have it, 1823.

Odd how pieces fall together once one bothers to look for the pieces.

The dissolution of the Spanish Empire began in 1808 when Napoleon invaded Spain thereby triggering the War of (Spanish) Independence. 

Tres de Mayo, by Goya

The Borbon monarchs (Charles IV and pretender Ferdinand VII) fled (to France, oddly enough) and Napoleon installed his brother, Joseph, as king-in-place. Spain was firmly divided in opposition!  

The country fell into two camps each as opposed to one another as they were to the French.  On the one hand, there were the ultras who wanted to restore an absolutist Borbon monarchy; and on the other there were the Liberals who wanted to establish a constitutional monarchy reigning over an ultramarine assembly of all Spanish subjects, white and Indian, in Spain and in the Americas.  In 1812, the Liberals promulgated the Constitution of Cadiz.  Article 1 provided, "The Spanish nation is the collectivity of the Spaniards of both hemispheres. Articles 18-21 granted voting rights to Spanish nationals whose ancestry originated from Spain or the territories of the Spanish Empire (i.e. Indians).

Both in Spain and in the Americas, the Constitution was the brainchild of the commercial and provincial classes.  It was opposed by the Absolutists who were (in one guise or another) feudal nobility in favour of official privileges and centralized authority controlling absentee holdings.  These represented the polarities of what would become an Ibero-American civil war between Liberals and Conservatives that would perdure throughout the 19th century on both sides of the Atlantic until ultimately coming to a head in the Spanish Civil War of 1936.

In 1816, the absolutist Ferdinand VII was restored to power and he immediately abrogated the Constitution of 1812 (after promising to abide it).  The Stupid Revocation (as history has not called it) set in motion those class wars in Mexico, Chile and Argentina that are misnomered as “wars of independence.”

Ferdinand VII

Ferdinand’s uncompromising absolutism led to an equally uncompromising repression which was so severe that even his troops revolted (Argentina) or the conservatives themselves got disgusted (Chile and Mexico).  It was that momentary unity-in-disgust that produced the declarations of independence of 1818, 1819 and 1821. 

But the ideological and economic divisions between liberals and conservatives remained.  Since Spain under Ferdinand wasn’t playing ball with anyone, the Liberals no longer had effective counterparts in the Peninsula.  The life-line of official sinecures and privileges were cut off to the conservatives.  In lieu of an absent Spain, the Conservatives looked inwards or vaguely toward France; the Liberals outward and toward the United States.  They would be the darlings of the Monroe Doctrine.

Trade had been the chief economic cause of factionalism. In the 1796-1821 period “Liberal” was virtually synonymous with “smuggler” and “pirate”  — English, U.S., even Spanish.  As smugglers tend to operate from lairs, Liberalism also became associated with “federalism” i.e. state and regional autonomy.

Liberal Privateer, Xavier Mina (financed by English Lords)

In Hispanic, as in Anglo- America, the Crown had placed restrictions on the autonomous industrialization of the colonies. Thus, the question for the Latin American republics was from whom to buy finished goods and/or whether to develop the “internal” market.  The United States itself was hardly “industrialized” and faced much the same problem. 

Following “independence”, conservatives took charge in Mexico, Argentina and Chile, replicating on a national level the centralization Spain had exercised on an imperial one.  Trade is never abolished but in all three countries it was restricted so as to protect the interests of prominent landowners, miners, merchants.

By mid century, the Liberals gained ascendancy.  Chile opened itself to investors from England, Germany and the United States.  Wheat exports to California and Australia were a key component of its economy at this juncture.  Likewise in Argentina, the Liberals adopted an agro-export model highly dependent on trade with England which in turn developed and owned the railroads which transported the goods.  In the 1920’s the U.S. replaced England as Argentina’s chief trading partner (ie. exporter of manufactured goods).

Mexico’s situation was complicated by its proximity to the United States and what “trade” really meant, at first, was simply theft of land.  The Mexican-American wars of 1836 and 1848 were the “infrastructural” foundation of U.S. capitalism.

The subversion of Texas was the first “orange revolution” to be orchestrated by Washington and the “revolt” of Texas was raised under the banner of Liberalism in reaction to an alleged conservative "usurpation" in Mexico.   The keys to California were all but handed over to the Americans by its Liberal governor.  What is now called the “French invasion of Mexico” was the last stand of French supported conservatives against U.S. backed Liberals.  The latter won and Mexico’s “Liberator” (Juarez) and his successor (Porfirio Diaz) proceeded to sell off the country to U.S. investors who by the end of the century owned the railroads, mining and 90% of the economy.

The techniques of infiltration, seduction, subversion and armed intervention worked so well in Mexico that they were repeated seriatim throughout the rest of the hemisphere. Throughout the remainder of the century and into the next, the United States cultivated its surrogates, promoted discord, helped suppress truly popular revolts and extended its hegemony where Spain had once ruled. 

Constable Teddy & His Stick

After the Second World War, the United States refined its tactics. Instead of “sending in the Marines” the U.S. would train and cultivate “institutional relationships” with the Latin American military so that they could do the repressing.  In tandem the U.S. would promote cultural and academic exchanges, the principle purpose of which was to re-indoctrinate the ruling classes with the splendorous virtues of free-market economies operating with open trade and open borders.  (All Mexican presidents since 1980 have been processed through Harvard or Yale.)

Re-indoctrination was required because, although U.S. domination of Central and Caribean America remained uninterrupted, in the mid-20th century, Mexico, Chile and Argentina had taken steps to regain control of their economies, nationalising infrastructure or key sectors and putting protectionist policies in place.  In a word, the Liberals of the 19th century became "Social Democrats" of the 20th.   In Latin America this meant not only regulating the economy for social purposes but nationalising it for the sake of national identity and independence.   The U.S. wars against Germany and Japan allowed Latin America some breathing room but by 1970 “re-liberalization” (aka “privatization” aka resumed U.S. ownership) was back on the table.  President Allende’s murder was the shot-across the nationalist bow.

Most U.S. Americans are oblivious to what their country does in its “own back yard.”  But what any Ibero-American would necessarily hear in Hillary’s honeyed words is an explicitly avowed continuation of U.S. capitalist expansion and hegemony.

However, in using history to read the future, it is important not to get stuck in the past. It is true that, under Obama, the U.S. has continued to seek trade deals with Columbia and other countries; that is, to penetrate, privatize and control their economies through IMF dependency -- a policy which Hillary would presumably continue.  But to speak of U.S. hegemony is something of an anachronism.  As a cohesive nation, the U.S. ceased to exist in 1994, although most U.S. Americans don’t realise it.  Stated simply, U.S. companies were so good at internationalizing themselves that they ceased to be “American” in any substantively national way.  In tandem, the U.S. government ceased to reflect the interests of country of a recognisable people and became simply the “user interface” for and chief enforcer of global capitalism.

Hillary’s “open trade and open borders” is simply a variant of what the Euro-Globalists now call “The Four Freedoms” — that is the free movement of “capital, goods, services and people.”

These freedoms are decked out with all the flowery, floaty sentimentalism of which Kumabaya chanting is capable.  But any idiot ought to be able to figure out that what the four freedoms mean is that trans-national banks, corporations, hedge funds and money men get to buy up whatever they want and people get to scramble from place to place looking for whatever job they can find.

To spell it out:  the four freedoms represent the triumph of a global capitalist class repressing over a vast lumpen labour pool.  That is what Hillary means when she speaks of “powering growth and opportunity for every person.”

Of course being the excalibur huckster she is, the key here depends on the pause. She wants her imbecile followers to hear “growth-and-opportunity for every person” (and most especially our children and their dreams for a better blah blah blah).  What she means, however, is “powering growth for investors [pause] and trickle down chances for everyone else.”

It is not for nothing that Pope Francis said that “capitalism is dung” and if that is the case, then the Vicar of Christ has just told us that Hillary is a dung pusher.   As the liberation-theologian Leonardo Boff put it,

"Development and underdevelopment are two sides of the same coin. All the nations of the Western world were engaged in a vast process of development; however, it was interdependent and unequal, organized in such a way that the benefits flowed to the already developed countries of the "center" and the disadvantages were meted out to the historically backward and underdeveloped countries of the "periphery." The poverty of Third World countries was the price to be paid for the First World to be able to enjoy the fruits of overabundance."

This continues to be the case, although the evolution of global "free trade" now means that the poverty of the Third Class is the price paid for the prosperity of the First Percent.

Fr. Gustavo Gutierrez went further,  In Una Teologia de Liberación he criticised “development” as itself a form of impoverishment which despite its humanistic tissues actually served to sever the connection of people from their land, their culture, their histories and reduced them to efficient, spiritually impoverished units within an impersonalized, uniform mode of production.   According to  Gutierrez,

''Among more alert groups today, what we have called a new awareness of Latin American reality is making headway. They believe that there can be authentic development for Latin America only if there is liberation from the domination exercised by the great capitalist countries, especially by the most powerful, the United States of America.''

Gutierrez wrote that in 1975. But what then appeared to be an issue peculiar to Latin America (or Africa)  has now become an issue for the people of France, Germany, Hungary, England, Italy and, if the gringo would realise it, of the United States itself; for the "great capitalist countries" have themselves ceased to exist, except as agencies of an invisible amorphous power behind them.

By authentic development, Gutierrez also meant more than national development.  He was not just a liberal-turned-social democrat in clerical garb.   He was in fact echoing the conservative theologian, Hans Urs von Balthasar,

"Whenever the relationship between nature and grace is severed ... then the whole of worldly being falls under the dominion of 'knowledge', and the springs and forces of love immanent in the world are overpowered and finally suffocated by science, technology and cybernetics. The result is a ... world in which power and the profit-margin are the sole criteria, where the disinterested, the useless, the purposeless is despised, persecuted and in the end exterminated — a world in which art itself is forced to wear the mask and features of technique"

Ultimately, what these theologians call for is a liberation of the economy from the profit-margin and from the cultural reductionism that margin requires.  That call is paradoxical only to capitalists.  

So there it is.  One can fall for the honeyed bullshit of a woman who hires herself out to banks, investors and oil companies or you can take the word of “unrealistic” Catholic theologians.

Hillary is not peddling anything approaching authentic development anywhere.  She is pushing a world of power and profit-margins which promotes neither material development for the targeted countries nor authentic development anywhere.  Anyone who thinks that Hillary has reversed her position on trade treaties must also think that she has given up on her long held dream.  Dream on if you think so.


©WCG