Phoney Liberalism

Topics:

Examples of Phoney-Liberalism

One

Israel, an apartheid regime, painted its fighter jet pink in October of 2016 for Cancer Awareness Month while denying Gaza cancer patients access to treatment.1


via https://twitter.com/IAFsite/status/791565335619104768

Alaa Masoud, a 25-year-old mother living in Jabaliya refugee camp, has also been diagnosed with breast cancer. She recently had her right breast removed at al-Shifa hospital in Gaza City.

Her doctors have stated that she now needs to see specialists working in Israel or the West Bank. So far, she has made five requests for permission to travel through Erez, the Israeli military checkpoint on Gaza’s northern boundary. All five of her requests have been rejected.2


[Image: Two-year-old Mumen from Gaza who is suffering from leukaemia had to travel with a stranger to the West Bank to get proper medical treatment.]

Palestinian children with cancer are suffering from the siege of the Gaza Strip as the construction of what is meant to be the first public pediatric cancer department has ground to a halt due to import restrictions.

Israel and Egypt's continued embargo along with the growing political infighting between Hamas and Fatah have made things so complicated for doctors and patients that even diagnosing which type of cancers the children have cannot be done in Gaza.3

Two

Justin Trudeau marches in gay pride parades while selling weapons to Saudi Arabia where the death penalty is given to LGBT individuals.45

Three

The IDF which routinely massacres Palestinians with impunity is portrayed as progressive for having an openly transgender soldier.67


[Image: Captain Shachar, the first openly transgender member of the Israeli Defense Forces]

Four

Justin Trudeau said the Energy East pipeline will be the greenest, most feminist pipeline the world has ever seen.

"That's why we're going to make sure Energy East is the greenest pipeline in the world."

In front of the mighty St. Lawrence River, Trudeau explained that he instructed the Ministry of Environment and Climate Change to approve TransCanada's Energy East pipeline with "tough new criteria with teeth" that include low-flush toilets along the 4,600 km route and strict requirements stipulating that any expansions must use parts made from at least 85 per cent recycled materials.

He also promised that this pipeline project, unlike the ones from the 1950s, would be very feminist.

Critics have questioned whether a pipeline carrying 1.1 million barrels of bitumen from the Alberta Tar Sands to the Atlantic Ocean will help Canada reach the climate targets it pledged in Paris last year -- irrespective of the construction materials.

"Is that seriously what he said?" Author and avid stand-up paddleboarder Naomi Klein asked incredulously when told of the prime minister's plan. "That's bananas."

Trudeau still faces stiff resistance from provincial governments, First Nations, mayors, energy regulators, scientists, environmentalists, millennials, pet owners, cyclists and a majority of Canadians. But, he said, having TransCanada execs over for an intimate, $12,000-a-plate dinner with him and his cabinet would make it all worth it. Ontario Premier Kathleen Wynne looked on approvingly.8

Five

People who call themselves progressives are trying to block basic income to maintain the abusive welfare state. Their argument is that basic income is not progressive because some right-wing individuals support it.

For some time now, the radical left has been dipping its toes in the waters of universal basic income (or unconditional basic income, depending on who you talk to). The idea is exactly as it sounds: the government would give every citizen – working or not – a fixed sum of money every week or month, with no strings attached. As time goes on, universal basic income (UBI) has gradually been transitioning from the radical left into the mainstream: it’s Green party policy, is picking up steam among SNP and Labour MPs and has been advocated by commentators including this newspaper’s very own John Harris.

Supporters of the idea got a boost this week with the news that the Finnish government has piloted the idea with 2,000 of its citizens with very positive results. Under the scheme, the first of its kind in Europe, participants receive €560 (£473) every month for two years without any requirements to fill in forms or actively seek work. If anyone who receives the payment finds work, their UBI continues. Many participants have reported “decreased stress, greater incentives to find work and more time to pursue business ideas.” In March, Ontario in Canada started trialling a similar scheme.

But UBI also has some unlikely supporters, most prominent among them the neoliberal Adam Smith Institute – Sam Bowman, the thinktank’s executive director, wrote in 2013: “The ideal welfare system is a basic income, replacing the existing anti-poverty programmes the government carries out.” He added that UBI would result in a less “paternalistic” government.

From this perspective, UBI could be rolled out as a distinctly rightwing initiative.9

This argument is as foolish as a self-declared liberal saying that gay marriage should be banned now that some conservatives are okay with it.

UBI cannot be a progressive initiative as long as the people with the power to implement it are hostile to the welfare state as a whole.

In their incendiary book Inventing the Future, the authors Alex Williams and Nick Srnicek argue for UBI but link it to three other demands: collectively controlled automation, a reduction in the working week, and a diminution of the work ethic. Williams and Srnicek believe that without these other provisions, UBI could essentially act as an excuse to get rid of the welfare state.[9]

Getting rid of the current welfare state is the whole point and one of the major advantages of basic income. The welfare state is terrible.


[Image: ‘In January, MEPs voted to consider UBI as a solution to the mass unemployment that might result from robots taking over manual jobs.’ Photograph: Issei Kato/Reuters]

Comments

Liu Xiaobo

Tags:+China +nobel peace prize

Do supporters of Nobel winner Liu Xiaobo really know what he stands for?


[Image: Liu XiaoBo; 刘晓波]

In recent weeks, Nobel prizewinner Liu Xiaobo's politics have been reduced to a story of a heroic individual who upholds human rights and democracy. His views are largely omitted to avoid a discussion about them, resulting in a one-sided debate. Within three weeks, in Hong Kong, for example, more than 500 articles were published about Liu, of which only 10 were critical of the man or peace prize.

In China, before the award, most people neither knew nor cared about Liu, while, according to Andrew Jacobs, writing in the International Herald Tribune, an "official survey of university students taken since the prize was awarded found that 85% said they knew nothing about Mr Liu and Charter '08." A Norwegian Sinologist has elicited comments from Chinese people and indicated that younger Chinese still do not care about Liu. Older Chinese intellectuals are interested in discussing the award, but many do not think Liu is an appropriate recipient.

Imprisoning Liu was entirely unnecessary. If Liu's politics were well-known, most people would not favour him for a prize, because he is a champion of war, not peace. He has endorsed the invasions of Iraq and Afghanistan, and he applauded the Vietnam and Korean wars retrospectively in a 2001 essay. All these conflicts have entailed massive violations of human rights. Yet in his article Lessons from the Cold War, Liu argues that "The free world led by the US fought almost all regimes that trampled on human rights … The major wars that the US became involved in are all ethically defensible." During the 2004 US presidential election, Liu warmly praised George Bush for his war effort against Iraq and condemned Democratic party candidate John Kerry for not sufficiently supporting the US's wars:

"[T]he outstanding achievement made by Bush in anti-terrorism absolutely cannot be erased by Kerry's slandering … However much risk must be endured in striking down Saddam Hussein, know that no action would lead to a greater risk. This has been proven by the second world war and September 11! No matter what, the war against Saddam Hussein is just! The decision by President Bush is right!"

Liu has also one-sidedly praised Israel's stance in the Middle East conflict. He places the blame for the Israel/Palestine conflict on Palestinians, who he regards as "often the provocateurs".

Liu has also advocated the total westernisation of China.1

Western states are not democracies where direct democracy has highest authority. Western states continue to support outrageous institutionalized and non-institutionalized human rights abuses across the planet.2

Note: This article uses the term 'communism' improperly. Soviet-style regimes should be described as inverse-communist.3

Nobel Peace Prize

The Nobel Peace prize was also awarded to Barack Obama, Henry Kissinger, Elie Wiesel, and Shimon Peres — all of them contributors to Zionism alongside a slough of other imperialist agendas. The Nobel Peace Prize committee rewards many aggressive imperialists who only pay lip-service to peace. Somebody who I do think deserved the Nobel Peace Prize is Nelson Mandela. However, because the Nobel Peace prize committee refuses to differentiate between real and phoney humanitarianism, I don't see it as a credible award. The Nobel Peace prize is no high honour.

Trump Loves Trudeau

Trump loves Trudeau:

Canada is a great neighbour, Trudeau "spectacular': Trump

U.S. President Donald Trump called Canada a great neighbour and said Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is doing a spectacular job as the second and final day of the G20 summit in Germany got underway this morning.

Trump and Trudeau were both participating in a World Bank event committing millions of dollars to help finance business start ups owned by women in the developing world.

Chump Change

Canada committed $20 million and the United States $50 million to the Women Entrepreneurs Finance Initiative.1

...the United States...continued to create wars throughout the world – Panama, Iraq, Bosnia, etc. – unleashing double and triple the firepower in all of World War II. After the incredible expenditure of vast munitions and weapons (over $300 billion per year), the subjugated and destroyed nations are then offered contracts and infiltrated by capitalist business for the process of "rebuilding".2