Šarli Ebdo

[anomander rejk]

Koje je po tebi rešenje?Vojno?Proterao bi te ljude?Neće moći. Čak ni vojno, uz svu savremenu tehnologiju ne možeš uništiti terorističke i gerilske pokrete, x primera imaš.

Što ne znači da ne treba da se i vojno bori protiv terorizma, ali nema rešenja bez političkog, društvenog rešenja...golom silom nećeš postići ništa, u stvari postićeš to da ISIL, Boko, Al Kaida i drugi uspeju u svom naumu, da stvore krug mržnje.

Takođe, valjalo bi i da malo Francuzi pogledaju u svoje dvorište, i svoje greške. Bombardovaše li ono skoro Libiju, jel ih Libija možda napala?

Mnogo je ovo kompleksno, najlakše je ko Sarkozi odma u priču o varvarima i divljacima, to neće rešiti problem.

[steins]

Ali taj krug mržnje već postoji. I on se neumitno širi. Ja se slažem s tobom da je nekakva inkluzija bolje rješenje ali do sada se to pokazalo kao ćorak. Alternativa je nekakva asimilacija, koja će opet naići na nož kako muslanskih zajednica tako i branitelja društvenih sloboda. I opet rizikuješ neki otpor. Treća opcija je nekakav kompromis koji je u ovom trenutku krajnje kontraproduktivan pošto će ga druga strana shvatiti samo lao znak slabosti

[Ryan Franco]

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

 

 

 

Slavoj Žižek on the Charlie Hebdo massacre: Are the worst really full of passionate intensity?  

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.

BY SLAVOJ ZIZEK PUBLISHED 

10 JANUARY, 2015 - 21:31

• 
  

 

French police at the Jewish supermarket in Paris where several people were taken hostage.

Now, when we are all in a state of shock after the killing spree in the Charlie Hebdo offices, it is the right moment to gather the courage to think. We should, of course, unambiguously condemn the killings as an attack on the very substance our freedoms, and condemn them without any hidden caveats (in the style of "Charlie Hebdo was nonetheless provoking and humiliating the Muslims too much"). But such pathos of universal solidarity is not enough – we should think further.

Such thinking has nothing whatsoever to do with the cheap relativisation of the crime (the mantra of "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. For these false Leftists, any critique of Islam is denounced as an expression of Western Islamophobia; Salman Rushdie was denounced for unnecessarily provoking Muslims and thus (partially, at least) responsible for the fatwa condemning him to death, etc. The result of such stance is what one can expect in such cases: the more the Western liberal Leftists probe into their guilt, the more they are accused by Muslim fundamentalists of being hypocrites who try to conceal their hatred of Islam. This constellation perfectly reproduces the paradox of the superego: the more you obey what the Other demands of you, the guiltier you are. It is as if the more you tolerate Islam, the stronger its pressure on you will be . . .

This is why I also find insufficient calls for moderation along the lines of Simon Jenkins's claim (in The Guardian on January 7) that our task is “not to overreact, not to over-publicise the aftermath. It is to treat each event as a passing accident of horror” – the attack on Charlie Hebdo was not a mere “passing accident of horror”. it followed a precise religious and political agenda and was as such clearly part of a much larger pattern. Of course we should not overreact, if by this is meant succumbing to blind Islamophobia – but we should ruthlessly analyse this pattern. 

What is much more needed than the demonisation of the terrorists into heroic suicidal fanatics is a debunking of this demonic myth. 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 effectively may appear that the split between the permissive First World and the fundamentalist reaction to it runs more and more along the lines of the opposition between leading a long satisfying life full of material and cultural wealth, and dedicating one's life to some transcendent Cause. Is this antagonism not the one between what Nietzsche called "passive" and "active" nihilism? We in the West are the Nietzschean Last Men, immersed in stupid daily pleasures, while the Muslim radicals are ready to risk everything, engaged in the struggle up to their self-destruction. William Butler Yeats’ “Second Coming” seems perfectly to render our present predicament: “The best lack all conviction, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” This is an excellent description of the current split between anemic liberals and impassioned fundamentalists. “The best” are no longer able fully to engage, while “the worst” engage in racist, religious, sexist fanaticism.

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.

It is here that Yeats’ diagnosis falls short of the present predicament: the passionate intensity of the terrorists bears witness to a lack of true conviction. How fragile the belief of a Muslim must be if he feels threatened by a stupid caricature in a weekly satirical newspaper? The fundamentalist Islamic terror isnot grounded in the terrorists’ conviction of their superiority and in their desire to safeguard their cultural-religious identity from the onslaught of global consumerist civilization. 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.

The recent vicissitudes of Muslim fundamentalism confirm Walter Benjamin's old insight that “every rise of Fascism bears witness to a failed revolution”: the rise of Fascism is the Left’s failure, but simultaneously a proof that there was a revolutionary potential, dissatisfaction, which the Left was not able to mobilize. And does the same not hold for today’s so-called “Islamo-Fascism”? Is the rise of radical Islamism not exactly correlative to the disappearance of the secular Left in Muslim countries? When, back in the Spring of 2009, Taliban took over the Swat valley in Pakistan, New York Times reported that they engineered "a class revolt that exploits profound fissures between a small group of wealthy landlords and their landless tenants". If, however, by “taking advantage” of the farmers’ plight, The Taliban are “raising alarm about the risks to Pakistan, which remains largely feudal,” what prevents liberal democrats in Pakistan as well as the US to similarly “take advantage” of this plight and try to help the landless farmers? The sad implication of this fact is that the feudal forces in Pakistan are the “natural ally” of the liberal democracy…

So what about the core values of liberalism: freedom, equality, etc.? The paradox is that liberalism itself is not strong enough to save them against the fundamentalist onslaught. Fundamentalism is a reaction – a false, mystifying, reaction, of course - against a real flaw of liberalism, and this is why it is again and again generated by liberalism. Left to itself, liberalism will slowly undermine itself – the only thing that can save its core values is a renewed Left. In order for this key legacy to survive, liberalism needs the brotherly help of the radical Left. THIS is the only way to defeat fundamentalism, to sweep the ground under its feet.

To think in response to the Paris killings means to drop the smug self-satisfaction of a permissive liberal and to accept that the conflict between liberal permissiveness and fundamentalism is ultimately a false conflict – a vicious cycle of two poles generating and presupposing each other. What Max Horkheimer had said about Fascism and capitalism already back in 1930s - those who do not want to talk critically about capitalism should also keep quiet about Fascism - should also be applied to today’s fundamentalism: those who do not want to talk critically about liberal democracy should also keep quiet about religious fundamentalism.

 

[Dagmar]

u ovakvoj situaciji nemaš neko pametnije rešenje a da bude ostvarivo. Priče o samosvesti su lepe za uho i optimistične ali nemaju mnogo veze sa realnošću.

Mene recimo mnogo više plaši gotovo nepostojeći stav muslimanskih zajednica koji osudjuje ovakve stvari. Ono što se ovih dana čuje od muftija i imama odnosno čita od komentara je jednostavno jezivo. Naročito što dolazi od muslimana koji žive i rade u Evropi.

 

 

Ma koji totalni rat, bez sumnje da ce ovi napadi naici na razumevanje i simpatije kod nekog dela muslimana, ali to i dalje ne znaci da je to dovoljno da se organizuju u vojsku. Za rat je potrebno da ti muslimansku populaciju otvoreno snazno podrzi vojno jaka strana sila, e pa u tom delu mi smo mnogo ugrozeniji nego Francuska ili bilo koja druga NATO zemlja, tj vec smo videli kako to izgleda.

 

Francuzi bi eventualno mogli malo da razmisle kako da organizuju zatvore tako da neko ko je u zatvoru zbog kradje, tipa ovog Kulibalija, vise nema izlaganje ljudima koji su tamo kao osvedoceni teroristi, npr. U principu da se odbrane da im poneko ponekad ne raznese nesto ne mogu skroz, ali mogu dosta da smanje, jer je potrebno puno preduslova da se stvori klasican terorista - izlozenost ovakvima (stvarno ne moraju da drze dzeparose u istom mestu kao ove radikalne), odlasci u Sirije i slicno (gde verovatno u 98% slucajeva vec znaju ko je tamo bio, pa ce to da bude zakonski uslov da se stave na no fly listu kao sto to Amerikanci rade) itd.

 

I to je to. Meni nekako smesno da mi brinemo za zemlje zapada po ovom pitanju.

 

I da, apsolutno mislim da ovo treba da ostane stvar zapada i njihovih sloboda, i da je potpuni skandal sto je Blic ono objavljivao posto kapiram da njihove  nemacke vlasnike boli uvo za bezbednost u Srbiji, cak bih se usudila da kazem da bi ih verovatno bas zabavilo da ovde bude nekih probelma, dok nasa cenjena vlast koja sve cenzurise ipak nece da se mesa u posao svojim nemackim gazdama (zna se ko kosi i ko vodu nosi, je li, ali bilo bi nekako lepo da ipak ne budemo opet i dalje zapadni nigger boy i po ovom pitanju, tj da nas oni uvaljuju u probleme, a onda nam se smeju dok mi jadni mislimo da ih branimo).

 

Mi nismo zemlja u kojoj postoji sloboda govora, pa da treba ovako da je branimo, mi cak nismo ni zemlja u kojoj postoji neka veca sloboda generalno jer nema slobode u zemlji koja je disfunkcionilna, poluraspadnuta, i jedva se krpi da odrzava neke osnovne funkcije drzave, a pritom ima ko zna koliko mudzahedina iz Bosne i lokalnih muslimana sa ratnim iskutvom i radikalizovanih, koji imaju pristup bilo cemu.

 

Sto se mene tice, neka zapadne zemlje brane slobode koje su osvojili, i treba, a mi daj da pokusamo prvo da dodjemo do slobode i drzave, pa cemo ih lasno braniti kad/ako se to ikad desi. Do tad nije realno da porobljeni i osiromaseni Srbi brane slobode bahatih i bogatih, koji im pritom j mater non-stop svaki dan vec zadnjih 25 godina.

[teacher]

How fragile the belief of an Islamist must be if he feels threatened by a stupid caricature

 

ključno. ako nečije verovanje može ugroziti karikatura toliko da je jedini izlaz vidi u ubistvu, onda je ta vera na klimavim nogama...

[InvisibleLight]

So what about the core values of liberalism: freedom, equality, etc.? The paradox is that liberalism itself is not strong enough to save them against the fundamentalist onslaught. Fundamentalism is a reaction – a false, mystifying, reaction, of course - against a real flaw of liberalism, and this is why it is again and again generated by liberalism. Left to itself, liberalism will slowly undermine itself – the only thing that can save its core values is a renewed Left. In order for this key legacy to survive, liberalism needs the brotherly help of the radical Left. THIS is the only way to defeat fundamentalism, to sweep the ground under its feet.

To think in response to the Paris killings means to drop the smug self-satisfaction of a permissive liberal and to accept that the conflict between liberal permissiveness and fundamentalism is ultimately a false conflict – a vicious cycle of two poles generating and presupposing each other. What Max Horkheimer had said about Fascism and capitalism already back in 1930s - those who do not want to talk critically about capitalism should also keep quiet about Fascism - should also be applied to today’s fundamentalism: those who do not want to talk critically about liberal democracy should also keep quiet about religious fundamentalism.

 

kljucno:)

[nautilus]

Koje je po tebi rešenje?Vojno?Proterao bi te ljude?Neće moći. Čak ni vojno, uz svu savremenu tehnologiju ne možeš uništiti terorističke i gerilske pokrete, x primera imaš.

Što ne znači da ne treba da se i vojno bori protiv terorizma, ali nema rešenja bez političkog, društvenog rešenja...golom silom nećeš postići ništa, u stvari postićeš to da ISIL, Boko, Al Kaida i drugi uspeju u svom naumu, da stvore krug mržnje.

Takođe, valjalo bi i da malo Francuzi pogledaju u svoje dvorište, i svoje greške. Bombardovaše li ono skoro Libiju, jel ih Libija možda napala?

Mnogo je ovo kompleksno, najlakše je ko Sarkozi odma u priču o varvarima i divljacima, to neće rešiti problem.

 

Rešenje je kombinovano. Protiv grupa kao što su ISIS i Boko haram ne postoji drugo rešenje osim vojnog. Ali taj rat nije moguće dobiti dronovima sa sigurne razdaljine ili bombardovanjem sa 5000 metara visine. Ako im ubiju jednog šefa, pojaviće se drugi. Potrebno je zaprljati ruke na terenu. Druga stvar koja je potrebna jeste saradnja sa lokalnim stanovništvom u borbi protiv tih grupa. Ne mislim samo na naoružavanje ili obuku. Potrebnije su škole i bolnice, struja, sigurnost, nekakva ekonomska perspektiva. I treća, vrlo bitna stvar, potrebno je da se prekine svaka saradnja sa takvim grupama u borbi protiv nekakvih zajedničkih neprijatelja. 

 

Da bi se dobili ti ratovi potrebni su vreme i upornost. To će trajati duže od jednog predsedničkog mandata.

[Krampa]

Rešenje je kombinovano. Protiv grupa kao što su ISIS i Boko haram ne postoji drugo rešenje osim vojnog. Ali taj rat nije moguće dobiti dronovima sa sigurne razdaljine ili bombardovanjem sa 5000 metara visine. Ako im ubiju jednog šefa, pojaviće se drugi. Potrebno je zaprljati ruke na terenu. Druga stvar koja je potrebna jeste saradnja sa lokalnim stanovništvom u borbi protiv tih grupa. Ne mislim samo na naoružavanje ili obuku. Potrebnije su škole i bolnice, struja, sigurnost, nekakva ekonomska perspektiva. I treća, vrlo bitna stvar, potrebno je da se prekine svaka saradnja sa takvim grupama u borbi protiv nekakvih zajedničkih neprijatelja. 

 

Da bi se dobili ti ratovi potrebni su vreme i upornost. To će trajati duže od jednog predsedničkog mandata.

 

poznavajuci ameriku i zapadnu politiku najbolje resenje bi bilo da se muslimani sami poubijaju. 

Edited January 11, 2015 by Krampa

[Krampa]

Meni je izgledalo tuzno.

 

Inace evo kako razmisljaju evropljani o islamu.

Cifre su ogromne za sve zemlje, skoro 50% za tolerantnu Svedsku.

 

 

u danskoj bi procenat bez problema legao na nekih 85%.

[braca]

Na netu danas se pojavio video u kojem terorista iz marketa vrti svoju propagandu... snimano je izgleda posle napada na CH i policajku...

 

[nautilus]

poznavajuci ameriku i zapadnu politiku najbolje resenje da se muslimani sami poubijaju. 

 

i napraviće još goru stvar. stavljati znak jednakosti izmedju boko harama i isisa sa jedne strane i svih muslimana sa druge je najveća glupost koju mogu uraditi. na unutrašnjem planu to bi bila katastrofa i dovelo bi do daljeg jačanja izolacionizma i fašizma na zapadu.

 

drugo, lokalni šef, zapadni saveznik, se vrlo lako može otrgnuti kontroli i pretvoriti u isto ono zlo protiv koga su se borili, samo što će sada imati i američko naoružanje. zatim, lokalni šef baš i neće biti poštovalac ljudskih prava pa postoji opasnost da će u svojoj borbi protiv fundamentalista koristiti metode (torturu, ubistva) koje će generisati još više zla a za koje će biti optužen zapad kao njegov nadređeni. i onda će se sve to opet vratiti sa kamatom.

[Weenie Pooh]

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

 

Odličan tekst, osim što je značajnim delom straw man argument. Ja još nikad nisam video da se liberal permissiveness odnosi na islamski fundamentalizam. Ako se ističe razlika između fundamentalista i 1.6 milijarde ljudi, to ne znači da se za fundamentaliste traži izgovor, ili da im se nudi tolerancija, ili da se očekuje od muslimanske većine da taj problem sama od sebe i prirodnim putem reši.

 

Permissiveness je IMHO upućen ljudskoj potrebi za verom kao takvom. Da, jednog dana će ljudi odbaciti taj izmaštani životni oslonac, ali do tog dana treba im štaku tolerisati. Ako pokušavaš da im je na silu izmakneš, neće magično početi da hodaju na sopstveni pogon, nego će se još grčevitije držati za nju.

[Прслин]

Опа, Ниче, Јејтс, заблуде левице, њен страх да каже истину јер се плаши етикете исламофобије, поклапање простора екстремне левице и екстремног ислама... Избаци ли се пар фразетина са краја текста и једно пословично шупље "лажна левица" са почетка (све су левице лажне јер та идеализована постоји само у главама теоретичара), коначно долазимо до Жижековог текста који је мени нешто више од guilty pleasure читања левичара који лепо пише.

[iDemo]

Džaba što je nafta sve jeftinija, izgleda da nema cenu.

Nema veze, vazno da Gazprom, navodno™, kontrolishe 20% proizvodnje...

[Kampokei]

u danskoj bi procenat bez problema legao na nekih 85%.

 

I u drugim zemljama verovatno, kad ljudi ne bi dobro znali sta je "drustveno pozeljan" odgovor. A mozda bas Skandinavci to znaju i o tome paze bolje nego iko drugi.