Anti-TPPA actions and lack of choice

A series of protest meetings around the country have been planned prior to the signing of the Trans Pacific Partnership Agreement, which seems to be scheduled to take place in Auckland on February 4.

It is likely these meetings were being organised before the signing date was publicised this week.

Andrew Little said in a radio interview last week he knew the signing was planned for early February:

You know I just I am stunned, I was stunned to hear when I was in Washington DC that they are where lining up the 4th of February as a date for the Ministerial signing of the agreement, and I said to some of them, I said are you nuts?

So if Little knew about the signing schedule then presumably others did too, giving time to organise these meetings, which involves international speaker Lori Wallach.

Lori Wallach is the Director and Founder of Global Trade Watch, a division of Public Citizen. She is an expert and activist in global trade issues. Wallach has testified before Congress about the effect NAFTA, WTO, and other free trade agreements have on global citizens. She has played a significant role in the negotiations of many free trade agreements by acting as a consumer watch dog.

Books include: “The WTO: Five Years of Reasons to Resist Corporate Globalization” (1999)

– Wikipedia

Not surprisingly Wallach has associations with Jane Kelsey. They both appear to have spoken at another event in Auckland last month, according to this on the Fabian Society website:

TPP Out of the Shadows – Jane Kelsey & Lori Wallach

What they won’t tell us and why we should be worried about the Trans-Pacific Partnership.

Two of the world’s foremost critical voices on international free trade and investment agreements — Lori Wallach and Jane Kelsey — will deliver presentations and take questions on the Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA).

When:
December 3rd, 2012 6:30 PM   through   8:00 PM
Location:
University of Auckland
Old Government House Lecture Theatre
20 Princes St
Auckland, AUK
New Zealand

Two old campaigners against international trade agreements.

Kelsey is also campaigning via media:

Jane Kelsey: Secrecy on signing aims to thwart protest

On February 4, the Government intends to defy popular opinion and host the signing of the secretly negotiated Trans-Pacific Partnership agreement in Auckland. We had to hear that from other governments.

Bookings at the height of holiday season would have been made months ago, yet our Government initially said no decision had been made and this week admitted it will be signed in Auckland but won’t say when or where.

One obvious reason for the secrecy is to thwart potential protests, a further example of the TPP trumping democratic rights. Never before has a New Zealand Government tried to sell such an unpopular international treaty.

But as well as the meetings there are likely to be other organised protest events.

An Action Station survey:

Leanne Watkins
If you’d like a say in the next actions –
Action station have launched a survey
You have until 6pm, before big planning meeting at 6.30

Here are their action suggestions:

ActionStationTPPASurvey.jpg

Framing the narrative:

ActionStationTPPASurvey3

When:

ActionStationTPPASurvey4

Action Station are a very well organised protest movement.  Like Wallach and Kelsey they are against trade agreements.

Greenpeace are also campaigning against the TPPA: Say no to the TPPA

TPPAGreenpeace

But it seems that Wallach, Kelsey, Action Station and Greenpeace are not for choice. They oppose the TPPA and trade agreements.

Note the contradiction:

Say no to the TPPA

Say yes to choice

They oppose, they don’t actually want to promote choice.

If they were actually interested in and serious about democracy they would offer choices for both sides of the TPPA argument.

 

 

Previous Post
Leave a comment

79 Comments

  1. Iceberg

     /  15th January 2016

    Ironic that Greenpeace are a globalized corporate themselves

    Reply
    • Brown

       /  15th January 2016

      And have become so dodgy the founders abandoned the enterprise.

      Reply
      • Iceberg

         /  15th January 2016

        They want the freedom to elicit donations from a countries citizens, which they send offshore to support global HQ, and they want the freedom to lobby hard on local issues with financial support from said global HQ. They want the freedom to influence local politics from afar, whilst setting up petitions and protests, ostensibly to stop others doing the same. They want the freedom to influence global thinking on issues that suit their agenda, whilst shouting down others. They want the freedom to pay no tax whilst insisting others pay more. Greenpeace are the kind of Globalisation we should be fighting against. As for Action Station, good on you for being organised SJW’s, but don’t pretend you’re anything more than a political lobby group.

        Reply
        • Blazer

           /  15th January 2016

          so what facts are still facts.Why just stand by while craven crony capitalism wreaks environmental and economic vandalism?

          Reply
          • kittycatkin

             /  15th January 2016

            Greenpeace-I used to be a member and am not now-have been a huge disappointment to me.They seem to have gone right away from their roots and can be as bad as the people and things they condemn.

            Amnesty NZ, ditto. The last display was all about domestic violence in NZ, which has nothing to do with what Amnesty is supposed to be about. The young woman said that we don’t have the equivalent of political prisoners and torture, so domestic violence was being focussed upon. I could see her blanking out when I said that there were many organisations for this-that I would never downplay it, having been on the receiving end in a former relationship, but that Amnesty was supposed to be an international organisation to publicise and help people who were unjustly imprisoned and/or tortured…no go, she wasn’t remotely interested.

            Reply
  2. Blazer

     /  15th January 2016

    the TPPA offers no choice.Done deal..Key and his cabinet…fait accompli.

    Reply
    • Alan Wilkinson

       /  15th January 2016

      Here’s a choice for the anti-TPPA dingbats:

      Are you opposed to It because it implements freer trade or because it doesn’t?

      Answers on a pre-printed postcard so we don’t strain your literacy too much.

      Reply
      • Blazer

         /  15th January 2016

        when will you figure out that its NOT ABOUT FREE TRADE?Read it FFS.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  15th January 2016

          Answer the question.

          Reply
        • It’s about inverted totalatariansim. ( Right, PNZ? )and I am not being sarcastic.
          I have signed every petition available – not that that is gonna stop them

          Reply
          • Alan Wilkinson

             /  15th January 2016

            What crap. Define your misspelt enemy.

            Reply
            • Partizan NZ helpfully provided the link to the article (Sheldon Wolin) the other day. 🙂

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  15th January 2016

              Life is too short to wade through PZ’s verbiage. If you can’t put it into your own words why on earth take sides about it?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  15th January 2016

              I looked up Wolin and his is a lament for socialist irrelevancy. Sadly the population has rediscovered the free market provides for them and the Government just steals from them. Of course the Brits and Yanks discovered this centuries ago but Marx managed to delude himself and a lot of other people with fatal consequences for many.

            • The fact that the TPPA is being enacted, is further evidence to me, that
              Sheldon Wolin, and his theory of Inverted Totalitarianism, is correct.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th January 2016

              Why?

          • @ Alan – I enjoy people’s longer posts. They’re often less derisive and insulting than the short, angry, supposedly ‘incisive’ ones too. I never see anyone complaining about the length of KGs, Timotis, PDBs, BJM1s and a host of others. Said it before … mine must sting huh?

            @ belledejour – I believe TPP is essentially about inverted totalitarianism, yes.
            It is designed to consolidate it in an area of the world where United States influence is presently waning somewhat or in need of perceived “realignment”.

            I have also called IT Global or Inter-National Corporatism. At a national level, especially in the USA, change “corporatism” to “socialism” and you roughly have its measure.

            http://www.truthdig.com/report/page4/sheldon_wolin_and_inverted_totalitarianism_20151101

            https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inverted_totalitarianism

            On the contrary Alan, I think Sheldon Wolin is saying the “free market” you are so enamoured with is a conceit. I can’t see in his writings “a lament for socialist irrelevancy”. I don’t see him saying he wants the current regime replaced by socialism – (magic bullet word) – and I believe he may want a more genuine free market – probably with a significant social responsibility element like me – and proper participatory democracy. Perhaps the last two are synonymous?

            The free market provides for “some” of them Alan. And sadly the unfettered capitalism of pre-Marxian Britain and America had fatal consequences for many millions of people too, notably the enslaved ones, but also indigenous peoples and the poor.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  15th January 2016

              “the unfettered capitalism of pre-Marxian Britain and America had fatal consequences for many millions of people”

              Evidence?

            • I’ve posted these twice already. Why would I think you’ll take any notice? (Different sites vary somewhat)

              http://listverse.com/2013/01/03/10-deadliest-world-events-in-human-history/

              https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_wars_and_anthropogenic_disasters_by_death_toll

              Not hard to find. There’s others too, if you just search, you know, like you say I should do.

            • Specifically which deaths do you claim caused by British and American capitalism = private ownership of transport and businesses?

            • The pointlessness of arguing with you is getting to me. You’re mincing words and putting words in my mouth. Where on earth did you get “British and American capitalism = private ownership of transport and businesses?”

              You said, “the free market provides for them”

              You, not me, YOU, suggested Marx interrupted the natural flow of free market capitalism, correct?

              Marx entered the scene about 1848 I believe? You claim thereafter his theories cost many, many lives? Thereafter = post-Marxian does it not?

              Hence, I claim pre-Marxian capitalism also cost many, many lives. I am refering to “The West” if you want to be really picky. I’m refering to Western Christendom’s voyages of discovery, conquest and slavery done, hand-in-hand with colonisation, essentially, in the name of free enterprise capitalism.

              On listverse it says, exaggerated but nonetheless correctly ranked I believe –
              10. Atlantic Slave Trade = 15 million
              3. WW1 = 65 million
              2. WW2 = 72 million
              1. Conquest of the Americas = 100million
              On Wiki –
              WW2 = 58 million,
              Americas conquest = 55 million,
              WW1 = 18 million

            • The slave trade and the conquest of the Americas are the only pre-Marxian events. (Das Kapital was 1867) Slavery was legally abolished in England by Habeas Corpus of the Magna Carta and confirmed by courts in 1569 and 1706. Free markets require participants are free and individual rights and property are protected. Obviously slavery violates all of those requirements. The bloody conquest of the Americas was largely at the hands of continental Europe. The US estimates of Indian deaths via conflict in the century to 1890 was 45,000 (and 20,00 whites). To get anywhere near your millions you will have to add deaths by disease which were due to ending isolation, not free markets or capitalism.

            • Well, one positive thing to emerge from this round of quibbling for me Alan is I’ve now heard the absolute, paramount, ultimate euphemism.

              The death of millions of indigenous people from diseases contracted via enforced interaction with invading Europeans is simply “ending isolation”.

              This gives new meaning to the expression, “Takes the cake”.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  16th January 2016

              You can’t tell the difference between a disaster and its cause evidently. I guess that’s why you still believe in socialism.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  15th January 2016

              ‘I can’t see in his writings “a lament for socialist irrelevancy”’

              It is exactly that. He complains that politics (ie ideology) has been taken out of politics, that all political parties have essentially the same policies, that politicians are driven to serve corporate interests – ie provide free markets and that the public are content with that. The poor, unhappy fellow hates capitalism and has no concept of how it has served humanity to take it out of the dark ages.

        • Kevin

           /  15th January 2016

          So you’re of the Prentice “It’s a restraint of trade agreement” school then?

          Funny how an agreement that allows us to sell more dairy to other countries can be called restraint of trade.

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  15th January 2016

            dont you know what quotas and tariffs are?Probably not.

            Reply
            • Kevin

               /  15th January 2016

              So are you saying we’re going to be less dairy under the TPPA? Is that your argument?

            • Blazer

               /  15th January 2016

              more or less….32 mil doesn’t even rate.

        • Iceberg

           /  15th January 2016

          I did, and it says; “ESTABLISH a comprehensive regional agreement that promotes economic integration to liberalise trade and investment, bring economic growth and social benefits, create new opportunities for workers and businesses, contribute to raising living standards, benefit consumers, reduce poverty and promote sustainable growth”

          Reply
          • The summary of the US Treasury report also says, “It also includes new trade disciplines on issues such as digital trade barriers, state-owned enterprises (SOEs), and regulatory coherence, among other provisions. Opponents voice concerns over potential job loss and competition in import-sensitive industries, and how a TPP agreement might limit U.S. ability to regulate in areas such as health, food safety, and the environment, among other concerns”

            Reply
      • Blazer

         /  15th January 2016

        opposed to it because its a shitty deal thats not about free trade.

        Reply
        • Alan Wilkinson

           /  15th January 2016

          Do you advocate free trade or oppose it?

          Reply
          • Blazer

             /  15th January 2016

            it doesn’t exist,and this agreement is not about free trade.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  15th January 2016

              Ostrich. You are surrounded by it here so you can’t see it. Go to Japan and buy an apple and you will remove your blinkers.

            • Blazer

               /  15th January 2016

              do you like swallowing ‘dead rats’….compliments of T.Groser.

    • Pantsdownbrown

       /  15th January 2016

      I look forward to the Greens and Labour making it a bottom-line at the next election to pull out of the TPPA………..will that happen? No. Can’t be that bad then…….

      Reply
      • Iceberg

         /  15th January 2016

        Helen Clark already torpedoed them. The argument is long lost.

        Reply
      • Blazer

         /  16th January 2016

        ‘“We have to make sure America writes the rules of the global economy. And we should do it today, while our economy is in the position of global strength. Because if we don’t write the rules for trade around the world – guess what – China will. And they’ll write those rules in a way that gives Chinese workers and Chinese businesses the upper hand, and locks American-made goods out.”…B.Obama.

        Reply
  3. Kevin

     /  15th January 2016

    You give me $20. And I give you $25. Hence even though you’re giving me something it’s still in your best interest to give me $20 as you’re getting more in return.

    It’s amazing how these idiots can’t grasp this simple concept.

    Reply
  4. Hel

     /  15th January 2016

    Ironic really. Looks a lot like something from the Dirty Politics playbook that you know, all the left were so aghast about!

    Reply
  5. kittycatkin

     /  15th January 2016

    I suppose that all the antis wouldn’t mind paying the sort of prices that we had to pay before free/r trade came in. Yeah, right.

    Reply
    • Timoti

       /  15th January 2016

      Remember our car market before Jap Imports, KittyCat? Top line Mitsi in the show room for $90,000. Less than a decade later, a better speced Jap imported Mitsi could be had for $ 10.000. I bet many of these protesters will come to gatherings in Jap imports, and wear imported clothing that’s cheaper because of trade agreements.

      Reply
      • Alan Wilkinson

         /  15th January 2016

        Yep, utterly clueless doesn’t begin to do justice to most of these clowns. And then there are those manipulators who know better but are just politicking for power. Pure evil best describes them.

        Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  15th January 2016

        I don’t remember, but I have heard about it and although I can’t remember the length of time it used to take to buy various appliances (which I read a while ago) and can’t be bothered to look it up, I know that it was much, much longer than it is for such things now. It can’t all be put down to newer methods of production, either.

        Reply
        • kittycatkin

           /  15th January 2016

          A colour television in 1970 cost the equivalent of $7950. It was a bigger one that was quoted than mine, which was the smallest one they had, but mine cost, I think, less than $200 (it’s about 5 years old) and if it died, I could replace it for that. I watch so little that I can’t imagine wanting to pay thousands. I know that one can, but it’s for a rather bigger and more versatile set 😀 Urghhhh…weren’t the old ones (after the ones with cases and legs) hideous ? I replaced ours because it was really ugly-grey at the front, black at the back, as if it had been made from two old ones glued together. My new one has a piece of retro linen hanging over it most of the time and is totally unobtrusive-but the old one couldn’t be ignored when it wasn’t on.

          Reply
          • kittycatkin

             /  15th January 2016

            I looked in Dick Smith’s online, and they had no television anywhere the 1970 price, even a 65″ one. The dearest was $4000 & something.So one could just about buy two enormous ones for the price of a 1970 26″ one, or 40 like mine which is 21″, I think.

            Reply
            • kittycatkin

               /  15th January 2016

              Why would ANYONE downtick that ? Do they WANT to pay those prices again ? There’s nothing to stop them handing over $7950 for a 26″ television and refusing to take the change.

          • Blazer

             /  15th January 2016

            advances in technology,competition and low labour costs are the reasons behind lower cost manufactured goods.

            Reply
            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  15th January 2016

              Plus we are now allowed to buy them! A teenage friend was arrested and given the third degree by customs for the crime of buying a transistor radio in Sydney and trying to bring it back without an import licence. Ah, the days of the socialist paradise.

            • Blazer

               /  15th January 2016

              so the Holyoake and Holland Nat govts were socialist were they?

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  15th January 2016

              Of course. They maintained Labour’s cradle to the grave socialist paradise. But Muldoon was the greatest socialist dictator of them all.

            • Blazer

               /  15th January 2016

              so which administrations since say 1972 have not been Socialist.

            • Kevin

               /  15th January 2016

              Lange – Douglas.

            • Timoti

               /  15th January 2016

              They where socialist too, Kevin.

            • Kevin

               /  15th January 2016

              Or not being able to buy a push-button phone and being forced to endure sleep-inducing documentaries before watching a movie at the cinema.

            • Kevin

               /  15th January 2016

              @Timoti

              Lange, yes, but Douglas certainly wasn’t. And Lange basically let Douglas have free reign over the economic stuff reasoning that with the economy sound they would be able to pay for all the socialist stuff.

            • Alan Wilkinson

               /  15th January 2016

              One of my favorites was the six month wait for a phone connection. Then I went to Canada and rang up BCTel to see if I could get a phone. They said, “Sorry, we can’t do it this morning. Would this afternoon be ok?”. I realized I had entered another world.

            • Blazer

               /  15th January 2016

              ‘being forced to endure sleep-inducing documentaries ‘…quite the strange fellow you are!

            • Kevin

               /  15th January 2016

              @Blazer

              Did you enjoy being forced to watch those documentaries?

            • Kevin

               /  15th January 2016

              @Blazer

              BTW it was Muldoon who mandated that cinemas were to show documentaries before the main movie – documentaries that were at least an half hour long if not more. And if you fell asleep during one and missed out on most of the main movie well then tough luck.

              And just think today’s young ‘uns whinge if they have sit through five minutes of ads before watching the latest Star wars movie.

      • mrMan

         /  15th January 2016

        Timothy said “I bet many of these protesters will come to gatherings in Jap imports, and wear imported clothing that’s cheaper because of trade agreements.”

        Those things became cheaper because of our parallel imports law, not free trade agreements.

        Reply
        • Timoti

           /  15th January 2016

          True. but use your imagination and find a common nexus. Find similar results, both personal and economic.

          Reply
    • Blazer

       /  15th January 2016

      ludicrous logic…a pint of milk used to be 4cents!!!Now how much?

      Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  15th January 2016

        But what were people earning ? It was subsidised, anyway, so it was just being paid for in a different way by the same people. It’s ‘free’ to be in hospital, but we pay for that from our taxes.

        Reply
    • Blazer

       /  15th January 2016

      tell me what will be cheaper under the TPPA ..if you can.

      Reply
      • kittycatkin

         /  15th January 2016

        No, I can’t off the top of my head, but some things will probably be, and other countries will be buying our things. The 4c milk was artificially low-and as I said, it was subsidised, so people were paying the actual price, anyway, rhey just weren’t aware of it because it came out of tax money. .

        Reply
      • In NZ which already has effectively free trade in imports the benefits will come from greater income from exports. By making us richer that will effectively make everything cheaper.

        Reply
  6. kittycatkin

     /  15th January 2016

    They do want to promote choice,Pete-but it has to be their choice.

    Reply
  7. kittycatkin

     /  15th January 2016

    I can’t make replies further up.

    I don’t ever remember 6 months waiting times for phone connections, Alan-this seems excessive. I’m sure it wasn’t that long. We moved house a few times, and never went for six months with no phone. I do remember when, if one had an extension, one paid two phone bills !!! Unless one was lucky enough to know someone who’d put it in and say nothing.

    I remember when international toll calls were only made at Christmas or in emergencies-three minutes, and three minutes were charged for, whether they were all used or not. If one talked for even a tiny bit more, one might as well have another three minutes-there was no point in not.

    Reply
    • Thought I replied but it seems to have vanished: In the late 1960’s many post office telephone exchanges in Christchurch were full and six month delays in getting a line were common.

      Reply
  8. kittycatkin

     /  15th January 2016

    Newsreels and documentaries in cinemas were around for decades before Muldoon was PM. There were cartoons, too-cinemas were real value for money, then. I remember when there were cartoons before the main film-what happened to them ? I can’t remember when they stopped..

    And rolling Jaffas down the aisle if one was lucky enough to be in an old cinema with a wooden aisle. One never to be forgotten day, my brother’s icecream fell out of its cone when we were upstairs leaning over…he SAID it was an accident. Yeah, right. I still laugh at the memory….some unlucky ‘grown-up’ was sitting just below us 😀 😀 😀

    Reply
  9. Comparisons with the good old days are odious, I reckon. Sure, our economy needed modifications. It needed some deregulation. I will never be convinced we needed to throw out the baby of local business and widespread local/regional employment, Kiwi made products and plenty of innovation – a whole way of life – with the dirty bathwater of over-regulation. I’ve looked into it. No-one will ever convince me otherwise. We got sold out. (To some extent this may even have been because a man hated his own extended family-of-origin?)

    The unnecessary excesses of Rogernomics were our “buy in” to Reaganomics and Thatcherism, over which we may have had no choice, I don’t know, but if we could say “No Nukes” we might have said, “No. We’re keeping F&P and Bendon and all the others that moved offshore”. We might have said, “No. The Warehouse and $2 Shops are not the only way to express ‘cheap imported goods'”. We might have said “Smashing unions isn’t really creating a level playing field at all”.

    The argument is that in a free market consumers [and workers] must make these decisions? But if, at the same time, consumers spending power is being smashed by wage reductions, employment contracts, reduced hours, high interest rates, rocketing house prices and rent, along with feverish and continual “organisational change” or “transformation”, they are going to choose the cheap goods, aren’t they? They have to.

    Actions speak louder than spin. It’s the example that counts. The example is: Producers, importers and retailers can act with impunity, unethically and immorally. Consumers, on the other hand, must [essentially] act expediently – buy cheap – disregarding ethics altogether – and don’t really have any choice. Sure, choose the $300 or the $400 television. Never mind that not only did workers in Indonesia or China get paid $1 per hour or $10 per week to assemble it in sweatshop conditions, but the NZ workers who used to assemble it have lost their jobs.

    Why NZ’s “deregulation”, which can equally be described as regulation in favour of supply, is seen as vastly different from or superior to regulation in favour of demand is quite beyond me. Some, maybe minimal, balanced regulation in favour of both seems like straightforward logic to me. Without it there’s “boom and bust” and sure enough, along came Black Tuesday in 1987 to foil poor Roger’s plans, just in time to prevent privatised secondary education.

    No need to return to pre-1984 regulation and conditions, but yes, I would pay more. I’d pay $25 – $30 for the cellphone I bought for $9 at the Warehouse. I already seek out and buy local “growers” produce which is cheaper than commercial because it hasn’t been shipped in … et al …

    Reply
    • Iceberg

       /  15th January 2016

      When you go to bed tonight, set your clock forward a Century.

      Reply
      • I’ll need to. Neoliberalism has set the clock back one-and-a-half Centuries to mid-Victorian times; when the new mega-rich Robber Baron Industrialists exploited a displaced and fearful agrarian-urban peasantry, simultaneously growing a mercantile Middle Class who owed their fealty to the Barons, as Earls and Viscounts always have*, while the Robber Baron’s own wives ran charities desparately trying to ameliorate the worst effects of the very same activities that made them wealthy enough to do so.

        * I realise my example does not correspond with the hierarchy of English peerage.

        Reply
        • Brown

           /  16th January 2016

          When I read that I thought I was listening to the debate about political control between the king and the peasant in a Monty Python’s film I can’t recall the name of and can’t check because socialist step daughter has again crashed on the couch next to the DVDs to be fed and watered by capitalist scum like me.

          Reply
          • LOL Brown. Nicely put. In another life I would be writing comedy sketches.

            Your step-daughter not understanding personal and social responsibility does not make her socialist.

            And, when we say such things about young people generally, it begs the question, “Who did they learn this from”? (I do mean generally, myself included, not you specifically)

            Reply
  10. Brown

     /  16th January 2016

    Seriously I think that the old left and right are pointless labels nowadays – its individualism or collectivism but I can’t answer the question. I know I’ll cope when the lights go out but most won’t.

    Step daughter probably picked it up at college but her sister hasn’t – both are lazy though although to her credit older one now works and appears to have a decent work ethic. She likes debates (more like an assassination of stupidity) even though she concedes I win and she loses. Second wife and I, my sons and lots of people I know never picked it up. One son is gay and hates the progressives. My closest friend and his wife (elderly) are appalling lefties (but struggling to hold to the marxist dogma they love in the face of its failures) and I suspect they got infected at university in the 50’s. I think there’s something in the water – a disease that removes common sense, conscience and accountability while seeing the sufferer insist that everyone embrace their favourite disfunction of the moment. All I know is that nature will sort it all out as nature doesn’t tolerate bullshit for long. Watch Europe to see how this works.

    Reply

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s