is no place like Greece to expose ‘liberalism’ as an empty shell,
devoid of any real passion for humanity, and entirely unaware of its
own contradictions, a comfortable cover for neoliberalism and
affluent countries, the fact that liberals practice nothing of what
they preach is less clear. But here, where capitalism broke at its
weakest chain, political and economic realities become clear, and in
the future, they may also become more clear in other parts of the
is not just that George Papandreou, the Social-Democrat Prime
Minister of Greece in 2009-2011, introduced the EU bailout to Greece
which resulted in mass austerity for the people, while enriching the
Greek financial elite and impoverishing the masses.
goes deeper than that. ‘Liberalism’ can exist, so long as there
is a large middle-class enjoying financial security, which can
claim to support ‘human rights’ or ‘gay rights’ as an
abstract concept, while not being deeply disturbed by the
undemocratic power exercised against the public by a tiny financial
elite, and by austerity plans which means that the public
bears the brunt, for (intentional) mistakes and misdemeanors
carried out by immense financial actors.
Greece, where the population of unemployed is greater than the
employed population, a majority of the population will vote for the
radical-left Syriza tomorrow.
random encounter I had several days ago with a Northern European
tourist in Athens, illustrates the hypocrisy of liberalism very
clearly. Had we had this conversation in a cafe in Stockholm or
London, perhaps its contradictions would have not appeared as
take on Greece:
country has many financial problems, it is unclear how they can get
out of it. But let us hope they will not isolate themselves.”
other words, he is aware that Greece’s economy is doomed, and that
it is doomed inevitably by the actions taken by the European North
masquerading as the democratic EU (otherwise why would Greece
‘isolating itself’ be a solution?), while at the same time, in a
patronizing way, he hopes that Greece would not take actions that
would serve itself, so that he can continue to enjoy future vacations
in the country. That means then, that he does not really have
the good of Greece, in mind, he just wants to enjoy Greece as a
tourist. So why does he say with feigned concern that “let us hope
they will not isolate themselves”, as if they do not know what they
are doing but are an unintelligent bunch who must be patronized?
of Press in the East (Russia and China)
(the European Union) are better than Russia and China, because we
have freedom of the press whereas they do not.”
if liberalism is about values, than one should not seek to aggrandize
oneself in position to another. After all, humility too is a value.
liberalism is about “live and let live,” one should accept other
systems of being. (This is besides the fact that Russia’s press and
bloggers frequently criticize the Kremlin on myriad points, and that
people do not go to jail for this, contrary to inventive tales.)
does the West truly have a free press? After all, all the
mainstream media is owned by private stakeholders. That the
mainstream media reports what serves its owners and obscures facts
that do not, not only makes sense but is quite obvious upon closer
scrutiny, at least in the vast majority of cases. That the mainstream
media does not truly report about what is taking place on the ground
in various places around the world is more than clear for anyone who
makes a broader and deeper analysis or has been there. If one has
money, one buys the media and propagates a particular point of view.
This hardly means that the West has a free press. It means it
has a corporate press or alternately a press that is subdued to
larger interests. For examples, Glenn
Greenwald explained how many
reporters in Washington DC are afraid to take an
anti-government line since then they will not receive information
from the government. The war waged against Edward Snowden who
spying on its citizens in
violation of the Constitution is another example, of how governments
attacks in Paris (Charlie Hebdo)
Muslim immigrants need to realize that we do things differently here
in Europe. Here, we have free speech and we can criticize what we
it was quite clear from his tone of voice that he referred to them as
an Other, i.e. not as full citizens in society but as foreigners who
happen to live in his country. Needless to say, Muslim and other
immigrants are being discriminated against heavily in Europe in
almost all areas of life, especially employment. Seeing them as
aliens, is his first fallacy. They should be full citizens, no
different than him.
if he would show some consistency, he would open all issues to debate
and would either a. allow everything to be mocked including that
which he holds sacred (though the problem with liberals is that they
hold nothing sacred besides the right to mock all things), and b.
recognize that insulting the religion of those whom his country
formerly colonized is not the best way to go forward. Yet his innate
assumptions is that he has a better culture since his culture allows
him to mock others. Not a very convincing argument. (And it goes
without saying that using violence to stifle artistic expressions is
a criminal and idiotic act of bullying).
interventions’ have been waged by the West in Afghanistan, Iraq,
Libya and other regions, resulting in the deaths of tens of
thousands and more (among them women and gays), supposedly in order
to liberate the citizens from an oppressive regime and grant freedom
of speech, women rights and gay rights.
The liberal sense of
superiority has been expressed in shedding blood and
staging wars. It is therefore violent.
note the cases of liberal values put into action in order to justify
militarism and bombing, for example: a female Air Force pilot as a
achievement of feminism, a gay soldier etc.
the liberal argument abuses the right of gays to dignity for its own
sinister purposes should be obvious.
is a long topic, since white Western Europe has for a long time
viewed Russians as barbarians, and therefore will examine his claims
do things differently than we (Europeans) do. We believe in solving
things via negotiations, they believe in solving problems by force.”
the ‘invasion’ of Crimea was preceded by a ‘democratic’ coup
in Kiev supported by the West in which a protest attended by many
well-meaning liberals was hijacked by ultra-right forces who fired on
the police. EU High Representative was caught on tape discussing the
possibility that snipers were hired by the opposition to fire on
protesters and yet nothing was done by the EU to investigate this. Is
the toppling of a democratically-elected president with the full
support of the West, not violent?
is besides the fact that there are no Russian tanks in Ukraine and
that not a single person was killed when Russian soldiers took over
Crimea. A referendum was held and a majority supported joining
Russia. Even if one disagrees with the annexation of the Crimea, one
must first condemn the violent coup which took place before it.
Everything that followed came as a reaction.
I would not call centuries of colonization “solving differences by
oligarchs are losing a lot of money because of the sanctions. Russia
will not let go of Crimea, that is a done deal. But Putin will agree
to give up Donetsk after he is pressured by his oligarchs, perhaps in
explained that he is daydreaming if he thinks so, but here is why it
was so difficult for him to understand:
the Russian mentality and mindset, pressure without negotiations and
attempts at bullying only result in greater perseverance. While
liberals have no real values they will die for, since their hedonism
is masqueraded by a concern for “human rights”, Russians are long
accustomed to suffering for their ideals and see sacrifice,
rather than caving in, as a virtue. In fact, the more they are
pressured, the more firm they are likely to be. This certainly
applies to Putin and to the Russian people at large.
told him, there is no chance. But he kept repeating “financial
loses” and “oligarchs.”
it makes sense. From his perspective, nothing is worth any sacrifice,
all is empty words. He cannot understand a different view, even while
claiming he respects all views. Nor does he realize the inherent
problem in his position, of seeing itself as superior for being
“open-minded” and “liberal.”
us sum up then:
until recent decades, liberalism was possible since the economy
allowed for social-reforms while allowing for continued financial
growth, these days, the public is made to pay via austerity, and
there is less money for social programs as the power of a minuscule
elite is growing. This is obvious in Greece but may become more
obvious in other countries in the coming years. Here, one must
attempt to find real and drastic solutions that will write off the
debt of the unemployed, fund hospitals and provide education, of
society will collapse.
characterizes liberals is the fact that they:
comfort above all else, not sacrifice for their ideals
themselves as superior, not aware of their own contradictions in that
modesty is supposed to be a virtue (“I am better because I am
progressive covers for the implementation of imperialist
policies and savage capitalism:
Lagarde, the head of IMF, eulogized King Abdullah of Saudi
Arabia as a “strong advocate of women.” This is liberalism
today: A French female running a bank that brought down entire
economies praising an Arab man for his tolerance towards women,
thereby showing she is open-minded and can see liberal values in
others. She must be proud of herself for this.
Support savage capitalism that is harmful for the environment and has
reached its limits, while appointing a black man (Obama) to provide a
nice face to US subversions around the world. . To be
reminded, Obama’s government had undermined the privacies and
civil liberties of US citizens more than ever before.
is a comfort position. In other countries where the economy is
affluent, it is still possible to hold it and believe oneself. In
Greece, it is no longer possible.
Christopher Barnett said, “liberals are the last buffer zone of