Dennis Marks Cheers As WTO Prepares To Compel Nations That Don't Want Radioactive Food From Japan To Accept It

The World Trade Organization (Which I refer to as the "WTO NWO", or "Worship the Plutocrat's New World Order" is an organization that the United States has subjugated itself to in order to please the plutocrats.

Because the WTO forces nations to bow to it's will (and it's will is the plutocrat's will), Dennis Marks has vowed his allegiance and does his duty in defending this un-democratic organization.

Dennis Marks: ...the WTO has problems... But overall, it is part of a trend of letting the average person make decisions which should belong to them and them alone. Its flaws are basically that it still regulates trade as much as it does. (8/01/2014 AT 08:29:00 AM EDT).

Given the fact that "the WTO rules are written by and for corporations with inside access to the negotiations", when a there is a complaint to the WTO that another country's laws are negatively impacting the complainer's ability to sell their products into other nations, they are likely to get what they want.

A recent case of a complainer forcing their will upon another country involves one country saying "no" to imported food that may be radioactive.

Japan has filed a complaint with the World Trade Organization over South Korea's restrictions on Japanese imports, enacted after the Fukushima nuclear disaster. Tokyo calls the measure inappropriate and says it violates the rules of international trade. ... the ongoing testing of food produced in the Fukushima region has found that by 2014 less than 1 percent was contaminated with radiation above Japanese food-safety limits. (Japan takes S. Korea to WTO over Fukushima food restrictions. Published by RT on 5/21/2015).

OK, so what if you're a country that decides (as South Korea has) that you don't want to take a chance with that 1 percent contamination rate? I mean, 1 percent could be a hell of a lot of food, depending on how much you import. For sure it ain't nothing. And any country that decides it does not want to take that risk should have the autonomy to do so, right?

No, says the WTO. And Dennis agrees, saying "radiation? Yum!" [1]. Or he does not give a shit if someone else eats contaminated food and suffers some ill results. He's just betting it won't be him, but some other poor sucker. And, if that futher enriches the plutocrats, that's totally awesome in his book.

Footnotes
[1] Conjecture based on Dennis' support for the anti-democratic WTO.

TADM #63

Another "Fan" Comment From The Clown Named Dennis Marks (This Time Re "Mom & Pop Plutocrats")

Dennis Marks (AKA dmarks) is a silly and inane mentally defective clown who is utterly obsessed with the proprietor of this blog. So much so, that just about every comment he submits to the blog he spends most of his time on, Contra O'Reilly concerns yours truly. Well, not every one, but a LOT of them. I'm not kidding. And they almost always consist of idiotic lies. Like the following, for example...

Dennis Marks: Some clown, no longer deemed fit to comment here, included typical school boards along with struggling mom-and-pop store operators in the "plutocrat" category. Silly and inane. (9/22/2014 AT 5:36pm via the Contra O'Reilly blog).

Ah, no. I never said any such thing. The "word" plutocrat HAS a definition and is an actual word. This despite the fact that fellow dumb-dumb Willis Hart places the word in quotes in a recent post titled Notes on the "Plutocrats" and says "I'm still not entirely certain who these individuals are" (this would be the same post the comment by Dennis above was left in response to).

A I said, the word DOES have a definition, and one would think that if Willis was "not entirely certain" what a plutocrat is, he could simply look it up at a dictionary website, of which there are quite a few...

Dictionary.com: Plutocrat noun 1. a member of a plutocracy... plutocracy 1. the rule or power of wealth or of the wealthy. 2. a government or state in which the wealthy class rules. 3. a class or group ruling, or exercising power or influence, by virtue of its wealth.

Specifically I go with #3, which defines a plutocrat as someone with great wealth who seeks to influence the political process, for their own benefit, through the use of their wealth (which usually entails hiring lobbyists to influence regulations in their favor). Pretty simple concept, yet the obtuse Willis is "not entirely certain" who these people are. Although I believe the obtuseness is due to his worship of the wealthy, who, in his eyes, can do no wrong.

In any case, that is the definition I use (along with the vast majority of educated English-speaking people on the planet, I'd guess). People who aren't idiots, can read, and have a decent grasp of the English language. And don't worship wealth and therefore have a blind spot when it come to criticizing those who possess great wealth using it to benefit themselves (and hurt everyone else).

"Typical school boards along with struggling mom-and-pop store operators" obviously do not fit into the "plutocrat" category and I have NEVER once claimed that they did. I mean, the suggestion is clearly inane and worse than "silly". Yet the fool named Dennis has made this claim on more than one occasion, and never have any of his buddies called him out on this utter stupidity.

I actually did try to nip this idiocy in the bud at one point (having grown tired of Dennis bringing up this lie for the umpteenth time)...

Dervish Sanders: I never said [Mom-and-pop store operators are plutocrats]. But, for the sake of argument, let's say I did. I am now changing my mind. I categorically reject the idea that the operators of mom-and-pop stores are plutocrats. Will Dennis stop saying this now? (note: I'm asking a question, not requesting he do this). I predict no. (8/16/2013 at 8:50pm via the rAtional nAtion blog).

As you can see my prediction was 100 percent accurate. I said I categorically rejected calling small business (or "mom-and-pop" operators) "plutocrats", and Dennis responds with, "I am glad WD changed his mind" (even though I couldn't "change my mind", as I never believed that to begin with)... but still Dennis repeats this lie (after this discussion). Now he adds the word "struggling", which never was a part of the fabrication before.

Categorical proof that Dennis is a liar. If I had used the word "struggling" in addition to "Mom & Pop" Dennis would not just be mentioning it now. It would have been included in the accusation every time, which it never has been, until yesterday. (for more examples and info regarding Dennis' absurd and ridiculous lie regarding me calling "struggling Mom & Pop operators" and "typical school boards", please refer to the "see also" link at the bottom of this post).

The bottom line is that Dennis Marks is a f*cking moron - but Dennis' idiocy is very much appreciated by the proprietor of the blog where most of his stupidity is published... that blog being the one run by the "small L" Libertarian (as he refers to himself), Willis Hart.

This is why I am "no longer deemed fit to comment" on Willis' blog... because I refuse to go along with the kind of stupidity he takes great pride in regurgitating. Primarily Libertarian stupidity, but also the butt-kissing stupidity of Dennis. Willis loves it when Dennis repeats (ad nauseum) his lies about the proprietor of this blog. Lies like the one being discussed, as well as many MANY others (as documented on this blog).

By the way, in regards to the comment of Dennis (above) being referred to as a "fan comment", that is in reference to Dennis referring to this blog (The Truth About Dennis Marks) as a "fan blog". The dumbass even thinks I have a man crush on him! Due to the many times I've referred to him as a "scumbag", no doubt. Because referring to someone as a "scumbag" means you're a fan of the person and have a "crush" on them, right?

But, given that the fecally obsessed Dennis refers to me constantly on the blog of Willis and also on the blog of rAtional nAtion, the delusional nutter must have an even BIGGER man crush on me and be my ULTIMATE fan. Not that it would be hard for him to have a bigger man crush on me than I have on him, as I have an EXTREMELY low opinion of Dennis and and absolutely do NOT "kind of idolize him" (as per the Urban Dictionary definition of man crush).

Nor am I a "fan" or have any "fan blogs" that speak of how I idolize the racist, antiSemitic confabulating a-hole with the Blogger ID "dmarks". But Dennis? He's the one lying about me pushing back against his lies (on this blog). Because I dispute his lies with this blog Dennis thinks I am a "fan" of his and have a "man crush" on him... while bringing me up and inserting lies about me into just about every conversation on a blog I'm banned from. Kind of indicates that the obsession goes the other way, I think.

TADM #58. See also SWTD #231.