Critique of liberalism and neo-liberalism in the Arab revolutions in Jadaliyya
(The Angry Arab) -- by "Mia" --
"Perhaps, in order to understand the phenomenon to which I am trying to draw attention, it is best not to approach it with overdetermined words such as “neoliberalism” or “liberalism” or “capitalism” in mind. No matter what the larger framework is called, it is undeniable that international human rights corporations such as Human Rights Watch are important agentive political bodies in Egypt and in Lebanon, for example. Similarly, other “international bodies” such as the UNDP (see the Arab Human Development Reports for examples of these "common sense" recommendations), the IMF and the WorldBank are actors in the reconfiguration of life worlds across the region. This reconfiguration does not come only through market adjustment, but also through World Bank and UNDP “recommendations” as to “optimal” fertility rates, systems of education that are needed, and the types of family structure (nuclear, urban, double income) thatshould be promoted in the name of development. These organizations and their local allies intervene in a connected economic/social sphere, and they play a role in the conditioning of subjects vis-à-vis global market processes. To put it bluntly, organizations such as the IMF and Human Rights Watch are uncomfortable allies in a global and ideological project to shape practices of life, economy, and of citizenship. In addition, the proliferation of the local-global NGO capital networks and their attendant languages and institutions translate questions of justice into questions of rights, a translation which ties a citizen ever more intimately to the state. Thus, the question of economic justice becomes one of economic rights, the question of gender justice becomes one of women's and/or gay rights, and questions of violence are transformed into calls for bodily rights. In this framework, states are posited as potential human rights abusers, yet only the state can ensure the redress of these rights. Hence, the paradox of human rights reports; after spending pages outlining how, for example, the state of Iran is abusing the human rights of its citizens, towards the end of the report “recommendations” are made to said author of those abuses. In these reports, invariably the state is asked to transform (or reform) itself from a human rights abuser into a human rights defender. The move from justice to rights, as authors such as Zizek and Fraser have argued, is a feature of late capitalism that depoliticizes inequality and posits the state as the arbiter of said inequality. Thus, the state is “good” or “bad” depending on how well it regulates the lives of their citizens or, as anthropologists have suggested, depending on how well they perform “good governance.” Such depoliticization should be understood as a political process that aims to separate the messiness of shared life into compartments such as “culture,” “government,” “economy,” “personal life,” and, my personal favorite, “civil society.” Once segregated into neat, independent packages, we, as liberal/neoliberal subjects, are told that our “political” involvement begins, and ends, as participants in “free”, “fair” and “transparent” elections."...LINK
Chris Moore comments:
This is really interesting, particularly the last sentence about how statist-liberalism and international state capitalism (neoliberalism/neoconservatism) seek to compartmentalize life into "independent packages" that they can control. The article above was written vis-a-vis the post-Christian West's Big Government Capitalist project to re-engineer the Islamic Middle East, but it applies to what has been done to the West itself since WWII, wherein the atheist-materialist forces of Communism have combined with the atheist-materialist and pseudo-religious forces of Capitalism to fanatically compartmentalize Western society, suppress Christianity, and re-define "Separation of Church and State" from its original meaning that the State couldn't encroach upon religious freedom to mean that religion couldn't encroach upon society in general.
So who benefits from all of this? Primarily money and power-worshipping fanatics, be they Christian-hating Jews, (charlatan-Christian) Judeo-Christian Zionist Capitalists, statist-liberals, left-liberals or Communists -- all of whom, under the guise of "progress," or "tolerance" or "pluralism" or "secularism" essentially use a powerful gangster State or public-private gangster system to take what they want from the People, and write the "rule of law" in such a way that their theft is defined as legal. They additionally set up dysgenic systems like that outlined above designed to wring their rivals for all they're worth before discarding the carcasses, this often even under the guise of "environmentalism" and "sustainability."
For example, see the following:
Obama's insane science czar wants to use totalitarian world government to cull human population down to one billion
The irony is that simple, organic, religious "life worlds" always were the most wholesome and sustainable way of life, and it is the ambitious, fanatically materialistic sociopaths like those listed above who are increasingly making life on this planet unsustainable due to their vain, base systems of mass consumerism, mass waste, Big Government and facile material and power grandiosity
What motivates these psychopaths? Well, in addition to self-worship, money-worship and power-worship, these people are essentially mentally deranged misanthropes who, because of their own empty soullessness, resent and despise those who posses self-sustaining creative and religious life force that doesn't require materialistic grandiosity or endless self-aggrandizement to survive.
In short, because these sociopaths are insatiably greedy and hollow, they want the world to either be insatiably greedy and hollow as well...or dead.
These psychopaths, who amount to epic, prolific serial killers, then have the chutzpah to play the victim and wonder out loud why sane people despise them and want to see them hang.
They need not wonder any longer.
In 1948, the year of Israel's founding, Einstein and Arendt issued a desperate appeal to the Jewish-American establishment: don't surrender to Zionist fascism - *(By Chris Moore) -- In 1948, Albert Einstein and Hannah Arendt (perhaps most famous for her "banality of evil" thesis that the great evils in history have...
5 days ago