Can progressives be fundamentalists?

fundamentalism-progressivism

If you define a fundamentalist as someone believing that the Bible is the inerrant word of God and that the earth has been created 6000 years ago, no.

If, however, you define fundamentalism broadly as a confident adherence to one’s dogma regardless of the evidence at hand, black-and-white thinking, an in-group versus  out-groups attitude and an arrogance that leads you to view all outsiders as either ignorant, stupid or evil…then I think we can answer that question with a resounding “yes”.

A case in point follows.

 

Recently, what seemed to be a terrorist attack in Canada turned out to be the deed of a murderous autistic man driven by his sexual frustration.

180423154416-04-toronto-0423-exlarge-169

The progressive website posted an article entitled “Toxic Masculinity Is at the Heart of This Darkness“.

In it, you can read an interesting (although biased) analysis:

“Toxic Masculinity Is at the Heart of This Darkness”.

 

Why did Alek Minassian allegedly climb into a van on Monday and kill ten people in Toronto? It goes without saying that each and every crime like this is determined by a number of factors. The one silver lining in all of this is that since the alleged killer was arrested, we may have the opportunity to understand what led to Monday’s horrific events.

In the interim, all we have so far is reports that it appears Minassian is a high-functioning autistic man who made a Facebook post in the minutes before the killing invoking misogynist murderer Elliot Rodger and announcing the inauguration of the “incel rebellion.”

For those uninitiated into the heart of darkness called Extremely Online, incels or “involuntary celibates” are a group of sad men so upset at their lack of sexual activity that they fantasize about raping, murdering, and otherwise brutalizing all women as a kind of guerrilla anti-feminist warfare. They first came to media prominence in 2014 after Rodger killed six people in California in 2014 and issued a 100+ page “manifesto” where he crudely turned his personal history of social and sexual frustration into a political crusade against all sex-havers.

 

 

“Western hedonism is at the heart of this darkness”

 

This prompted me to post what follows:

Yes, the deed was driven by a hate of women but we need to dig deeper than that. What are the causes of the extreme misogyny of “involuntary celibates” (an awful phrase I just discovered by the way)?
It is certainly complex but I think that one major factor might be VIRGIN-SHAMING and the capitalistic sex-industry that glorifies the idea that the value of a man is determined by the number of women he manages to seduce.
And that, in turn, drives many mentally unstable or otherwise handicapped men to despair and gravely compounds their mental health condition.
So NEO-LIBERAL sex-positive feminists should recognise they are part of the problem and not part of the solution.

My own title?
“Western hedonism is at the heart of this darkness”

neo-liberal-porn

The post-factualism of triggered progressives

This has led to a flurry of reactions that were neither particularly constructive nor rational.

 

First of all, J. F. shot from the hip:
“Women being part of the problem that these idiots think sex is owed to them. Wow. Get the fuck out!”

I was puzzled by that. Where on earth did I say that women are part of the problem?

I said that neo-liberal sex-positive feminists (i.e. adherents of that ideology who can be both male and female) contribute to this problem by fostering a climate where the worth of a man is defined by how often he can “get laid” and where unsuccessful males are regularly mocked and ridiculed by their peers.
I might be wrong about that but my position is clearly entirely different from the ignoble thing I’m accused of saying.

 

Another (somewhat more polite) commentator wrote this:
Hugh Hefner is not the reason these men have a problem. For Fuck’s Sake! Nor is any woman who chooses to make money from sex, or her body.

As a mantra, that sounds great. But progressives are supposed to look beyond that and to carefully consider the available evidence before making such statements.
So, is it really true that the pornofication of our society doesn’t contribute by any means to the objectification of women?

I think there is one hell of a difference between growing up in the belief that romantic love should be pursued and growing up in the belief that having hedonistic pleasure trough sex is all that matters in life.

I would like to see empirical studies showing this has no influence on the way young men see members of the opposite gender.

loving-relationships
Could it be that viewing relationships in this way may reduce toxic masculinity?

 

On another level, I find it disheartening to see self-proclaimed progressives passionately and uncritically defend a man such as Hefner while ignoring his dark sides.

 

Finally, I’d like to go into the comment of D. J., as it is so typical of the way outraged progressives stifle any reasonable conversation:

It’s quite apparent you’re speaking from your own experience, having the privilege of being a white assumed (cis) male. In a progressive space trying to mansplain what is a feminist to justify toxic masculinity.”

So this man knows very little about me but he believes that my skin colour and gender are sufficient to attribute complex psychological motives to me (and to accuse me of justifying the mass slaughtering of innocent women!). That, folks, is the very essence of racism.

white-privileges

But more fundamentally, this totally misses the point. I can be a terribly flawed human being but that does not in any way, shape or form invalidate my ideas which stand on their own merit. While reacting to opinions they dislike, progressives constantly commit the genetic fallacy and the ad-hominem fallacy instead of challenging them with reasonable arguments.

Conclusion

I did not primarily write this blog post to argue for the truth of my position regarding the link between such hardcore misogyny and neo-liberal hedonism.
I might be wrong about that and I wholly recognise it.
I rather want to illustrate how it is not possible to have a reasonable and mutually respectful conversation with “progressives” on a controversial topic based on facts and a careful reasoning.

Apparently, just holding such an unorthodox position automatically makes you a despicable bigot.

I think it is truly a pity. To people thinking outside the box, progressivism can be as harmful and unwelcoming as conservatism.

This, in turn, contributes to the polarisation of society and the culture war where people talk (or rather shout) past to each other instead of seeking a common ground and having a rational debate where the opponent’s views are fairly represented.

While I have a lot of things in common with progressives (such as the fight against anti-Muslim bigotry, the combat against global warming, standing for gay rights and against the oppression of the poor, an interpretation of religious texts that respects Reason…) I find myself unable to keep discussing with them as I constantly have to stay silent about my sincerely held views in order to avoid on-line bullying.

I did not take any pleasure in writing this post. But I thought this had to be told in the hope that other people will be able to move things forward.

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

 

Advertisements

Why pseudo-progressives don’t follow Martin Luther King

Progressivism and pseudo-progressivism in a nutshell

For me, genuine progressivism is all about fostering moral progress and abolishing unjust political, societal, economical and social structures in an impartial way.

The underlying moral intuition can be found in the holy writings of Christians

“Therefore all things whatsoever ye would that men should do to you, do ye even so to them: for this is the law and the prophets.” Matthew 7:12, King James Version.

Buddhists

“…a state that is not pleasing or delightful to me, how could I inflict that upon another?” Samyutta NIkaya v. 353

“Hurt not others in ways that you yourself would find hurtful.” Udana-Varga 5:18″

Taoists

“Regard your neighbor’s gain as your gain, and your neighbor’s loss as your own loss.” Tai Shang Kan Yin P’ien”

and many other religions.

(I argued elsewhere that this principle stands at the very centre of the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth).

The Golden Rule: treat others the way you want to be treated
The Golden Rule

 

This naturally entails trying to put yourself in the shoes of a person experiencing injustices and act as you would like one acts towards you if you were in his or her situation.

Pseudo-progressives, on the other hand, believe that moral progress is all about acting in accordance with politically correct dogmas nobody ought to question.

Currently, these alleged “sacred truths” can be summed up in the following way

“Oppression almost always stems from heterosexual white males who attack the right of women, homosexuals and non-whites.”
(Of course, “whites” and “non-whites” are artificial (and incoherent) constructions they more or less unconsciously uphold. This shall be the topic of another post).

Now, I certainly wouldn’t deny that misogyny, homophobia and systematic racism are still huge problems (especially in religious conservative or fundamentalist circles, at least as far as the first two ones are concerned).

But I think it is nonsensical and extremely offensive to pretend that poverty and unjust economical structures aren’t in and of themselves a significant cause of oppression.

I also believe it is wrong for these people to pretend to follow the teachings of Martin Luther King while ignoring an essential part of it.

 

Martin Luther King on poverty

 

While describing the way in which annoying aspects of the message of prophets are rewritten by the mighty of a society, liberal Christian scholar Thom Stark considered the case of Martin Luther King in modern America.

****

And we do this today. Martin Luther King Jr. was a notorious gadfly. He is remembered today solely for his role in the civil rights movement, but, especially in his later years, King was a vocal opponent of the Vietnam War, and spoke out often and dynamically against free-market capitalism. He said that the U.S. needs to  honestly face the fact that the movement must address itself to the question of restructuring the whole of American society.

“There are forty million poor people here. And one day we must ask the question,

‘Why are there forty million poor people in America?’ And when you begin to ask that question, you are raising questions about the economic system, about a broader distribution of wealth.
When you ask that question, you begin to question the capitalist economy. And I’m simply saying that more and more, we’ve got to begin to ask questions about the whole society. We are called upon to help the discouraged beggars in life’s marketplace. But one day we must come to see that an edifice which produces beggars needs restructuring. It means that questions must be raised. You see, my friends, when you deal with this, you begin to ask the question, “Who owns the oil?” You begin to ask the question, “Who owns the iron ore?” You begin to ask the question, “Why is it that people have to pay water bills in a world that is two-thirds water?” These are questions that must be asked.”
King went on to call for a synthesis of capitalism and communism that involved nothing less than a total overhaul of the U.S. economic system.
This is the King we don’t remember on Martin Luther King Day every year. And that is the purpose of Martin Luther King Day.
King, whatever else he was, was an enemy to the power structures in the United States. The genius of declaring a national holiday in King’s honor is that the elites get to claim King as one of their own; they get to control, to a large degree, how we remember him. He was a dissenter from the establishment orthodoxy, but the establishment could hardly shut him out of the collective memory, and far less could they vilify him. So what they did was to call him “son” and thereby acquire the means to control how the public remembers him.
*****

The curse of poverty has no justification in our age. It is socially as cruel and blind as the practice of cannibalism at the dawn of civilization, when men ate each other because they had not yet learned to take food from the soil or to consume the abundant animal life around them. The time has come for us to civilize ourselves by the total, direct and immediate abolition of poverty.
Martin Luther King on the “curse of poverty”.

In an article entitled “King’s final message: Poverty is a civil rights battle”, Stephanie Sieck further drives the point home.

******

King’s final message: Poverty is a civil rights battle

On Martin Luther King, Jr.’s birthday, some will volunteer, some will attend celebrations of his life and legacy, some will do nothing at all. “I have a dream,” the title of King’s best known speech, will be repeated countless times, along with well-known stories about his commitment to nonviolence, his letters from a Birmingham jail, his marches against segregation and the bullet that ended his life on April 4, 1968.

But few will remember how King lived his last birthday, as he turned 39 on January 15, 1968.

According to accounts of the day retold by Jesse Jackson and Martin Luther King III, King spent the day working on a campaign that he hoped would force Washington and the American public to acknowledge and resolve the problem of poverty for people of all races, religions and backgrounds in the United States. The Poor People’s Campaign was the agenda for the day, with a short break for birthday cake.

While King’s dream, the march on Washington and fight against segregation are well-known to children and adults now, fewer are aware that King spent the last months of his life fighting poverty.

When he died in Memphis, he was there to support fair wages and union representation for Memphis sanitation workers.

Rebecca Burns, who wrote about King’s last days, death, and burial in “Burial for a King,” said King’s antiwar and anti-poverty legacy are overshadowed in part because their solutions are more elusive.

“It’s a much more complex issue – it’s not, pardon my choice of words, as black and white as voting rights or where you sit on a bus,” Burns said. “It’s harder to talk about that in sound bites.”

Clayborne Carson, director of the Martin Luther King, Jr. Research and Education Institute at Stanford University, said that King’s dreams of economic justice remain unrealized, but not because they are impossible to achieve.

It is easier to celebrate King as a civil rights leader, because that was the easier part of his vision to realize,” Carson said. “The southern Jim Crow system was a regional anachronism rather than a national problem – the gulf between rich and poor – that we still prefer to ignore.”

The Poor People’s Campaign reached out to poor whites, many of whom felt most threatened by the civil rights movement’s successes in black equality, as well as impoverished migrant farm workers who harvested the nation’s food and Native Americans who languished on reservations. Injustice anywhere, King said, was a threat to justice everywhere.

*****

Race-based and gender-based affirmative action

 

This leads me to the topic of affirmative action and its usefulness in addressing injustices.

In another post, I argued that affirmative action should first and foremost be based on the wealth and well-being of individuals.

Pseudo-progressive passionately disagree and believe it should always only be based on gender and race even if this leads one to privilege a wealthy woman over a poor man in quite a few cases.

Take affirmative action to ensure that applicants are employed and that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed, color or national origin. John.F. Kennedy
John.F. Kennedy on the egalitarian root of affirmative action.

Richard D. Kahlenberg is an American scholar having spent considerable time analysing affirmative action in higher education.

Here are some remarkable quotations from a sixty-page long report he wrote on that topic.

*****

On the whole, university leaders much prefer the prevailing
system of racial preference in admission, which ignores issues
of economic inequality and instead focuses, as Walter Benn
Michaels acidly observes, on “what color skin the rich kids
have.”
(One study found that almost nine in ten African
Americans at selective colleges are middle or upper class—
though the whites were even wealthier.)

 

Recruiting fairly privileged students of color is far less expensive than including low-income and working-class kids of all races. While higher education’s vigorous defense of affirmative action on one level represents a sincere desire for greater racial equality, it has another less virtuous side to it, as racial preferences avoid the hard work of addressing deeply rooted inequalities and
instead provide what Stephen Carter has called “racial justice on the cheap.”

 

Most notably, in the late 1960s, before his death, Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. wrestled with the issue of how best to remedy our nation’s history of discrimination. On the one hand, he argued in his 1964 book
Why We Can’t Wait
that compensation is due to black Americans. “It is impossible to create a formula for the future which does not take into account that our society has been doing something special against the Negro for hundreds of years,” he wrote.

In the book, and in subsequent testimony before the Kerner Commission in 1967, King called for “compensatory consideration,” noting, “if a man is entered at the starting line in a race three hundred years after another man, the first would have to perform some impossible feat in order to catch up with his fellow runner.”
But instead of urging adoption of a special program for blacks, as some civil rights leaders had done, King called for a color-blind Bill of Rights for the Disadvantaged:

“While Negroes form the vast majority of America’s disadvantaged, there are millions of white poor who would also benefit from such a bill.”

King continued,

It is a simple matter of justice that America, in dealing creatively with the task of raising the Negro from backwardness, should also be rescuing a large stratum of the forgotten white poor.

King knew that class-based approaches would disproportionately benefit victims of historic discrimination without violating the color-blind ideal he had famously articulated in the 1963 March on Washington.

 

Given these political realities, it is perhaps not surprising that the father of racial preferences was not Lyndon Johnson or Martin Luther King and instead was Richard Nixon. In 1969, Nixon proposed the Philadelphia Plan that imposed racial hiring quotas on the city’s construction industry. Bayard Rustin, the great civil rights leader and friend of labor who planned the 1963 March on Washington, was suspicious: why would Nixon, who was no great supporter of civil rights, support a policy of racial preferences? Rustin charged that Nixon was using the Philadelphia Plan to “deliberately throw black and white workers at each other’s throats.

If we desire a society without discrimination, we musn't discriminate against anyone in the process of building this society. Civil right activist Bayard Rustin on discrimination.

*****

I think this should give a pause to all of us truly interested in genuine social justice .

In 2015, the real victims of slavery and segregation are mainly those blacks living under the threshold of poverty.

Race-based positive discrimination overwhelmingly favours economically privileged blacks and latinos at their expense and that of poor whites.

Whites of lower classes, in turn, are all too easily lured into far-right movements such as the Tea-Party or the personality cult of xenophobic billionaire Donald Trump.

It seems clear to me that privileging wealth-based or class-based affirmative action over race-based affirmative action (without necessarily always giving up on the latter) would lead to a far more just and stable society, as Martin Luther King would have desired.

 

Conclusion

 

In 2016, in a Western secular context, it doesn’t demand any moral courage to stand for the rights of Afro-Americans unjustly killed, homosexuals being bullied or women victim of sexism.

For there is a large consensus that those things are egregiously wrong and shouldn’t be tolerated.

You probably don’t need to be a Christian in order to recognise the wisdom in the following words of Jesus of Nazareth:

46 If you love those who love you, what reward will you get? Are not even the tax collectors doing that? 47 And if you greet only your own people, what are you doing more than others? Do not even pagans do that?

There is no great moral merit in defending values the large majority of your peers agree with.

It does require, however, a tremendous courage to criticise politically correct dogmas.

For many pseudo-progressives react like outraged religious fundamentalists and do not hesitate to resort to emotional bullying and unfair characterisations of the arguments of their opponents.

I know that it is very unlikely I could ever change their minds and I don’t even want to try it.

Classical liberalism "I disapprove of what you say, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it". "Progressivism" I disapprove of what you say, and I will publicly shame you, lobby to have you censored and demand you be fired from your job.
Pseudo-progressivism in action.

For all other readers, I think it might be worth considering what follows.

In 2016, the mighty of this world (i.e. the billionaires and millionaires governing  Western oligarchies) can, by and large, cope with a black leader (such as Barack Obama) or a female leader (such as Angela Merkel and probably Hilary Clinton) who uphold neo-liberalism, Western imperialism and do not call into question their scandalous economic privileges.

Are we prepared to take on the enormous economic and political power of the billionaire class or do we continue to slide ino economic and political oligarchy? Senator Bernie Sanders and billionaires and oligarchy.
Senator Bernie Sanders on billionaires and oligarchy.

The mighty of America cannot cope with a Bernie Sander who would challenge their power structure, suppress the hideous industrial prison complex ruining so many black (and to a lesser extent white) lives, reduce students loans and debts, strengthen the universality of health care and social security, undermine the exploitation of low-income workers in the third world at the expense of Americans and end the war on drugs (among many other “deadly sins”).

As he said:

“It’s not a radical concept that maybe the United States government should represent working families rather than a handful of billionaires.”

No, it isn’t a radical concept at all, indeed.

But it is a lot harder than posting pictures in favour of gay marriage or abortion on your facebook account, getting a lot of “likes” and thinking in turn you are a noble hero contributing to saving our world.

I guess that if I wrote such a long post, it is only because I am an evil heterosexual white man who takes pleasure in oppressing women, ethnic minorities and homosexuals (and devouring small children alive).

Therefore, you don’t have to bother about refuting my arguments, let alone trying to fairly understand and describe my actual positions.

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

Will the UKIP lead Britain to a new Golden Age?

The UKIP despises the British people

ukip

Indeed.

Many poor Britons are being fooled into thinking that foreigners are their main problem.

No, their main problem is wild (uncontrolled) capitalism and greedy billionaires who want their taxes to be cut whereas people belonging to the lowest classes struggle hard to survive.

Following Margaret Thatcher, the NHS has been being constantly privatised in a (not so) subtle way.

Its budget has been reduced to such an extent that in many specialised sectors such as dentistry, waiting times before seeing a doctor can all too easily reach one year.

Consequently, all people who can afford it go to private doctors whereas the poorest ones must accept to powerlessly watch their health degrade.

A true popular party claiming to serve British citizens (most of whom belonging to low and middle classes) ought to take that into consideration.

Far from wanting to combat these injustices, the UKIP longs for making the situation considerably worse.

Salary as MEP: 79000 pounds a year
Farage: a very wealthy “defender” of the poor folks.

Nigel Farage and his underlings want to (ultimately) completely abolish universal healthcare in Britain and replace it by an American-like insurance-based private system (their lame denials do not change anything to the picture).

Scaremongering as a distraction from the real culpable

They use a heinous rhetoric for duping people into believing that foreigners are the main cause of their problems whereas it is in fact the crying inequalities resulting from a badly regulated free market.

Consider the recent statements of Farage:

*******

“Here’s a fact, and I am sure the other people here will be mortified that I dare to talk about it. There are 7,000 diagnoses in this country every year for people who are HIV positive. It’s not a good place for any of them to be, I know.

“Sixty per cent of them are not British nationals. They can come into Britain from anywhere in the world and get diagnosed with HIV and get the retro-viral drugs that cost up to £25,000 per year per patient.

“I know there are some horrible things happening in many parts of the world, but what we need to do is put the NHS there for British people and families, who in many cases have paid into the system for decades.”

********

While he skilfully shaped his utterances to make them sound more respectable, I think that the content remains absolutely shameful.

Think about it for a while. Banksters plunge countless lives into an unspeakable misery through their reckless actions and they don’t have to give anything away from their wealth.

There’s little doubt that some of the foreigners taking advantage of HIV-treatments are abusing the system.

But the harm they (indirectly) inflict to British households is negligible in comparison to that stemming from immoral millionaires and billionaires.

Abusing the Christian faith

Farage keeps trying to win voices from Christian Conservatives.

********

 UKIP leader Nigel Farage has said his criticism of ‘HIV tourists’ is not at odds with a Christian attitude and that Christians should put their countrymen before immigrants
….
Nigel Farage has said his comments about ‘HIV tourists’ are perfectly compatible with a religious outlook, claiming that it is “a sensible Christian thing to look after your family and your own community first”.
….
But asked on Saturday whether his views were compatible with a Christian outlook, Mr Farage said: “What good Christian would say to an 85-year-old woman ‘you can’t have breast cancer treatment because we can’t afford it’, whilst at the same time shovelling a billion pounds on foreign aid, allowing people from all over the world to fly into Britain as health tourists get an HIV test and drugs over £20,000 a year?”
….
Speaking to Sky News he added: “It is a sensible Christian thing to look after your family and your own community first.”
….
Mr Farage said that he regarded himself as a Christian, despite attending church only a “few times a year”, and insisted Britain should maintain its cultural position as a “Judeo-Christian” country. 

******

Here’s my response to his rhetorical question I emphasised.

What good Christian would prevent the weakest members of his society from taking advantage of a decent healthcare just for allowing a bunch of greedy people to get even richer?

I don’t know Nigel Farage deeply enough for judging him as a moral person.

But I strongly doubt he’s a real committed follower of Jesus of Nazareth who kept preaching against failing to feed and help the poor.

Do you really want to hear Jesus say: For I was jobless, and you told me to 'get a job'; I was homeless, and you called me a dirty hippie.  I was destitute and you said unto me: "Helping you would only encourage a big government nanny state. Be patients, for surely my riches shall trickle down unto you?
Could it be that Jesus deeply cared about the well-being of the needy?

The return of Robin Hood

Robin Hood with his green hat.
Robin Hood: what would he do in a land where the wealthiest shamelessly steals the money of the poorest?

Nigel Farage is an impostor. He steals the money of the poor to give it to the rich.

What modern Britain really needs is the Robin Hood of the legend.

Do lower classes vote against their own interests?

I recently stumbled across a thought-provoking picture I want to comment on.

Why poor and middle class Republicans vote against their own interest.   "If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket.  Hell, give him someone to look down on and he'll empty his pockets for you."  Lyndon Johnson.
Poor Republicans voting against their interests?

I have mixed feelings here.

The landscape of racism has changed

On the one hand, I think that one cannot apply this quote straightforwardly to modern America (let alone to the modern Western world as a whole).

Luckily, horrendous discriminations against black people sanctioned by the law belong to the past. The large majority of modern-day Republicans believe in racial equality and the racist demagogy Johnson rightly decried isn’t very likely to be found nowadays.

There is no denial that black people are still suffering from revolting injustices, such as the consequences of the war on drug. But politicians demeaning them for getting white votes have obviously become much rarer.

In the modern Western World (at least in France and to a much more limited extent in Germany) one can clearly see the existence of an anti-white racism I have partially documented here.

There is a dangerous imbalance here: while racism against blacks and Arabs is (rightly!) as severely combated as it must be, anti-white racism is almost always swept under the carpet. This situation is one of the reasons why the fascist party “Front National” is progressively becoming the first political power of France. This can only foster a vicious circle of hatred.

This is why I consider it absolutely necessary to take all racisms seriously and combat them in the same manner.

The fact that white slave holders have committed atrocities during the course of history gives no justification whatsoever for bullying a young white boy in a schoolyard just because he appears to have the same skin color.

Many Western liberals (I prefer to call them Slaves of Political Correctness (SPC)  ) are upholding the myth that white males can only be oppressors and never be oppressed by other groups.

This refusal to face reality promotes extremism and creates an explosive situation which has already taken a dramatic shape in France.

Even if this makes me extremely unpopular, I must urge my fellow progressives to become real impartial enemies of injustice wherever it is found.

Poverty in America and political manipulation

10 things you should know about poverty in America.   1) 15.1 percent of population 2) Increase of 20% since 1962 3) Economic growth doesn't fix poverty. 4) American in deep poverty.
Poverty in America

On the other hand, I think that Johnson is completely right that the lower classes (and actually even the middle classes) are manipulated in Western democracies, especially America.

It is obvious that  the lack of social protection and unconditional access to healthcare goes against their interest.

As I pointed out in my last post, the idea that an invisible hand automatically takes care of everything is a wicked myth.

Self-interest + competition = invisible hand
The Invisible hand at work.

At most, such a process can only ensure the survival of wild capitalism which solely blesses a small wealthy minority.

Poor people who are voting for proponents of unlimited capitalism compound their misery in one of the worst ways one could imagine.

As a Christian, it sickens me to see the Christian Right misusing religion for upholding revolting inequalities.

In that respect, they fulfill Karl Marx’s verdict that religion is the “opium of the folk”.

Fortunately, it does not need to be.

At Patheos progressive Christian, Fred Clark did a great job debunking one of their favorite verses used for arguing against a charitable and compassionate State.

If we are sincerely concerned about justice, love and the suffering of innocents, we ought to reject political and economical structures leading to inhumanity.

I think there is overwhelming evidence that a society where the fight against poverty is limited to personal private donations is a fiery hell for the needy.

We need judicial laws instead of anarchy because we cannot count on all or  even most people freely choosing to avoid evil.

Likewise, we need laws protecting the poor instead of economical anarchy because we cannot expect a sufficient number of wealthy people to make donations large enough for meeting the needs of all of those suffering from poverty.

While I myself reject the concept of inherited sinful nature taught by Western Christianity, I think that the second point should be obvious to anyone believing that every human being is wicked from his birth on.

The day America will become a true civilization

...

I shall add that universal healthcare should be viewed as a no-brainer as well.

In a modern technological and wealthy civilization worthy of that name, birth contingencies should play no role whatsoever in the way a sick child receives the appropriate treatment.

In that respect, the USA are really akin to primitive, reactionary and callous states having not yet reached enlightenment.

To my mind, this egregious injustice is far more preoccupying than the prevalence of Young Earth Creationism there.

That many Christians summon the name of Christ to justify these ignoble barbarisms is truly beyond me.

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)

On upholding inhumanity and some ethical implications

A friend of mine called my attention to an article which made me shudder.

*********

David Clapson

‘The coroner said that when David Clapson died he had no food in his stomach.’ Photograph: Linda Nylind for the Guardian

The coroner said that when David Clapson died he had no food in his stomach. Clapson’s benefits had been stopped as a result of missing one meeting at the jobcentre. He was diabetic, and without the £71.70 a week from his jobseeker’s allowance he couldn’t afford to eat or put credit on his electricity card to keep the fridge where he kept his insulin working. Three weeks later Clapson died from diabetic ketoacidosis, caused by a severe lack of insulin. A pile of CVs was found next to his body.

I’ll resist calling Clapson’s death a tragedy. Tragedy suggests a one-off incident, a rarity that couldn’t be prevented. What was done to Clapson – and it was done, not something that simply happened – is a particularly horrific example of what has, almost silently, turned into a widespread crisis. More than a million people in this country have had their benefits stopped over the past year. Sanctions against chronically ill and disabled people have risen by 580% in a year. This is a system out of control.

A petition for an inquiry into benefit sanctions, started by Clapson’s sister, Gill Thompson, is now on the verge of its 200,000th signature. This Thursday there will be a day of action against benefit sanctions across the country. If inspiration is required, you need look no further than the latest Department for Work and Pensions pilot scheme launched last week. The unemployed are set to have their benefits stopped if they don’t sign in at a jobcentre in the morning and spend the whole day there, every day. Breach the rules once and you’ll lose four weeks’ worth of benefits; twice and you won’t be able to feed your kids for three months.

Yes, some reasons for sanctions are almost laughable: going to a job interview rather than a meeting at the jobcentre that it clashes with; not completing an assessment because you had a heart attack during it. But let’s not convince ourselves the rest are credible – punishment sensibly bestowed on the scrounging unemployed. A government that deems it a success to stop the money someone needs to eat is a government of the grotesque.

Sanctions are a product of an attitude towards benefit claimants that says they are not people struggling to find work but suspects: lazy, stupid and in need of a DWP-kick to get them out of bed. The lazy are going hungry. Eight in 10 Trussell Trust food banks report that benefit sanctions are causing more people to need emergency food parcels. This, I suppose, is what Conservatives call motivation.

It doesn’t matter that sanctions are disproportionately hitting the most vulnerable. Nor that the DWP’s own commissioned report says that they are being imposed in such a way that vulnerable people often don’t understand what is happening to them, and are left uninformed of the hardship payments to which they are entitled. Six out of 10 employment and support allowance (ESA) claimants who have had their benefits stopped have a mental-health condition or learning difficulty. Are these the chosen victims of austerity now? By definition of being in receipt of ESA, many will struggle to do things such as be punctual for meetings or complete work placements with strangers in environments they don’t know. It is setting people up to fail and then punishing them for it.

Sanctions are not an anomaly. Rather, they are emblematic of the wider Tory record on welfare: one of incompetence and, at best, indifference. The work programme fails to find work for 95% of disabled people, but enforced, unpaid labour or loss of benefits is the DWP’s answer. More than a quarter of a million people are still waiting for PIP, the benefit needed to help cover the extra costs of disability. Seven hundred thousand people have been left waiting for an ESA assessment. Locking people out of their rightful benefits is becoming a theme for this government. The consequences are human; the response from the government is inhumane.

Clapson had only left his last job to care for his elderly mum, and before that had worked for 29 years. On the day he died he had £3.44 to his name and six tea bags, a tin of soup and an out-of-date can of sardines in his kitchen cupboards. Benefit sanctions are aimed at ending the “something for nothing” culture, as the DWP’s press release brags. I vote for ending the demonisation of the unemployed, disabled and poor.

************

What happened to him is truly gruesome and absolutely shameful.

This is why I reject free market capitalism for (Christian) socialism.
In the first system, MONEY is the measure of all things which naturally leads to a very small minority of incredibly rich people and an exponentially higher number of poor ones.

In socialism, free competition is encouraged AS LONG AS the welfare of human beings is not threatened, in which case the State intervenes.
Comparisons between the well being of poor people in hyper-capitalistic countries such as the United States and socialistic countries such as Sweden let us recognize a stark contrast which looks all the more tragic when glancing at children.

https://lotharlorraine.files.wordpress.com/2014/09/ceefe-baby-beggar.jpg

I think that the UK is drifting more and more towards wild capitalism and actually it has always hindered us from building up a “social Europe”. So we’d probably be much more successful if they had left us, presumably deprived of Scotland.

But their departure from the EU would likely have dire consequences on many sectors of British economy and employment as Obama himself pointed out.

Some implications for Christians

All Christians agree that a starving child is a horrendous evil. Actually this is agreed upon by the large majority of human beings regardless of their worldview.

So should we not work together towards constructing a society where this kind of evil is MINIMIZED?

While reading these lines, many Conservative Christians would doubtlessly answer me that while we are taught by our Master to care for the poor, the solution doesn’t have to be political.

But many of them couldn’t tell me that with a straight face, that is without either cognitive dissonances or a hypocritical tongue. When abortion and homosexuality are concerned, they certainly believe that a political solution is not only in order but also the most Christian thing anyone could do.

Let us suppose that we know that option A (status quo) will uphold the suffering of poor children whereas option B will considerably reduce it.

What kind of human beings are we if we refuse to engage B out of convenience or love for abstract political ideals?

 

Thematic list of ALL posts on this blog (regularly updated)

My other blog on Unidentified Aerial Phenomena (UAP)