Prev-IndexNL-Next

Nederlog

May 28, 2016

Crisis: Obama, Cellphones, New World War, USA & TTIP, TISA=Neofascism
Sections                                                                     crisis index
Introduction

1. 
Senator Scolds Obama for “Preaching Nuclear
     Temperance From a Bar Stool”

2. “Game-Changing” Study Links Cellphone Radiation to
     Cancer

3. Eerie Silence about a New World War
4. America’s Worst Laid Plans
5. New WikiLeaks Trove Further Exposes TISA’s Neoliberal
     Agenda
Introduction:

This is a Nederlog of Saturday, May 28, 2016.

This 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.

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.)

1.  Senator Scolds Obama for “Preaching Nuclear Temperance From a Bar Stool”

The first item is
by Alex Emmons on The Intercept:
This starts as follows, and is about the sickening neoliberal liar Obama:

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 piece.

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 nuclear weapons.”

In 2010, he negotiated a treaty that limited the U.S. and Russia to 1,550 deployed, strategic nuclear weapons each.

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 race.
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:
  • 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
What a stinking, degenerate, totally immoral liar this man is! (But: He and his
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 Jones:
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:

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.

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 [1].

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 World War

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, Clinton, Obama.

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 matter.”

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.”

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.

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 "feminist" careerists:

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 his care.

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.

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).

It seems this is hard to swallow for quite a few. [2] Well... read the next item:

4. America’s Worst Laid Plans

The fourt
h item is by Michael Brenner (<-Wikipedia) on Consortiumnews:

This starts as follows:

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 supranational;

– 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.

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 fact,
so are all the other points, though less blatantly so.

To illustrate what I mean, here is the same list of points in my words:
  • 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 - militarily:
  • 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.
And here is some more, this time again in Brenner's words:

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.

As I have said several times now: For me neoliberalism = neofascism, and the last two lists of points should make this quite clear.

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 international law.
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. [3]

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 politics.

5. New WikiLeaks Trove Further Exposes TISA’s Neoliberal Agenda

The fift
h 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 deregulate corporations.

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 their criminality.

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:

The leaked documents also showed new, multinational-friendly updates to sections of the deal titled “Domestic Regulation,” “Transparency,” and “New Provisions.” The latest versions, argues WikiLeaks,

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 employees.

Consumer protection advocates are outraged that such radically pro-corporate deals are being hidden and negotiated away from public view.

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.

Well, here is some more evidence: After forcing most women into wage-slavery, with the help of academically arrived pseudo-feminists [2], 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.

----------------------------------------------------------
Notes

[1] 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.

[2] 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.

[3] This is simply what the last quoted paragraph says.

       home - index - summaries - mail