|
Sunday July 09th 2006, 9:19 am
Is it possible the poor of Mexico would actually vote for Felipe Calderón, billed as a “champion of free trade,” that is to say a neolib globalist? Even before the election, it was obvious the vote would be rigged, as Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who lost, now contends. “Obrador called Calderón ‘an employee’ of Mexico’s powerful upper classes and said a victory by his conservative opponent would be ‘morally impossible,’” reports the Washington Post. As Narco News points out, Mexico has fallen victim to “state-of-the-art electoral fraud,” same as America did in 2000 and again in 2004. Obrador demands a recount, but faces an uphill battle, to say the least. “The true and legal victor in last Sunday’s elections, former Mexico City Governor López Obrador, will make his case today, Saturday, to his supporters and to the nation of how exactly this election fraud was carried out against him and them. He will have to do so against the gale-force winds of a boycott of the true facts by much of the mass media (especially the Mexican television duopoly of Televisa and TV Azteca), and the complicity of the country’s electoral authorities in the maintenance of their own false decrees.”
In other words, the poor of Mexico may well go into the streets, something that is virtually unthinkable here in America. Of course, there is no reason to go into the streets here, as the election was stolen from a Skull and Bones elitist, John Kerry, by a fellow Skull and Bones elitist, Dubya Bush, and even if the election was not thrown there would be little difference, as the same WTO-NAFTA globalism would be on track under the “liberal” Kerry. López Obrador, pegged as a “leftist” by the corporate media, is opposed to globalism and its predatory precepts demanding grinding poverty. Meanwhile, the “liberal” Los Angeles Times has published an op-ed by Gregory Rodriguez accusing Obrador of not only sour grapes, but also “harboring an authoritarian streak” (while the neolib class in Mexico, of course, is egalitarian). “Long before last Sunday’s election, [critics] feared that the charismatic, populist ex-mayor of Mexico City would refuse to accept a close defeat. And, to Mexico’s misfortune, they were right…. [Obrador’s challenge of the corrupt electoral system in Mexico encourages] the type of cynicism about politics that helped semi-authoritarian regimes maintain power in Mexico for most of the 20th century.” Naturally, it should come as no surprise the LA Times would publish such an absurd bit of apologia, rife with blame the victim snobbishness. But then the “liberals” over at the Times are fully onboard with the New World Order, what I call the Neolib World Order. “Realistically, unless the smoke clears quickly, Calderon will face the usual splits between rich and poor, pro-business and anti-poverty forces. Asi es Mexico. Indeed, this is democracy. It is messy, fragile, confusing, slow. Just look at Iraq,” opines the Pasadena Star News. Say what? Look at Iraq? No, this op-ed writer is not clueless, he (or she) is deliberately disingenuous, firmly on the Neolib World Order bandwagon. Mexico has never experienced democracy, that is to say popular mob rule. According to my dictionary, democracy derives from the Greek demos, “people,” and kratos, “rule,” and as even a casual glance at current events reveals, the people, half impoverished, do not rule in Mexico. In fact, Mexico, along with the United States and Canada, was NAFTAized over a decade ago, that is to say transnational corporations rule through the tiny wealthy elites in these countries, and the people are left to compete in a “race to the bottom.” In Mexico, the bottom is right there, no race required. Another op-ed, this one at the New York Daily News, tells us the people of Mexico like their grinding poverty and prefer to be victimized by “free trade” robber-bandits. “Assuming that Calderon has indeed defeated firebrand populist Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, just enough Mexicans have signaled that they prefer (however warily) Calderon’s commitment to 21st century free enterprise that holds the promise of lifting the country’s fortunes over Lopez Obrador’s old-style economic paternalism. The voters also made clear that they have no patience for the radical socialism trumpeted by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez, and, in so doing, they sent a loud and welcome message across the region.” In Bushzarro world, up is down, black is white, and the Mexican people prefer “attenuating poverty, extending equality of opportunity and generating a minimum of well-being for the population as a whole,” as Sara Gordon, writing for the Instituto de Investigaciones Sociales, puts it. In 2000, 10% of the Mexican population was living on less than a dollar a day and 26% on less than two dollars. “In 2002, half of Mexicans lived in poverty with one fifth in extreme poverty,” notes Ana P. Ambrosi. One half of all Mexicans prefer malnutrition, inequality, and the unchecked marauding of neolib sharks to “the radical socialism trumpeted by Venezuela’s Hugo Chavez.” If you believe this, I have a chartreuse pony you may be interested in buying. __._,_.___Complete archives at http://www.sitbot.net/ Please let us stay on topic and be civil. OM YAHOO! GROUPS LINKS
|
