'The Most Dangerous Philosopher in the West': Welcome to the Slavoj Zizek Show

[sysop]

In the midst of a crisis of capitalism, the Western underground is rediscovering communism. Its star is the Slovenian philosopher Slavoj Zizek, who mixes Marxism with pop culture and psychoanalysis. His appearances offer stand-up comedy for a radical leftist avant-garde.

http://www.spiegel.de/international/...705164,00.html

[BTraven]

Since only a few have the time to read his books which, by the way, seem to be very difficult to follow it would have been quite nice had the Spiegel delivered a summarisation of his works instead of an home story which, so my feeling, would have been really restricted to his place where he lives had he owned a villa on Cote d’ Azur. However, he has only a small flat, so the idea to accompany him on his travel to Berlin was a good decision but after reading the article I know more about the person than about his thesis. What distinguishes him from the other two luminaries of Marxism except envy and an healthy rivalry?

[johnmoseley]

I'm sorry, but it's worse even than BTraven says. The author appears to dislike Zizek hugely, but to offer no subtantive criticism, just a lot of snide insinuation and various leering attempts to make him and his colleagues look absurd. Apparently the work itself can be dismissed both on the grounds that it's too abstruse to be of interest or use to ordinary people AND on the grounds that it's sexy and poppy and fun to read. Sounds like the author's making excuses to me. And he tries to make his points while being, himself, both poppy and populist (beer and football -- now that's something we can all understand), but, sadly, without being very much fun.

Moving to the photo gallery, the pictures of Zizek soon give way to statements by him on the failures of western democracy illustrated by images of Soviet troops. As rhetoric, this juxtaposition is both disgusting and embarrassingly sophomoric. The support it implies, simplistically, for Soviet communism, is simply not to be found in Zizek's writing. I refer you to his short and entertaining work, 'Did someone say totalitarianism?' so you can experience for yourselves his clear revulsion for Stalinism and the Khmer Rouge.

It might be too much for the writers and editors of Der Spiegel to completely understand Zizek's positions, which are complex and often counter-intuitive, but it doesn't seem unreasonable to expect grown-up people to be able to grasp that just because he's critical of our own system, it doesn't mean he's an apologist for totalitarians. I suppose you could be forgiven on the grounds that Zizek still refers to himself as a communist, but, honestly, it shouldn't have taken you more than half an hour searching online to discover that that absolutely does not make him a defender of the old eastern bloc.

The quote on Holocaust comedies is also out of context and misleading.

In short, this is a hatchet job of which everyone involved should be thoroughly ashamed.

[johnmoseley]

In fact, here's Zizek's piece on Holocaust comedies, though the quote attributed to him in the photo gallery does not appear in it. http://www.lacan.com/zizekholocaust.htm

[BTraven]

Originally Posted by johnmoseley

I'm sorry, but it's worse even than BTraven says. The author appears to dislike Zizek hugely, but to offer no subtantive criticism, just a lot of snide insinuation and various leering attempts to make him and his colleagues look absurd. Apparently the work itself can be dismissed both on the grounds that it's too abstruse to be of interest or use to ordinary people AND on the grounds that it's sexy and poppy and fun to read. Sounds like the author's making excuses to me. And he tries to make his points while being, himself, both poppy and populist (beer and football -- now that's something we can all understand), but, sadly, without being very much fun.

You are right – despite spending a lot of time with him and probably reading same books by him as well as same biographies, I think the English one on Wiki would be sufficient, I believe to make out from the text the author did not get on well with him which would be no surprise to me given the circumstance that only a few will enjoy his presence over a longer period. Though it is quite hard being together with him he focuses too much on his personality, especially the cult he believes Zisek created deliberately to make him more popular. He does not write why he is so appealing to young people. Perhaps, he should have asked some of them during the conference in Berlin.

[BTraven]

Originally Posted by esperonto

You can watch a lot of videos of him speaking on youtube. Many of them are in terribly garbled English, but what you can make out, he says abrupt stuff like "vegetarians are degenerates" and has a very brazen manner. I dont particularly like that he has spent so much time with American private schools. I think he learned his George Bush arrogance at American private schools, in partucilar probably at the New School for Social research in New York. Shudder to think what secret societies he joined. In any case, not my idea of communism, but for a side-show freak philosopher, he is top notch.

Just another European elitest who lived in New York. I wish I had never lived in New York or Europe, that I had just stayed in other cities more disconected from Europe and maintained a playful view of things where you can experiment and do things without these strangely conservative elitests who masqeurade as liberals. I would hate to see what wierd agressive form of elitest communism this Zizek guy would make.

Its a contradiction in terms: communism for an elite. It goes against the whole idea of "communality" to have an elite. Thats what was wrong with Stalinism. They formed an elite, which engaged in things like playing tennis while peasants starved. I think his gulag jokes are no lie. I don't see why Russians like Stalin even now. Whatever happened to Marx or even Trotsky or Lenin? Why do they blow up a big photo of Stalin and put it in red square? Because the Russians are upperclass. They are bourgeoisie, and Stalin represents their fake communist capitalist elitism.

Stalin was furthermore not a Russian at all but a Georgian. They should hang up Lenin, who was actually a Russian.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedi...chishchaet.jpg

I think it is quite hard to watching him. And the species of Germans who focus so much on pronunciation that persons from nationalities whose mother languages make it impossible for them to hide their identity will probably indulge in a feeling of superiority when listening to him.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...-the-end-times

By the way – in contrast to capitalism many people who regarded themselves as elite found themselves later in Gulag. Zizek joked about the deep fall, too. It is something that never has happened to capitalist.

[BTraven]

An interesting article worth reading by him because there is lot of truth in it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ghtwing-europe

[esperonto]

Originally Posted by BTraven

An interesting article worth reading by him because there is lot of truth in it.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...ghtwing-europe

Its an interesting article. He doesnt go into the real causes of immigration though. He only points out how people are reacting and gives a description. Why for instance are immigrants suddenly braving Europe? What is happening globally that is suddenly bringing immigrants into the Northern European Sphere? What is happening is Free Trade Agreements, international trade. Also previous colonialism, but the World Bank, and all capitalist institutions that seek to privatize the resources, the water, the electricity, and the healthcare of people in the developing world, and especially when people are displaced due to World Bank funding weird projects, and working without enough pay or safety, you have immigration and the dissolution of national borders. Gloria la Riva said:

Immigration is a natural outgrowth of imperialism and the forced uneven economic development of nations. "Free trade" agreements have eliminated national borders to enrich the capitalists, while the capitalists have erected borders against humans displaced by the effects of global capitalism.
http://www.ontheissues.org/2008/Glor...Free_Trade.htm

Its only through understanding the true causes that people can face the issues. Unfortunately, moderate liberal Europe rejects any protests against IMF, G8, and World Bank as delinquent. Thus the people who are actually protesting the causes of immigration are faced with the futility of dealing with the passive bourgeoisie.

The best evidence of this is that after the American recession, people returned to Brazil, and they are quite happy in Brazil, provided they have money. I don't think people are immigrating because they like Europe or the USA. In many cases coming to USA or Europe makes them depressed. They dont want the American dream or to live with Europeans, rather they are displaced by global capitalism and trade. In many cases, Latin American nations are so manipulated by the USA, that their greatest protest is to immigrate to the United States.

Of course for the average white person of low intelligence, this is far too logical and reasonable for them to grasp. The Eurotrash want to have fun and not make sense. When they immigrated to America, they became white trash who have faith. I have discovered a connection between Eurotrash and their hatred of logic and the American trash with their love of faith over reason. I think this issue of non-linear biased thinking is what results in normal people being unable to deal with the truth about immigration, and many of them resorting to feelings of "pride", with the neglect of causality. These whites are ultimately easy to control by their corrupt upperclass. The corrupt upperclass whites make all of the problems for the lower class whites, who in turn blame non-whites. This may be the result of some unconscious knowledge in the lower class whites, that upperclass whites are making crazy deals with rich non-white foreigners, like Bush and the Saudis.

These people just want to have their cake and eat it too. Its a typical aristocratic eurotrash mentality.

[BTraven]

Originally Posted by esperonto

Its an interesting article. He doesnt go into the real causes of immigration though. He only points out how people are reacting and gives a description. Why for instance are immigrants suddenly braving Europe? What is happening globally that is suddenly bringing immigrants into the Northern European Sphere? What is happening is Free Trade Agreements, international trade. Also previous colonialism, but the World Bank, and all capitalist institutions that seek to privatize the resources, the water, the electricity, and the healthcare of people in the developing world, and especially when people are displaced due to World Bank funding weird projects, and working without enough pay or safety, you have immigration and the dissolution of national borders. Gloria la Riva said:

You are right – it was not his intention to declare how immigration has been developed but just to explain how mainstream politicians have responded to the broad support which xenophobic books and measure got by the public. They resort to racism light. Light is very often used by tobacco concerns to give potential customers the impression that smoking does not harm your health. A light anti-Semitism will not cause any pogroms, however, could it be quite useful because it is an ideal instrument to direct the anger people have given inability of politicians to improve the economy to the minorities. In a discussion in the forum of the Guardian about the “Jud Süss” movie it was mentioned that the first film produced in UK (1934) had been censored in order to calm Hitler since there was too much anti-Semitism in it.
I think Zizeks main point is to indicate readers what happens at the moments as well as how it is to be evaluated.

[esperonto]

Originally Posted by BTraven

You are right – it was not his intention to declare how immigration has been developed but just to explain how mainstream politicians have responded to the broad support which xenophobic books and measure got by the public. They resort to racism light. Light is very often used by tobacco concerns to give potential customers the impression that smoking does not harm your health. A light anti-Semitism will not cause any pogroms, however, could it be quite useful because it is an ideal instrument to direct the anger people have given inability of politicians to improve the economy to the minorities. In a discussion in the forum of the Guardian about the “Jud Süss” movie it was mentioned that the first film produced in UK (1934) had been censored in order to calm Hitler since there was too much anti-Semitism in it.
I think Zizeks main point is to indicate readers what happens at the moments as well as how it is to be evaluated.

Yes, they are scapegoating minorities. Zizek is Jewish I think. He always rants about Judaism. Europeans have always had antisemitism. The reduction of antisemitism in the USA may be that it was culturally removed somehow.

I am not an anti-Semite, but from my own studies and knowledge, much of which is not popularly public, I have found some things I dislike about Zionism. But I do not posit a Jewish gene or anything weird like that! The Zionists are of course vicious control freaks, who want to operate under the cloak of darkness, but no politician has told me this. I have merely observed it. Its all too obvious in the USA. People like Joe Lieberman who want the president to have the ability to turn off the internet, to have a kill switch. Lieberman is a Zionist. You can see he married a woman named "Hadassah", which he thought would be funny, because it is the name of the women's Zionist org in USA. Thats a strange reason to be interested in a woman!

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joe_Lieberman

If only they would not want to control the internet. I am a strong advocate of internet freedom of information. Also, I dont know how they can have a kill switch on the internet. It sounds far fetched. It implies having a court order to force all telephone companies to shut off service. Lieberman also is against violence in videogames. Some games zionists like though:

http://www.inminds.com/article.php?id=10469

There has never been a proven connection between violence in video games and real violence! Either someone is violent or not. His hatred of video games and his desire to turn off the internet, shows he is merely a conservative plotter, who wants to operate under the "it takes a village to raise a child" mentality, that these adults ("dorks" is what they really are) think they know what is good for everyone is appalling, and can only distort the people's sense of reality by spreading a false communal mentality, while operating under capitalism's dog-eat-dog justice.

I think that the Zionists dont want me to see this heavy metal video. It is too much reminding them of the video game violence and the bulldozers that crush the houses of the Palestinians and the spine of Rachel Corrie.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yb_cY...eature=related

I have a theory, did Jews create also Protestantism? It would make sense, because they didn't get along with Catholics. They needed Protestants, so they invented a different version of Christianity to change Catholicism. I think Christians live off of the hate they cause in other people. Zionist jews enjoy being hated as well. Like that jewish girl I read about who painted swatikas on her door at college and pretended to be a victim of anti-semitism. The school put cameras in the hall. And they caught her painting them on camera! These religious people feed off of hate. Christians like being hated as well. Its rather childish. Its part of the general self baiting scheme in the USA. Evangelicals do it all the time, playing the victim.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eLt5U...xt=1& index=8