/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.5978045]

Yeah Zizek is a le meme but this is probably the only decent thing I've read on the attacks in Paris.

http://www.newstatesman.com/world-affairs/2015/01/slavoj-i-ek-charlie-hebdo-massacre-are-worst-really-full-passionate-intensity

[Anonymous No.5978098]

Interesting. Definitely changed my mind on the matter. I don't know if I agree with his quick dismissal of Western military influence though.

[Anonymous No.5978104]

>>5978098

I also dislike the fact that I can't stop reading anything he writes in his voice.

[Anonymous No.5978120]

Disappointing. I stopped reading after two paragraphs.

[Anonymous No.5978123]

>>5978045
I sweat to Gott, Zizek is a /pol/ack. The only reason /lit/ likes him is because he is better educated and doesn't come off as antagonistic. Being a Hegelian also wins him points.

[Anonymous No.5978127]

>>5978123
>I sweat to Gott, Zizek is a /pol/ack
yep, plain as day

[Anonymous No.5978128]

so we should be even more revolutionary and radically liberal. thanks, zizek. good to hear a new tune from you.

[Anonymous No.5978132]

>>5978123
>>5978127
I don't think you guys understand Zizek. He's a Marxist.

[Anonymous No.5978133]

>>5978045
>Newstatesman

Trashed

[Anonymous No.5978142]

Dude, this is an excerpt from a book he wrote years ago. He just slapped a couple of paragraphs addressing recent events onto the beginning and the end. He did the same thing with the SAME EXCERPT several months ago and had it published as a piece about ISIS.

http://www.critical-theory.com/new-york-times-rebukes-zizek-for-self-plagiarism/

>dig up old shit you've written and tweak it to make it seem like it addresses current events
>???
>PROFIT

What an enterprising Slovenian Jew.

[Anonymous No.5978147]

>>5978132
I think its you who doesn't understand Zizek.

[Anonymous No.5978149]

>>5978123
>>5978127

He's a radical leftist and self-proclaimed communist. Are there any of those on /pol/?

[Anonymous No.5978150]

>>5978132

Then why does this article read like some kind of crypto-liberal paean inaugurated by the same stupid crisis that's been happening since 2001.

Kill 'em all and let the Demiurge give 'em haircuts.

[Anonymous No.5978151]

Zizek's basically an idiot lol. Isn't this the guy who always says "don't investigate the people, investigate the system"? He's trying to investigate the system only here, but he stumbles upon the truth that arabs are just plain inferior and will never be able to compete with superior lifeforms.

The only solution for islam isn't the "radical left" (i.e. more ressentiment), it is DEATH, the one, the only, the FINAL solution.

[Anonymous No.5978154]

>>5978151
The radical left is death for islam you fucking retard

[Anonymous No.5978168]

>>5978045

Blah blah blah fucking blah.

Voluntarism figured this out and had answer to it centuries ago - iniating violence is wrong under any circumstance. For statists and commies, it takes 12 people to die to finally figure out that maybe, just maybe Islam is a religion of evil and you shoud economically and socially isolate anyone who is muslim.

[Anonymous No.5978171]

>>5978154

The "radical left' is, and always will be, WEAKER than Islam.

It will never influence Islam, just like it will never influence anything.

[Anonymous No.5978172]

>>5978168
>iniating violence is wrong under any circumstance

unless someone is somewhere you consider your 'property'. then it's perfectly legitimate to blow their brains out

[Anonymous No.5978173]

>>5978149
actually yes

[Anonymous No.5978174]

>>5978171
>The "radical left' is, and always will be, WEAKER than Islam.

apart from most of the 20th century you mean?

I don't think you have studied Arab history in much depth, anon.

[Anonymous No.5978175]

>>5978149
He is a radical leftist in a much similar way that /pol/ is a radical rightist than liberals are also leftists. Zizeks says here plain as day that liberal democracy needs to go, or at least undergo some massive renovations. This idea that /pol/ is pure neo-Nazi is just ignorance, you will find many people there that would agree 100% with this article and support a Zizek-like communist vision with some caveats. You cannot say the same of other leftists.

>>5978171
There is not much of a modern radical left. But we don't have to influence Islam (we already are) but fight it out of Europe.

[Anonymous No.5978178]

>>5978151
>arabs are just plain inferior and will never be able to compete with superior lifeforms.

>Year 1436 of the hijra
>Being a foul pigskin

"Their bodies are large, their natures gross, their manners harsh, their understanding dull and their tongues heavy . . . their religious beliefs lack solidity . . . those of them who are farthest to the north are the most subject to stupidity, grossness and brutishness." - Al-Mas'udi

[Anonymous No.5978180]

I'm guessing Immanuel Wallerstein may write about it for his next article on Agence Global on the 15th. If so, it will be better than decent. You should check him out.

[Anonymous No.5978181]

>>5978172

Ummmm no? Don't confuse anarcho-capitalists for voluntarists. For voluntarists initiation of violence is taken to proper conclusion, you cannot initiate violence against anyone, even if they are on your property.

[Anonymous No.5978182]

>>5978151
Zizek is arguing against all the passive leftist, self-loathing idiots.

[Anonymous No.5978183]

>>5978180

>Wallerstein is old as fuck and will never finish The Modern World-System

sadfrog

[Anonymous No.5978184]

>>5978181
so voluntarists are all absolute pacifists? lel, try basing a society around that. gg.

[Anonymous No.5978187]

>>5978184
I for one support radical pacifism. We will make you peaceful by force if necessary!

[Anonymous No.5978192]

that was just a whole lot of writing and nothing was said

all these academic references for no reason and throw in a bit of 'nah nah they actually feel inferior', plus about 6 paragraphs that appear to have to no relation to this paris thing, I mean why did I even read this?

nowhere does he mention the actual people and their motives and whom died and what took place where, it's just needless cock stroking and academia that says nothing at all

[Anonymous No.5978193]

>>5978187
In the words of zizek: this is pure ideology. wait for the real word to hit you like a truck.

[Anonymous No.5978195]

>>5978192

see

>>5978142

[Anonymous No.5978200]

>>5978142
Zizek is a massive hack.

Is this news?

[Anonymous No.5978201]

>>5978193
And in the words of Zizek, ideologue isn't a bad thing. I don't know how /lit/ got caught in this assumption.

[Anonymous No.5978208]

>>5978201
Yeah, sure.

Wait, wtf?

>The most elementary definition of ideology is probably the well-known phrase from Marx's Capital: "Sie wissen das nicht, aber sie tun es" ("they do not know it, but they are doing it"). The very concept of ideology implies a kind of basic, constitutive naïveté: the misrecognition of its own presuppositions, of its own effective conditions, a distance, a divergence between so-called social reality and our distorted representation, our false consciousness of it.

Sounds like he's positive about this ideology shebang!

Seriously though, how old are you? 16? Please read more before you make a fool of yourself on the internet further.

[Anonymous No.5978209]

I think he's over-emphasising liberal democracy as a force in the rise of fundamentalism. The real radicaliser is more likely US bombs blowing up villages and cities in the mid east.

But what would any of us know really.

[Anonymous No.5978212]

>>5978104
It's because he writes the same way he talks
>We should, of course
>Charlie Hebdo was nonetheless
And sho on

[Anonymous No.5978220]

>>5978184

Not absolute because self-defence is justified as the destruction of destruction property. -1*-1=1.

[Anonymous No.5978221]

>>5978178

>The Arabs. Disgusting goatherds and camel-fuckers. The only reason anyone is concerned with them today is because they happened to spawn on the planet's oil reserves. They shined at the precise moment when Europe was at its lowest — the Middle Ages — but even a candle can shine in the darkness of the night, when the sun is over the horizon. Nietzsche, and several other great thinkers, said some good things about them, but none of those people ever actually MET any of them (much less went to the Middle East to experience first-hand their so-called "culture", which is what we all experience, to a thankfully small extent, when we pass through their wretched stinking ghettos in our great cities today), so their ignorance and naivete can be excused.

Quote is from a real philosopher btw.

[Anonymous No.5978223]

>"who are we in the West, perpetrators of terrible massacres in the Third World, to condemn such acts"). It has even less to do with the pathological fear of many Western liberal Leftists to be guilty of Islamophobia.

Kek, one can oppose Islamic ideology and at the same time recognize how Islamic extremism is largely a symptom of Western imperialism and decades of violence.

[Anonymous No.5978226]

>>5978220
>self-defence is justified as the destruction of destruction property

So if I walk across a field of corn that you happen to claim ownership over, you can shoot me in the head and continue your 'non-aggressive', pacifistic lifestyle. Okay.

[Anonymous No.5978227]

>>5978223
islamic extremism is not a symptom of the west imperialism we aren't that important

these dune coons have been killing eachother for thousands of years

[Anonymous No.5978230]

>>5978208
Again, its not a bad thing. Its inescapable, you can't really attach a moral stance onto it other than being aware of it. Its like saying eyeballs are evil because its how you perceive the world.

[Anonymous No.5978231]

>>5978227

They have also been invading Europe while raping and enslaving our population for thousands of years.

Someone should just kill every last one of them honestly.

[Anonymous No.5978232]

Zizek says something absolute garbage.

>How fragile the belief of an Islamist must be if he feels threatened by a stupid caricature in a weekly satirical newspaper, says the Slovenian philosopher.

this is garbage.
when a Mohammaden expresses violence against blasphemers it has nothing to do with weak faith; it just is (or was) a standard expression of devotion in that religion.

zizek is a shill I'm 99% sure

[Anonymous No.5978234]

>>5978226

No. If you were destroying my property intentionally I could attack you. But if you were just walking and unintentionaly stepped on a corn stalk I couldn't do much without being morally wrong. Voluntarism is not pacifist, so don't try to say it is.

[Anonymous No.5978235]

Are you a last man?

[Anonymous No.5978238]

>h. Long ago Friedrich Nietzsche perceived how Western civilisation was moving in the direction of the Last Man, an apathetic creature with no great passion or commitment. Unable to dream, tired of life, he takes no risks, seeking only comfort and security, an expression of tolerance with one another: “A little poison now and then: that makes for pleasant dreams. And much poison at the end, for a pleasant death. They have their little pleasures for the day, and their little pleasures for the night, but they have a regard for health. ‘We have discovered happiness,’ - say the Last Men, and they blink.”

It's funny that this Last Man is the ideal man presented in the Tao De Ching.
Nietzsche was just a passionate manchild who couldn't see the superiority of dispassion.
cuck

[Anonymous No.5978243]

>>5978221

>Google quote
>written by pseudonymous blogger

Am I being meme'd?

>>5978231
>They have also been invading Europe while raping and enslaving our population for thousands of years.

How is this any truer of them than the opposite is of you? Who started it, anyway? Alexander? The Achaemenids? This is purely polemical.

[Anonymous No.5978244]

>>5978230
Okay, so you don't even understand what Zizek is saying in his own definition of ideology: that it is an emanation from man's alienation from his own social existence. So why are you trying to dispute it with me? How old are you again?

[Anonymous No.5978245]

>>5978238

>the superiority of dispassion.

lol

you little rats live in some sort of parallel universe.

[Anonymous No.5978246]

>>5978238
yeah yeah, let's fuck those guys that just want to live comfortably on the earth and get along nicely with others
we should all strive to be a Wagnerian caricature of ancient nords with violent passion for its own sake!

these germans man, these germans

[Anonymous No.5978249]

These are the best pieces I've read on the Charlie Hebdo massacre:
http://www.theguardian.com/world/ng-interactive/2015/jan/09/joe-sacco-on-satire-a-response-to-the-attacks

http://www.vice.com/en_uk/read/will-self-charlie-hebdo-attack-the-west-satire-france-terror-105

http://www.newstatesman.com/politics/2015/01/charlie-hebdo-attack-really-struggle-over-european-values

https://medium.com/@hugorifkind/there-is-a-difference-between-being-brave-and-being-funny-af2f33ded10e

http://www.leninology.co.uk/2015/01/charlie-hebdo.html and http://www.leninology.co.uk/2015/01/pseudo-explanations-for-massacre.html

[Anonymous No.5978250]

>>5978243

The Arabs have shown us far more hostility than we have them. Why? Because they are fleas and we live in paradise. They live in a desert and naturally envy their superiors.

Like I said earlier in this thread, the only solution for resentment, and the resentment of lifeforms that have lost the evolutionary battle, is DEATH.

[Anonymous No.5978252]

>>5978250
>The Arabs have shown us far more hostility than we have them. Why? Because they are fleas and we live in paradise. They live in a desert and naturally envy their superiors.

Meaningless polemical drivel.

>>5978250
>Like I said earlier in this thread, the only solution for resentment, and the resentment of lifeforms that have lost the evolutionary battle, is DEATH.

You ought to get started then. Can we expect to see you in the news?

[Anonymous No.5978253]

>>5978250
>The Arabs have shown us far more hostility than we have them

did you miss the past 200 years of european imperialism?

I mean, this is simply a historical fact. Britain and France literally owned several Arab countries within the living memory of people...

[Anonymous No.5978258]

>>5978149
There are on /leftypol/

[Anonymous No.5978262]

>>5978252

>Meaningless polemical drivel.

Are you a retard man? Some of the most "meaningful" texts ever have been polemical.

I mean there's a good reason you are talking about the style and not the content. Can you actually refute that killing all the Arabs down to the last man and taking the rest of their oil is the best possible "solution" for their issues (and ours).

[Anonymous No.5978263]

>>5978253

relevant

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=y-7j4WVTgWc

[Anonymous No.5978264]

>>5978123
>>5978127
>anemic liberals
>the best that lack conviction
Not /pol/ at all. Completely disconnected from what 'liberals' really are at this point in time.

and his ultimate point
>How fragile the belief of a Muslim must be if he feels threatened by a stupid caricature in a weekly satirical newspaper
Basically this is typical of him and marxists in general (1) take a quotation that is more or less fitting for a situation (2) try to turn it on its head so that it seems to suggest the opposite (master-slave) while changing nothing about the situation or future plan of action. The effect is we get away with thinking 'wow they really see themselves as inferior lol' and remain convinctionless because this revolution/achievement in thought placates us long enough until we have to do it again.

Not to mention, it just doesn't follow. Just because they act violently doesn't necessarily mean they feel inferior.

[Anonymous No.5978266]

>>5978045
Probably, the attack was a false-flag. The attackers had military trainement and equipament. They had inside information on the journal since they knew exactly when the cartoonists would be there. Also, an investigator commited suicide yesterday. It was published only by a Russian newspaper, but confirmed by France government.

Islam didn't gain nothing with the attacks. 3 decades more and they would be majority on Europe. Unless, of course, EU starts closing immigration, something which could be motivated by "terrorist attacks".

[Anonymous No.5978267]

as far as I'm concerned islam is just another meme on my wonderful internet :^)

[Anonymous No.5978268]

>>5978133
your loss then. the NS has published some of the best journalism of the past century

some shitty stuff too tho

[Anonymous No.5978270]

>>5978266
And it's a false flag perpetrated by who and for what reason? I guess the Australian thing was too?

[Anonymous No.5978273]

> However, do the terrorist fundamentalists really fit this description? What they obviously lack is a feature that is easy to discern in all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the Amish in the US: the absence of resentment and envy, the deep indifference towards the non-believers’ way of life. If today’s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he hardly condemns. He just benevolently notes that the hedonist’s search for happiness is self-defeating. In contrast to true fundamentalists, the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists are deeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers. One can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation.

i thought that bit was pretty good

[Anonymous No.5978276]

>>5978273

It sounds good because you are a little communist chandala.

This is the only noteworthy part of the article:

>The problem with fundamentalists is not that we consider them inferior to us, but, rather, that they themselves secretly consider themselves inferior. This is why our condescending politically correct assurances that we feel no superiority towards them only makes them more furious and feeds their resentment. The problem is not cultural difference (their effort to preserve their identity), but the opposite fact that the fundamentalists are already like us, that, secretly, they have already internalized our standards and measure themselves by them. Paradoxically, what the fundamentalists really lack is precisely a dose of that true ‘racist’ conviction of their own superiority.

[Anonymous No.5978277]

>>5978249
Thanks for this

[Anonymous No.5978278]

>>5978270
Anyone who wants stop Islam immigration into Europe.

In other words, a shitton of people.

[Anonymous No.5978281]

>>5978227
>these dune coons have been killing eachother for thousands of years

Just like Europeans really and every other culture throughout the millenia.

Just compare what was going on both within and between the 'Islamic World' 100 years and the West, then 90 years ago, then 80 years etc.

You must be incredibly blind and/ or incredibly stupid to completely dismiss it all.

One thing that always irritates me is how people cannot fathom that events which happen in the past but within living memory can actually have an impact on the events of today - it's as though the connection simply fails to make it in their minds as they so stupidly live in their little bubble of contemporary newsbites.

[Anonymous No.5978284]

>>5978232
He's right

[Anonymous No.5978286]

>>5978281
Yeah, like how many Europeans killed each other in the first half of the 20thc? 30 million or something? The Arabs are never gonna top that death toll.

[Anonymous No.5978287]

>>5978249
>Joe Sacco
>Will Self

[Anonymous No.5978288]

>>5978262

You're one edgy little shit you know that?

[Anonymous No.5978291]

>>5978262
>Are you a retard man? Some of the most "meaningful" texts ever have been polemical.

You're the retard. Your posts are meaningless chest-thumping; you've done nothing but spew triumphalist generalities. Let's not pretend that there's anything of substance hidden behind your shitposts.

>Can you actually refute that killing all the Arabs down to the last man and taking the rest of their oil is the best possible "solution" for their issues (and ours).

Is this even a serious question? If you think that anything like this is even remotely possible, you're abjectly fucking retarded.

[Anonymous No.5978292]

>>5978235
Yes.

[Anonymous No.5978293]

>>5978264
I don't think Zizek much likes modern liberals. And I agree that his interpretation of the attack is wrong, and that violence can come from a place of true faith. I still agree with his ultimate point (which I think is the real meat of an article disguised as a critique of this recent attack) that liberal democracy isn't able to properly deal with Islamic extremism, or really Islam in general.

>>5978266
Lol.

[Anonymous No.5978298]

>>5978291

More retardation. Killing all the Arabs is more than possible. In fact it's going to happen within the next 100 years (not joking).

And you know what will happen after that? We'll get to hunt down and liquidate pseudointellectuals like you again.

[Anonymous No.5978300]

>>5978278
The people who have to live in it already want to stop Islamic immigration, there's no need for a false flag attack. The only thing attacks by extremists lead to in the public discourse is 'let's differentiate between extremists and moderates'.

The only people who don't seem to are politicians and certain politically motivated groups (the people who would stage a false flag), also the Swedish.

Start again and develop a plausible narrative.

[Anonymous No.5978304]

>>5978300
>who don't seem
Let me clarify, who don't seem to want to stop immigration.

[Anonymous No.5978307]

>>5978298
>We
YOU don't do shit now and won't be doing shit in the future, homeboy.

[Anonymous No.5978308]

>>5978276
>chandala.
Kill yourself

[Anonymous No.5978315]

That was unbelievably disappointing, his liberalism is becoming unbearable. He responds to every event in the same way now "x event shows the importance of liberal values but liberal values can only be protected and promoted by a radical leftist project and so on and so on" note how it's always "radical leftist" not communist.

Also that "violence is a sign of weakness or fear in a persons psyche" shite is liberalism at its most inane.

[Anonymous No.5978316]

>>5978298
>More retardation. Killing all the Arabs is more than possible. In fact it's going to happen within the next 100 years (not joking).

How, faggot. Tell me how you intend to see through a genocide more monumental and thorough than anything ever perpetrated in human history.

[Anonymous No.5978318]

>>5978316
nukes you stupid goy

[Anonymous No.5978320]

>>5978249
i was pretty disappointed with what will self wrote, and with what he said when he was interviewed on channel 4 news a couple of days ago. it comes pretty close to victim blaming

[Anonymous No.5978324]

>>5978316

[Anonymous No.5978325]

>>5978318

But they'll make a mess out of your oil fields. Your brilliant, diabolical plan is crumbling before your very eyes!

[Anonymous No.5978326]

>>5978293
I also agree liberals cannot stop Islam but they also don't want to. They would prefer to avoid 'islamophobic' and be dominated than the other way around. He suggest this too but his answer, a 'radical LEFT' is a big no no.

[Anonymous No.5978329]

>>5978045
It is good to see Zizek calling out some of the current leftist behaviour, but his calls for a more radical left undermine his assertions that the left should value freedom and equality.
It is odd how the left has convinced itself that it is the defender of "freedom" and "equality". Ironically freedom and equality of opportunity were enshrined as the cornerstone of western values by Classical Liberals, the same group which prized Capitalism and the free market.

The left has never had much hold on Freedom and its brand of equality is far from a "fair" one. The left will never succeed in reclaiming ideals that fundamentally undermine it.

[Anonymous No.5978330]

>>5978142
>self plagiarism

Quite possibly the most idiotic term I have come across. If what he is saying is relevant why does it matter if it is new? Of course Zizek is aware that most modern readers, such as yourself, have a childish and imbecilic thirst for freshness. So he simply and cunningly repackages his own words in such a manner as to give you exactly what you want without compromising his own ideals or work. But what would an infant like yourself know about it?

[Anonymous No.5978332]

>>5978300
It is more believable than some Last Man vs self-defeatist narrative. Also, Islam has NOTHING to gain with this attack. Look at the strawman people are creating: "Fundamentalists are so brainwashed that they're killing because of cartoons". Do you consider that believable? The attackers had a fucking RPG with them. Why didn't they use it? People who lived with the attackers didn't consider them religious, one of them never read the Quran.

Everytime you try to criticize Islam immigration, you are called islamophobic and shit like "Islam is the religion of peace" is thrown at your face.

If it wasn't a false-flag, that attack was the dumbest thing ever.

[Anonymous No.5978333]

>>5978250
I like how you put "death" in all caps, it really adds a nice touch to this post.

[Anonymous No.5978334]

>>5978326
Islam and the left have a great deal in common. They both draw their current support by reacting against the capitalism and liberty that is the core of western values. They are natural allies.

[Anonymous No.5978340]

>>5978045
OK, kiddies, let's get serious and apply some knowledge and some analytical acumen to this piece of Zizek's.
I find it as intensely annoying, and as shallow and misguided, as just about every piece I have read of his, for the following very concrete reasons:
(i) He simply does not take the reader, by any actual identifiable process of argumentation, from his starting point - 'we must gather the courage to think' - to the conclusion he tacks on in the last paragraph: 'liberalism needs a radical left to defend liberalism's values'. Three quarters of the piece is devoted to establishing what might potentially be a distant preamble to arguing this point: 'the fundamentalists secretly suffer from feelings of inferiority vis-a-vis the West' - which is doubtless a true contention but one that has surely been stated a hundred times at least since 9/11 and hardly needs stating again. The little spurt that takes him from this to the 'Liberalism needs a radical left' conclusion in the final few paragraphs, though, bears no relation to logic or argument at all. The only substantial point that he makes here is that, at one particular country and at one particular time - Pakistan in 2009 - an Islamic fundamentalist force (the Taliban) succeeded in out-manoeuvring liberal and leftist forces and in winning landless farmers to their cause by taking their side against feudal landowners.

The leap Zizek then makes between this and his next paragraph covers a terrain of wilful omissions so vast as to absolutely dwarf the little bit of ground that he DOES cover in this article. Because - he appears to be arguing - a weak urban liberal elite (and a remotely operating neo-colonial USA) failed on one occasion, in a backward and largely rural Asian country, to assert their core values against Islamic fundamentalism, NO liberalism ANYWHERE is 'strong enough' to defend its core values against ANY Islamic fundamentalist assault - without the aid of a 'radical Left'.
As I say, I just don't see how he thinks he actually GETS to this conclusion at all. His 'argument' for it appears to consist in absolutely nothing beyond this awful little tic he has been cultivating for twenty-five years - the most easily parodied of all Zizek's eminently parody-able rhetorical tricks - of beginning every second sentence with: 'And is it not exactly the same thing that we see in....etc?' I"m afraid the simple answer to THAT, though, Slavoj is: 'no, it isn't'.

[Anonymous No.5978341]

>>5978334
Islamism reacts against capitalism? They have their own banking system for fuck's sake
The left reacts against liberty? lollllllllll perhaps if you have a randian view of what that means

[Anonymous No.5978344]

>>5978334
>Islam and the left have a great deal in common

in your strange world maybe

[Anonymous No.5978348]

>>5978334
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/03/30/us-libya-usa-order-idUSTRE72T6H220110330

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/08/01/us-usa-syria-obama-order-idUSBRE8701OK20120801

[Anonymous No.5978353]

>>5978292
me too
how do i become a first man?
is it even desirable?

[Anonymous No.5978357]

>>5978334

[Anonymous No.5978360]

>>5978287
Sacco is based; please move along, pleb.

[Anonymous No.5978364]

>>5978325
>needing oil in 100 years
>thinking the mid east will still have relevant amounts left in 100 years

[Anonymous No.5978369]

>>5978332
It's not more believable than that. Look at the beheading of Lee Rigby in 2013, the Lindt hostage situation in 2014.

Do you live in an area with a decent Muslim population? Have you ever heard what Muslim schoolchildren have to say about the incidents (a good measure of the kind of views their parents say in the comfort of their own communities)? If you have then you'd know that even so-called 'moderate' Muslims don't see an issue with these actions.

>Everytime you try to criticize Islam immigration, you are called islamophobic and shit like "Islam is the religion of peace" is thrown at your face.
A false flag would suggest that the people who do this would be complicit, which makes no sense.

[Anonymous No.5978373]

>>5978348

Afghanistan was the single greatest incubator of Qaeda and ISIS-esque ideologies. And that was due to huge, retarded strategic errors made by us and by Saudi Arabia (and Pakistan.) I'm afraid that something similar or worse is taking place in Syria.

[Anonymous No.5978381]

>>5978369
>Do you live in an area with a decent Muslim population? Have you ever heard what Muslim schoolchildren have to say about the incidents (a good measure of the kind of views their parents say in the comfort of their own communities)? If you have then you'd know that even so-called 'moderate' Muslims don't see an issue with these actions.

Different poster. I've lived in a couple of Muslim-majority countries and, for that matter, in Paris itself. You're full of shit.

[Anonymous No.5978382]

>>5978369
Right, because you're clearly a regular insider of the private lives and thoughts of Muslims.

[Anonymous No.5978403]

>>5978382
I am a Muslim you idiot

[Anonymous No.5978407]

>>5978341
>>5978344
>Leftists in denial
Liberalism was historically heavily connected with the free market and capitalism, i.e. Adam Smith, Locke, Gladstone . If you are american you are probably not aware of the history of the term. The liberals in the USA were essentially socialists and that word has come to be associated with them. The left has always been a reactionary movement against liberty and freedom.

As for Islam, Saudi Arabia and the Sunni elite have certainly profited from capitalism, but not as a result of their islamic values. Historically Islam valued merchants, but they draw a distinction with the free market. They view it as a mechanism by which the west spreads "hedonism" and "unholy" values.

[Anonymous No.5978414]

>>5978382
No, no. Re-read his post. He's probably a schoolteacher in a muzzie neighborhood, and hears small children from muzzie families talking. They repeat whatever they hear from their parents. That is what young children do, in case you didn't know.

Reading comprehension, motherfucker. Do you have it?

[Anonymous No.5978437]

>>5978348
That was a major mistake, I agree. The US was blinded by its desire to defeat the Soviet Union.Ironically the leftists here probably don't consider the soviets to have been "true" leftists but capitalists in disguise.

The left and Islam have certainly not been allies historically, but they have been brought together by the victory of Neoliberalism.

[Anonymous No.5978443]

> If today’s so-called fundamentalists really believe they have found their way to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he hardly condemns. He just benevolently notes that the hedonist’s search for happiness is self-defeating.
Because islam isn't fucking buddhism you retarded shirt-tugging cokefiend attentionwhore

if they think islam is the truth, and islam says "kill the non-believer" then they'd be retarded or pathetic for not acting on that

[Anonymous No.5978449]

>>5978340
So, going on
(ii) This tic of insisting on actually basically unargued-for analogies and similarities is really another reason why the whole piece is pretty much unreadable.
Zizek is applying here the formula that he has had enormous success with for decades now: slap down a reference to or quotation from some writer whom your target audience will be very vaguely and slightly familiar with and the warm glow of self-satisfaction that will spread through your vain little semi-pleb readers as they tell themselves: 'Oh I know that (sort of)' will serve to paralyze and neautralize whatever little capacity they may have had for critical thinking in the first place.
The long quotation he offers from Nietzsche is, once again, apposite, I suppose, but it is a point that is as long since taken and re-taken by any educated person as the fact that it was first made nearly 150 years ago would lead one to assume.
The Yeats quote, likewise, is hardly a grand discovery. It is one of the most often-quoted lines of his poetry and, as I have said, Zizek's pointing out that it no longer quite applies to present-day 'fanaticism' hardly constitutes any dazzling reversal of accepted opinion either. (He makes himself sound like a much cleverer polemicist than he is by flagrantly mis-describing Yeats's line as a 'diagnosis'; it clearly isn't and was never that; it was a line of poetry, describing an observed matter of social fact - 80 years ago).
The quotes from the great Frankfurt School theorists also seem to me to be applied so utterly out of context as to serve no defensible role in Zizek's pseudo-argument at all. I can certainly understand and sympathize with the impulse to describe the Islamist murderers of last Wednesday as 'fascists'. But the fact is, of course, that neither Benjamin nor Horkheimer - who had both thought long and hard about exactly what they were referring to when they used a term like 'Fascist' - would ever have accepted the application of their two quoted statements to the ideology of Al Qaida or ISIS, neither of which stands in any relation to capitalism that even distantly resembles the relation to it that Horkheimer suggested the German or Italian Fascism of the 1930s to stand to it in. "Islamo-Fascism' is not a scientific term - although it is certainly an emotionally understandable one.

[Anonymous No.5978452]

>>5978443
>and islam says
>islam says

what does this even mean

[Anonymous No.5978456]

>>5978407
>The left has always been a reactionary movement against liberty and freedom.
Hahahahaha

[Anonymous No.5978458]

>>5978437
Can you explain why the US still backs islamists in Syria and Libya then?

Can you explain why the most heroic resistance to isis has come from the Kurdistan Workers' Party?

Islamism has always been an ally of the West and that continues to this day

[Anonymous No.5978461]

>>5978456
How are those self-contradictory positive liberties treating you?

[Anonymous No.5978465]

>>5978461
>implying negative liberty isn't the most absurd and self contradictory idea in history

[Anonymous No.5978468]

>>5978452
islam, the koran, the hadiths, whatever, I don't give a shit, you understood what i meant

[Anonymous No.5978475]

>>5978465
It's not. It's just not that comfy, which for egalitarians is as good as contradictory.

[Anonymous No.5978477]

>>5978456
Dialogicuality of the spangent lines of correcionalist behavior converge in nuxil extremes. Grey chochliachs still fall under crasient cull waves. Grib drove it home in his renassient 'Dour Blanes'- "Coriginizang beings fel londernetch".

[Anonymous No.5978478]

>>5978458
>Can you explain why the US still backs islamists in Syria and Libya then?
What is divide and conquer?

>Can you explain why the most heroic resistance to isis has come from the Kurdistan Workers' Party?
>Kurds fight Islam so the left must have fundamentally different values to Islam
Nice reasoning buddy.

[Anonymous No.5978482]

>>5978477
*Coriginizant*

sorry

[Anonymous No.5978488]

>>5978456
>leftist cannot see the truth because he has been brainwashed with ideology

[Anonymous No.5978492]

>>5978478
I can give you example after example of western nations backing islamists.

Can you give me some examples of the left supporting islamists?

[Anonymous No.5978509]

>>5978246
doesn't nietzsche say that the rise of the last men will push the greatest people in society even further towards the overman, so in a way it is a good thing(except for the last men)

or is that something I've just heard

[Anonymous No.5978510]

>>5978492
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vln9D81eO60

[Anonymous No.5978525]

>>5978340
>>5978449

[Anonymous No.5978531]

>>5978510
>Liberals
>Leftist

[Anonymous No.5978538]

>>5978510
Ben Affleck is a hollywood actor and millionaire

do you seriously think he's a good example of revolutionary socialism we are discussing in the context of zizek?

[Anonymous No.5978556]

>>5978538
You're discussing Zizek? I think I've missed that somehow. All I've seen in this thread are a bunch of edgy /pol/ kids throwing their tired memes back and forth at one another.

[Anonymous No.5978563]

>>5978104

It's the fucking "And so on" every time I break away from reading in his voice I hit one of these nuggets of internal dialogue modifiers. Good news everyone, it's not only Zizek who does it.

[Anonymous No.5978567]

>>5978510
That is the most inane thing I've ever watched, is this the standard of public debate in America?

[Anonymous No.5978582]

>>5978531
See what I wrote here >>5978407

Modern "Liberals" are leftists.

[Anonymous No.5978584]

>>5978538
Zizek is a published author, populist meme and makes money on the free market, do you seriously think he's a good example in the context of revolutionary socialism?

[Anonymous No.5978597]

>>5978582
You think Barack Obama wants to destroy the bourgeois state?

You think the US democrats want dictatorship of the proletariat and workers control of the means of production?

Mate, please read more.

[Anonymous No.5978602]

>>5978597
Do you think Stalin did?

[Anonymous No.5978618]

>>5978602
Of course he did

[Anonymous No.5978620]

>>5978602
socialists btfo.

[Anonymous No.5978633]

>>5978620
>he thinks stalin is the definition of socialists

seriously read more you fucking incompetent

[Anonymous No.5978651]

>>5978602
He created a dictatorship of the proletariat and constructed a socialist economy with the goal of progressing to communism, so yeah.

[Anonymous No.5978661]

>>5978651
>wage labour is the dictatorship of the proletariat!!!!

kill yourself

[Anonymous No.5978667]

>>5978661
The fuck are you talking about? Dictatorship of the proletariat means the proletariat is the dominant class in society.

[Anonymous No.5978673]

>>5978667
>the proletariat is the dominant class in society as its labour is being exploited!!!!!!

kill yourself

[Anonymous No.5978681]

>>5978673
It's labour goes towards building socialism, you think the USSR could have transitioned to communism in 1917?

[Anonymous No.5978698]

>>5978681
No, I do not. Which simply shows the impossibility of "socialism in one country". The revolution failed and so Russian socialism, isolated, atrophied like a headless zombie into reactionary faeces.

btw: marx/engels made no distinction between socialism and communism in their writings.socialism as a transitional stage between captialism and communism is something stalin invented to legitimise the bureaucratic captivity of russia under their rule.

[Anonymous No.5978705]

>>5978681
>>5978651
>>5978597
Zizek confirmed to be posting in this thread.

[Anonymous No.5978724]

I think that provides a good analysis, thanks OP. This is the first thing I've read by Zizek that made me think he is actually smart. And yes, it is my favorite thing I've read about the killings so far. I think it correctly diagnoses the inability of liberals to deal with Islam.

While they are correct to recognize their complicity in perpetuating the conflict via global capitalism and war, refraining from posting offensive cartoons is not going to negate that harm and the focus on attitude rather than actual policy represents a false thing to fixate on rather than the real problem which is seen as being too hard to tackle. Capitalism itself, our narcissistic consumer culture spreading across the globe is always going to be seen as an assault on Islam in the same way it's an assault on all cultures.

It can kind of be seen in the ISIS kids who post funny memes and seem like western kids. They're being assimilated already in a weird way, yet they are the most barbaric and worst example of Islamic extremists yet. I definitely think the penetration of western media and constant barrage of "images of happy secular people" fuels a panic reaction that makes people defend their own culture all the more viciously, even as they seem to be helplessly overtaken by it.

[Anonymous No.5978728]

>>5978698
>a transitional stage between captialism and communism is something stalin invented to legitimise the bureaucratic captivity of russia under their rule.

>"Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation of the one into the other. Corresponding to this is also a political transition period in which the state can be nothing, but the revolutionary dictatorship of the proletariat" Karl Marx

>Between capitalist and communist society there lies the period of the revolutionary transformation

Trots pls

[Anonymous No.5978734]

>>5978340
>>5978449
That's actually a really fair and seemingly accurate critique of this article.

[Anonymous No.5978765]

>>5978734
stop responding to your own posts

[Anonymous No.5978769]

>>5978045
> The recent vicissitudes of Muslim fundamentalism confirm Walter Benjamin's old insight that “every rise of Fascism bears witness to a failed revolution”
I swear to God, he's said the exact same sentence in like three other pieces.

[Anonymous No.5978777]

>>5978769
I think he's said that in everything I've ever read by him, he's stop saying the end of the world/end of capitalism thing now though

[Anonymous No.5978779]

>>5978769
So?

[Anonymous No.5978789]

maybe I'm dumb but could someone explain me wich is the course of actions he proposes?

[Anonymous No.5978800]

>>5978449
I don't agree with the article either, but you sound like fucking Harold Bloom - "the great Frankfurt School theorists," "the long quotation he offers from Nietzsche is, I suppose, apposite..." Like, nigga, that argument could have fit into one paragraph, and you made it two full posts.

[Anonymous No.5978802]

>>5978789
To embrace radical leftism, whatever that means.