1. Senator Scolds
Obama for “Preaching Nuclear
Temperance From a Bar Stool”
2. “Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to
3. Eerie Silence about a New World War
4. America’s Worst Laid Plans
5. New WikiLeaks Trove Further Exposes TISA’s Neoliberal
This is a Nederlog of Saturday, May 28,
is a crisis log with 5 items and 5 dotted links: Item 1 is about
Obama's false pretensions to be peaceful and democratic (he is neither:
he wants to invest a trillion
dollars in new atomic weapons); item 2 is about cellphones that may
cause cancer (but this will probably be disbelieved by most cellphone
users); item 3 is a fine article by John Pilger about Obama's and
Blair's plans for a new world war; item 4 is another fine article by
Michael Brenner on the USA and the TTIP; while item 5 is about the
TISA, which is another neofascistic plan (like the TTP and the TTIP) -
and I explain.
1. Senator Scolds Obama for “Preaching Nuclear Temperance
From a Bar Stool”
Incidentally, in case you are reading this on xs4all: When I now move there with my Firefox browser I have to click twice to get the latest versions I uploaded. I do not know whether this only holds for my browser or my OS. It is limiting and it used to be different. (It may be because they update slowly, but I don't know.)
The first item is by Alex Emmons on The
This starts as follows, and is
about the sickening neoliberal liar Obama:
There is considerably more in the article,
which is recommended, but the above suffices to show what a neoliberal
liar and cheater for the rich Obama really is:
While President Obama called for a
“moral awakening” in Hiroshima and restated his ambition for a
nuclear-weapon free future, back in Washington, Sen. Ed Markey,
D-Mass., criticized him for moving forward with a costly plan to
renovate the U.S. nuclear arsenal.
“The U.S. cannot preach nuclear
temperance from a bar stool,” Markey wrote in a Boston Globe opinion
Obama’s Hiroshima speech was reminiscent
of the one he
gave in Prague, only three months into his presidency, when he
announced that he would “seek the peace and security of a world without
In 2010, he negotiated a treaty that
limited the U.S. and Russia to 1,550 deployed, strategic nuclear
But that was as far as he would go.
Obama is set to maintain the U.S. arsenal of 1,528
deployed warheads — almost half of which are on 30-minute
alert — despite a 2013 White House assessment
that he could safely reduce the U.S. arsenal by a third.
Obama is also pushing for a $1 trillion
effort to replace the U.S.’s entire stock of long-range strike bombers,
cruise missiles, nuclear submarines, and land-based missiles – which
experts have said is sure to cause an arms
What a stinking, degenerate, totally immoral
liar this man is! (But: He and his
- He did not even make excuses in
Hiroshima for Hiroshima
- He did not even try to live "in a world without nuclear weapons"
- Instead he tries to renew the US's
atomic weapons for 1 trillion dollars
family will profit a great amount, and his "presidential library" will cost 800 million dollars at least, all to sing his glory.)
2. “Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to Cancer
The second item is by Josh Harkinson on Mother
This starts as follows:
It's the moment we've all been dreading.
Initial findings from a massive federal study, released on Thursday, suggest that radio-frequency
(RF) radiation, the type emitted by cellphones, can cause cancer.
The findings from a $25 million study,
conducted over two and a half years by the National Toxicology Program
(NTP), showed that male rats exposed to two types of RF radiation were
significantly more likely than unexposed rats to develop a type of
brain cancer called a glioma, and also had a higher chance of
developing the rare, malignant form of tumor known as a schwannoma of
the heart. The effect was not seen in females.
I can't say I am very amazed. Also, I
never owned (and never will own) a cellphone, for one reason because I
don't want to be constantly spied on by the NSA etc. and for another
reason because I think it is utterly childish and stupid (and egoistic)
to make yourself constantly available to everyone with a cellphone.
For the billions who do, here is some more
news on the cancers they may soon develop:
Incidentally, the last two statements sound
not very consistent, although (to me) quite familiar: The point that
"there is no known mechanism by which RF
radiation causes cancer" is baloney. The fact that there is not
sufficient knowledge to explain a fact doesn't mean that the
fact is not there .
The radiation level the rats received
was "not very different" from what humans are exposed to when they use
cellphones, said Chris Portier, a former associate director of the NTP
who commissioned the study.
As the intensity of the radiation
increased, so did the incidence of cancer in the rats. (The highest
radiation level was five to seven times as strong as what humans
typically receive while using a phone.) Although ionizing radiation,
which includes gamma rays and X-rays, is widely accepted as a
carcinogen, the wireless industry has long noted that there is no known
mechanism by which RF radiation causes cancer. The researchers wrote
that the results "appear to support" the conclusion that RF radiation
may indeed be carcinogenic.
Then again this is "just one study" (although it was a big one), while
I also tend to assume that the vast majority of cellphone users will not
take this seriously.
3. Eerie Silence about a New
The third item is by John Pilger
(<-Wikipedia) on Consortiumnews:
This starts as follows:
The 2016 election campaign is
remarkable not only for the rise of Donald Trump and Bernie Sanders but
also for the resilience of an enduring silence about a murderous
self-bestowed divinity. A third of the members of the United Nations
have felt Washington’s boot, overturning governments, subverting
democracy, imposing blockades and boycotts. Most of the presidents
responsible have been liberal – Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Carter,
Yes, indeed - although I'd prefer to say
"Democrats" rather than "liberal". Then again, I know "liberal" differs
considerably in meaning when said about (i) Holland, about (ii) Great Britain,
and about (iii) the USA.
The breathtaking record of perfidy is so
mutated in the public mind, wrote the late Harold Pinter, that it
“never happened. … Nothing ever happened. Even while it was happening
it wasn’t happening. It didn’t matter. It was of no interest. It didn’t
Pinter expressed a mock admiration for
what he called “a quite clinical manipulation of power worldwide while
masquerading as a force for universal good. It’s a brilliant, even
witty, highly successful act of hypnosis.”
And in any case, it is true that many of the warring American
presidents were Democrats. Here is the latest one:
Take Obama. As he prepares to leave
office, the fawning has begun all over again. He is “cool.” One of the
more violent presidents, Obama gave full reign to the Pentagon
war-making apparatus of his discredited predecessor. He prosecuted more
whistleblowers – truth-tellers – than any president. He pronounced
Chelsea Manning guilty before she was tried. Today, Obama runs an
unprecedented worldwide campaign of terrorism and murder by drone.
In 2009, Obama promised to help “rid the
world of nuclear weapons” and was awarded the Nobel Peace
Prize. No American president has built more nuclear warheads than
Obama. He is “modernizing” America’s doomsday arsenal, including a new
“mini” nuclear weapon whose size and “smart” technology, says a leading
general, ensure its use is “no longer unthinkable.”
Yes, indeed: If you subtract all
propaganda, this is what you are left with: A clear continuer of Bush's
policies, except in his propaganda. Here is some more:
James Bradley, the best-selling
author of Flags of Our Fathers and son of one of the U.S.
Marines who raised the flag on Iwo Jima, said, “[One] great myth we’re
seeing play out is that of Obama as some kind of peaceful guy who’s
trying to get rid of nuclear weapons. He’s the biggest nuclear warrior
there is. He’s committed us to a ruinous course of spending a trillion
dollars on more nuclear weapons. Somehow, people live in this fantasy
that because he gives vague news conferences and speeches and feel-good
photo-ops that somehow that’s attached to actual policy. It isn’t.”
Yes. Obama gets consistently mistaken for his
propaganda about his person: Because he knows very well how to lie and deceive in
a very charming manner, what sticks in the people's mind is the charm, that makes them overlook both
his lies and the horrible laws he signs or furthers.
Here is some more on another "Christian war
criminal", and also some on British female
I agree again, though (again) I use the term
"liberal" differently. Also, I have meanwhile concluded that the real
meaning of "neoliberal" is "neofascist", simply because a real and true
neofascist state and order of society is the end of the neoliberals (who also never were liberals in any of my senses).
This presidential campaign may not be
about populism but American liberalism, an ideology that sees itself as
modern and therefore superior and the one true way. Those on its right
wing bear a likeness to Nineteenth Century Christian imperialists, with
a God-given duty to convert or co-opt or conquer.
In Britain, this is Blairism. The
Christian war criminal Tony Blair got away with his secret preparation
for the invasion of Iraq largely because the liberal political class
and media fell for his “cool Britannia.” In the Guardian, the
applause was deafening; he was called “mystical.” A distraction known
as identity politics, imported from the United States, rested easily in
History was declared over, class was
abolished and gender promoted as feminism; lots of women became New
Labour MPs. They voted on the first day of Parliament to cut the
benefits of single parents, mostly women, as instructed. A majority
voted for an invasion that produced 700,000 Iraqi widows.
It seems this is hard to swallow for quite a few.  Well... read the next
4. America’s Worst Laid Plans
The fourth item is by Michael Brenner
(<-Wikipedia) on Consortiumnews:
This starts as follows:
I agree BUT the
first thing to point out about this list of points is that they are all
like the last, which is an obvious piece of out-and-out propaganda. In
The United States has been pursuing an
audacious project to fashion a global system according to its
specifications and under its tutelage since the Cold War’s end.
For a quarter of a century, the
paramount goal of all its foreign relations has been the fostering of a
system whose architectural design features the following:
– a neo-liberal economic order wherein
markets dictate economic outcomes and the influence of public
authorities to regulate them is weakened;
– this entails a progressive
financializing of the world economy which concentrates the levers of
greatest power in a few Western institutions – private, national and
– if inequality of wealth and power is
the outcome, so be it;
– security provided by an American-led
concert that will have predominant influence in every region;
– a readiness to use coercion to remove
any regime that directly challenges this envisaged order;
– the maintenance of a large,
multi-functional American military force to ensure that the means to
deal with any contingency as could arise;
– all cemented by the unquestioned
conviction that this enterprise conforms to a teleology whose truth and
direction were confirmed by the West’s total victory in the Cold War.
Therefore, it is inherently a virtuous
project whose realization will benefit all mankind. Virtue is
understood in both tangible and ethical terms.
so are all the other points, though less blatantly so.
To illustrate what I mean, here is the same list of points in my
And here is some more, this time again in
- The economy is neoliberal,
meaning that the multi-national corporations get all the powers they
want while all the - democratic - powers of states, parliaments and
judiciaries are correspondingly diminished or disappeared.
- The world economy is financialized:
The real holders of power are the USA's biggest banks, which are now
"too big to fail" and can do as they please, also because their men are
in the government and/or control the government.
- This results in great increases in
inequalities of wealth and power, all of which are highly desirable
to the owners of wealth and power.
- The Americans have stationed
military men nearly everywhere, often since decades.
- Any regime that resists the
Americans is attacked politically, economically and - whenever necessary
- Any regime that resists the Americans
risks being droned or militarily invaded.
- Of course everything the Americans do
is divinely sanctified by their own constant Exceptional
propaganda that assures them that they are Exceptional.
As I have said several times now: For me
neoliberalism = neofascism, and the last two lists of points should
make this quite clear.
The project has registered some
remarkable successes (at least by its own definitions). The
Washington sponsored Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) and its
counterpart`, the Transatlantic
Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP),
ensconce a privileged position for corporate interests that supersedes
that of governments in binding international law.
The towering financial conglomerates
have emerged from the great financial panic and Great Recession, which
they caused, not only unscathed but bigger, stronger and with a
stranglehold over macro-economic policy across most of the globe.
The United States, the progenitor of
neo-liberalism and its operational guide, has seen its democracy
converted into a plutocracy in all but name. The more things change,
the more they must be made to seem the same.
These tenets of neo-liberalism have been codified into an orthodoxy
whose dogma permeates the intellectual fiber of academia, the media and
the corridors of state power.
Also, my main reasons to say so are precisely
that these secret treaties, that are pushed through parliaments in
mostly secret ways, and that do aim at
a privileged position for
corporate interests that supersedes that of governments in binding
Put otherwise: The TPP and the TTIP aim at abandoning
the democratic states, the democratic governments, the democratic judiciaries, and the
democratically agreed laws, and to replace them by a system of
mostly secret "law", that are dominated by the lawyers from the
multi-national corporations. 
It may be that you still say: "But this is not fascism".
Well... the previous paragraph (from "abandoning" onwards) simply is
fascism as it was defined already in the 1930ies.
And I say that if you still think so, you are blinded by the vast
amounts of propaganda you read and see, and by your own ignorance about
New WikiLeaks Trove Further Exposes TISA’s Neoliberal Agenda
The fifth item is by Nika
Knight on Rage Against Bullshit, and originally on Common Dreams:
This starts as follows:
WikiLeaks on Wednesday released a trove
of documents detailing
previously unknown pro-corporate provisions and updates to the Trade in Services
Agreement (TISA), exposing the extent to which the U.S.-driven deal
will force signatory nations to privatize public services and
As the 52 nations involved in TISA comprise a full two-thirds of global
GDP, the deal is poised to impact billions of lives around the world.
The 18th round of negotiations on TISA resumed Thursday.
Released for the very first time on
Wednesday was TISA’s annex on “State-Owned Enterprises” (SOEs), which
mandates that public services must be treated like private businesses.
The documents reveal that the annex was introduced only two days after
the U.S. successfully forced through similar text in the Trans-Pacific
Partnership (TTP) in October 2015.
The TISA is another of the neo-fascistic
plans that the neo-fascists who are today's present politicians, CEOs,
bankmanagers, and very rich persons, want to impose on the populations
over which they rule, to make their rule and their dominance if possible
forever: They will (boldings added)
force signatory nations to privatize
public services and deregulate corporations
which is propagandese for: Give all the
power to the multi-national corporations, that also are made completely free from all laws that sought to limit
And o, how very amazed I am that the TISA
includes "laws" aiming at giving all the powers to the neofascistic
SOEs, which are introduced secretly and will also function mostly secretly - except of course for the punishments they will
inflict on whole populations for imposing laws that might diminish the
profits of multi-national corporations!
Then there is this:
Observers have long taken note of the
implicitly anti-China stance of the several U.S.-backed pro-corporate
“free trade” deals being negotiated now. While TISA
is perhaps the least well-known of these agreements, together with the
TPP and the TransAtlantic Trade and Investment Pact (TTIP), the deals
“form not only a new legal order shaped for transnational corporations,
but a new economic ‘grand enclosure,’ which excludes China and all
other BRICS countries,” as WikiLeaks founder Julian Assange put
it last year.
And again I observe that "new legal order" simply is
neofascistic, precisely because it is "shaped
for transnational corporations" (whose lawyers
wrote it, in secret, and kept it secret, and imposed their desires to
keep it secret also on all parliamentarians):
Each and every national law that threatens
to diminish any of the planned corporate profits may be broken, and the
inhabitants of that nation forced to pay hundreds of millions or
billions to the CEOs of the multi-national corporations whose profits
they may possibly have diminished (for the profits of multi-national
corporations are the only things that matter: "people's
rights" and “individual rights" - of the non-rich, always - are quaint idiocies from the past).
Here is more:
Did I say already that the TISA is another neo-fascistic plan introduced in secret by the lawyers of the multi-national corporations? O, I did.
The leaked documents also showed new,
multinational-friendly updates to sections of the deal titled “Domestic
Regulation,” “Transparency,” and “New Provisions.” The latest versions,
have further advanced towards the
‘deregulation’ objectives of big corporations entering overseas
markets. Local regulations like store size restrictions or hours of
operations are considered an obstacle to achieve ‘operating
efficiencies’ of large-scale retailing, disregarding their public
benefit that foster livable neighbors and reasonable hours of work for
Consumer protection advocates are
outraged that such radically pro-corporate deals are being hidden and
negotiated away from public view.
Well, here is some more evidence: After forcing most women into
wage-slavery, with the help of academically arrived pseudo-feminists , they now want to force all adults who are not rich to work all hours all week, because not doing so would diminish their profits.
Aah well..."and this is how it goes". Incidentally, the last three articles are recommended.
 In fact, this is precisely the same intentional propagandistic lie by which almost no research is done on ME, the disease I have since 1.1.1979: Because the medical men cannot explain it, they say it is not a fact (which is a lie); and because they say it is not a fact, they say it is psychiatric, which is a cruel and sadistic accusation that hides their utter ignorance.
 Two brief remarks:
First, I am quite serious that neoliberal = neofascist. I have always
denied that neoliberals are liberal (they say they are because they
want the freedoms for the rich to exploit the non-rich as much as they
can by removing all laws that protected the non-rich) and have said
before that they are neoconservatives.
The proposals of the TTP, the TTIP and the TISA have changed this
judgement, for those who propound these "laws" are in fact for a
completely "new" order of society that is anti-democratic,
authoritarian, plutocratic, and has all the marks of classical fascism,
which was defined (already in the 1930ies) as the last stage of
capitalism in which the multi-national corporations had all the powers.
Second, I agree with Pilger on "feminism": People who seek to make women into wageslaves, which is what most "feminists" were much in advance of, are not feminists. They are pro-capitalist exploitation. Working is not good for any really human person: It means abandoning
your liberties, your tastes, your time, and your choices to those of
your boss, and all only for some money. Those who have to work, have to
work because their parents weren't rich enough to give them several
millions, and not because most working is healthy or
liberating: it isn't. This is also why it is called wage-slavery, and
was so called already in the 19th Century.
 This is simply what the last quoted paragraph says.