Teroristički napad u Parizu

[Pontijak]

omiljena djacka fora, dojava o bombi da bi se odlozio ispit

[Marcus Wulffings]

zar i kembridžu, kraj bostona grada?!??!

[adam]

ja se nadam da ce ova panika lagano prestati i da ce se ostaviti specijalcima da sprecavaju teroriste a da ce se makar pokusati poraditi na peglanju odnosa bliski istok - zapad. nema drugog resenja. ovo osvetnicko bombardovanje bez plana i cilja je samo produzenje agonije. hajde videcemo ima li sanse da iko uopste kaze da sukobljene strane moraju da se nadju. sumnjam... 

 

edit - specijalci da sprecavaju teroristicke akcije

Edited November 16, 2015 by adam

[Anduril]

www.youtube.com

 

www.twitter.com

 

www.facebook.com

 

Cenim da YT i FB finansiraju imame, dzamije, skolarine, televizije, novinske agencije i sve ono na sta daje KSA. To je baza (inace bi se svaki user zarazio ID virusom) a FB sluzi samo finalnoj radikalizaciji. 

[dillinger]

www.youtube.com

 

www.twitter.com

 

www.facebook.com

 

Mora da i oni u Maoči Gornjoj hrane po dvadesetoro dece od klikova na netu. 

Edited November 16, 2015 by dillinger

[Singer]

[FERNOUX H]

 

Dakle pozz za Hantingtona...

 

 

Slušam neke klince na France 24 koji su valjda pozitivno lice Evrope, razmišljaju u tom ključu - "mi smo slobodni, volimo život, otvoreni smo, veseli, zato nas mrze" - dakle razlike vide kao sukob kulturnih i civilizacijskih koncepcija a ne kao bunt nezadovoljne omladine koju treba razumeti.

 

 

France 24 nije nikakva desnicarska ispostava, u stvari je suprotno od toga i stavise su se polomili da posalju poruku protiv rasta nacionalizma i ksenofobije posle svega.

Problem je u necem drugom - ni kroz promociju otvorenosti, ni idealizovanog evropskog multikulturalizma ni socijal-demokratije ni solidarnosti nece biti mesta za vrednosti koje zastupaju radikalizovani islamisti. Ovo nije napad na desnu i malogradjansku Francusku nego multinacionalizovanu i laicku Francusku, i tako je u javnosti i shvacen.

TT via LG G3

 

 

Upravo to. Baš kao što Žižek stalno ukazuje, vizije Hantingtona i Fukujame danas su savršeno komplementarne, obe su na delu. Inače, objavio je novi članak:

 

There should be no “deeper understanding” of the ISIS terrorists (in the sense of “their deplorable acts are nonetheless reactions to European brutal interventions”); they should be characterized as what they are: the Islamo-Fascist counterpart of the European anti-immigrant racists—the two are the two sides of the same coin. Let’s bring class struggle back—and the only way to do it is to insist on global solidarity of the exploited.

 

Another taboo we must address concerns norms and rules. It is a fact that most of the refugees come from a culture that is incompatible with Western European notions of human rights. Tolerance as a solution (mutual respect of each other’s sensitivities) obviously doesn’t work: fundamentalist Muslims find it impossible to bear our blasphemous images and reckless humor, which we consider a part of our freedoms. Western liberals, likewise, find it impossible to bear many practices of Muslim culture.

In short, things explode when members of a religious community consider the very way of life of another community as blasphemous or injurious, whether or not it constitutes a direct attack on their religion. This is the case when Muslim extremists attack gays and lesbians in the Netherlands and Germany, and it is the case when traditional French citizens view a woman covered by a burka as an attack on their French identity, which is exactly why they find it impossible to remain silentwhen they encounter a covered woman in their midst.

 

To curb this propensity, one has to do two things. First, formulate a minimum set of norms obligatory for everyone that includes religious freedom, protection of individual freedom against group pressure, the rights of women, etc.—without fear that such norms will appear “Eurocentric.” Second, within these limits, unconditionally insist on the tolerance of different ways of life. And if norms and communication don’t work, then the force of law should be applied in all its forms.

 

Another taboo that must be overcome involves the equation of any reference to the European emancipatory legacy to cultural imperialism and racism. In spite of the (partial) responsibility of Europe for the situation from which refugees are fleeing, the time has come to drop leftist mantras critiquing Eurocentrism.

 

Global capitalism has no problem in accommodating itself to a plurality of local religions, cultures and traditions. So the irony of anti-Eurocentrism is that, on behalf of anti-colonialism, one criticizes the West at the very historical moment when global capitalism no longer needs Western cultural values in order to smoothly function. In short, one tends to reject Western cultural values at the very time when, critically reinterpreted, many of those values (egalitarianism, fundamental rights, freedom of the press, the welfare-state, etc.) can serve as a weapon against capitalist globalization. Did we already forget that the entire idea of Communist emancipation as envisaged by Marx is a thoroughly “Eurocentric” one?

 

The next taboo worth leaving behind is that any critique of the Islamic right is an example of “Islamophobia.” Enough of this pathological fear of many Western liberal leftists who worry about being deemed guilty of Islamophobia. For example, Salman Rushdie was denounced for unnecessarily provoking Muslims and thus (partially, at least) responsible for the fatwacondemning him to death. The result of such a stance is what one can expect in such cases: The more Western liberal leftists wallow in their guilt, the more they are accused by Muslim fundamentalists of being hypocrites who try to conceal their hatred of Islam.

And one can be sure that the same holds for the influx of immigrants: The more Western Europe will be open to them, the more it will be made to feel guilty that it did not accept even more of them. There will never be enough of them. And with those who are here, the more tolerance one displays towards their way of life, the more one will be made guilty for not practicing enough tolerance.

 

The worries and cares of so-called ordinary people affected by the refugees are oft dismissed as an expression of racist prejudices if not outright neo-Fascism. Should we really allow PEGIDA & company to be the only way open to them?

 

 

we should also add to this insight that the multiculturalist or anti-colonialist’s defense of different “ways of life” is also false. Such defenses cover up the antagonisms within each of these particular ways of life by justifying acts of brutality, sexism and racism as expressions of a particular way of life that we have no right to measure with foreign, i.e. Western values.

 

 

Critique of religious fundamentalism in Europe and the United States is an old topic with endless variation. The very pervasiveness of the self-satisfactory way that the liberal intelligentsia make fun of fundamentalists covers up the true problem, which is its hidden class dimension. The counterpart of this “making-fun-of” is the pathetic solidarity with the refugees and the no less false and pathetic self-humiliation of our self-admonition. The real task is to build bridges between “our” and “their” working classes. Without this unity (which includes the critique and self-critique of both sides) class struggle proper regresses into a clash of civilizations. That’s why yet another taboo should be left behind.

 

It is fully legitimate to raise the question of whether there are features in their religion and culture which open up the space for brutality against women without blaming Islam as such (which is in itself no more misogynistic than Christianity). In many Islamic countries and communities one can observe consonance between violence against women, the subordination of women and their exclusion from public life.

 

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18605/breaking-the-taboos-in-the-wake-of-paris-attacks-the-left-must-embrace-its

Edited November 16, 2015 by FERNOUX H

[3opge]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Upravo to. Baš kao što Žižek stalno ukazuje, vizije Hantingtona i Fukujame danas su savršeno komplementarne, obe su na delu. Inače, objavio je novi članak:

 

There should be no “deeper understanding” of the ISIS terrorists (in the sense of “their deplorable acts are nonetheless reactions to European brutal interventions”); they should be characterized as what they are: the Islamo-Fascist counterpart of the European anti-immigrant racists—the two are the two sides of the same coin. Let’s bring class struggle back—and the only way to do it is to insist on global solidarity of the exploited.

 

Another taboo we must address concerns norms and rules. It is a fact that most of the refugees come from a culture that is incompatible with Western European notions of human rights. Tolerance as a solution (mutual respect of each other’s sensitivities) obviously doesn’t work: fundamentalist Muslims find it impossible to bear our blasphemous images and reckless humor, which we consider a part of our freedoms. Western liberals, likewise, find it impossible to bear many practices of Muslim culture.

In short, things explode when members of a religious community consider the very way of life of another community as blasphemous or injurious, whether or not it constitutes a direct attack on their religion. This is the case when Muslim extremists attack gays and lesbians in the Netherlands and Germany, and it is the case when traditional French citizens view a woman covered by a burka as an attack on their French identity, which is exactly why they find it impossible to remain silentwhen they encounter a covered woman in their midst.

 

To curb this propensity, one has to do two things. First, formulate a minimum set of norms obligatory for everyone that includes religious freedom, protection of individual freedom against group pressure, the rights of women, etc.—without fear that such norms will appear “Eurocentric.” Second, within these limits, unconditionally insist on the tolerance of different ways of life. And if norms and communication don’t work, then the force of law should be applied in all its forms.

 

Another taboo that must be overcome involves the equation of any reference to the European emancipatory legacy to cultural imperialism and racism. In spite of the (partial) responsibility of Europe for the situation from which refugees are fleeing, the time has come to drop leftist mantras critiquing Eurocentrism.

 

Global capitalism has no problem in accommodating itself to a plurality of local religions, cultures and traditions. So the irony of anti-Eurocentrism is that, on behalf of anti-colonialism, one criticizes the West at the very historical moment when global capitalism no longer needs Western cultural values in order to smoothly function. In short, one tends to reject Western cultural values at the very time when, critically reinterpreted, many of those values (egalitarianism, fundamental rights, freedom of the press, the welfare-state, etc.) can serve as a weapon against capitalist globalization. Did we already forget that the entire idea of Communist emancipation as envisaged by Marx is a thoroughly “Eurocentric” one?

 

The next taboo worth leaving behind is that any critique of the Islamic right is an example of “Islamophobia.” Enough of this pathological fear of many Western liberal leftists who worry about being deemed guilty of Islamophobia. For example, Salman Rushdie was denounced for unnecessarily provoking Muslims and thus (partially, at least) responsible for the fatwacondemning him to death. The result of such a stance is what one can expect in such cases: The more Western liberal leftists wallow in their guilt, the more they are accused by Muslim fundamentalists of being hypocrites who try to conceal their hatred of Islam.

And one can be sure that the same holds for the influx of immigrants: The more Western Europe will be open to them, the more it will be made to feel guilty that it did not accept even more of them. There will never be enough of them. And with those who are here, the more tolerance one displays towards their way of life, the more one will be made guilty for not practicing enough tolerance.

 

The worries and cares of so-called ordinary people affected by the refugees are oft dismissed as an expression of racist prejudices if not outright neo-Fascism. Should we really allow PEGIDA & company to be the only way open to them?

 

 

we should also add to this insight that the multiculturalist or anti-colonialist’s defense of different “ways of life” is also false. Such defenses cover up the antagonisms within each of these particular ways of life by justifying acts of brutality, sexism and racism as expressions of a particular way of life that we have no right to measure with foreign, i.e. Western values.

 

 

Critique of religious fundamentalism in Europe and the United States is an old topic with endless variation. The very pervasiveness of the self-satisfactory way that the liberal intelligentsia make fun of fundamentalists covers up the true problem, which is its hidden class dimension. The counterpart of this “making-fun-of” is the pathetic solidarity with the refugees and the no less false and pathetic self-humiliation of our self-admonition. The real task is to build bridges between “our” and “their” working classes. Without this unity (which includes the critique and self-critique of both sides) class struggle proper regresses into a clash of civilizations. That’s why yet another taboo should be left behind.

 

It is fully legitimate to raise the question of whether there are features in their religion and culture which open up the space for brutality against women without blaming Islam as such (which is in itself no more misogynistic than Christianity). In many Islamic countries and communities one can observe consonance between violence against women, the subordination of women and their exclusion from public life.

 

http://inthesetimes.com/article/18605/breaking-the-taboos-in-the-wake-of-paris-attacks-the-left-must-embrace-its

 

 

 

ovde je skoro svaka teza pogresna, ovakvu gomilu sranja u kome dominiraju silovana relativizacija, nasilna simetrija i cisto bulaznjenje skoro nisam video.

[Tsai]

Nalupetao se za medalju stvarno

[FERNOUX H]

Jedino ovo za militarizaciju, sada kada razumem predlog, mi je malo... Mada nisam čitao Džejmsona tako da još uvek nisam siguran da razumem. Ali generalna linija je ok: hajde da se otarasimo starih tabua, da ispravno sagledamo nove okolnosti, i pokušamo da sredimo ovaj nered da to ne bi uradili neki Nacionalni Frontovi umesto nas.

 

Naročito ova kritika kritike evrocentrizma, patronizujuće-tolerantnog odnosa prema muslimanima, itd. kao i volja da se rizikuje da se da neki konkretan predlog (pa makar i da ljudi po pedeseti put govore kako je Žižek poludeo) - ja tu vidim jedan veliki pomak. Ovo sa Evropskim nasleđem i "imperijalizmom" je po meni najbitnije, to su tabui koje sada stvarno treba odbaciti, i zato sam postavio i onaj poster Podemosa jer mislim da tu, sa tom porukom pogađa u centar.

Edited November 16, 2015 by FERNOUX H

[3opge]

It is fully legitimate to raise the question of whether there are features in their religion and culture which open up the space for brutality against women without blaming Islam as such (which is in itself no more misogynistic than Christianity). 

 

 

ovo je sasvim dovoljno da bi se shvatilo o kakvoj se grandioznoj budali radi.

[Аврам Гојић]

fernoux

 

U kom delu teksta Žižek kritikuje kritiku tolerantnog odnosa prema muslimanima?

 

Čak i ovako skrnav tekst je poziv na očuvanje verske tolerancije.

 

Što se tiče "odbacivanja tabua", to je čist denkverbot, kao i svaki drugi pokušaj da se drugačije (ili svoje nekadašnje) mišljenje tumači kao posledica tabua, dakle ritualnog otklona od razmišljanja.

Edited November 16, 2015 by Аврам Гојић

[frn1782]

Da to je ta gradjanska (lol) levica koja dudla globalnom imperijalizmu i zato je marginalizovana (skoro) svuda na zapadu.

[FERNOUX H]

Da to je ta gradjanska (lol) levica koja dudla globalnom imperijalizmu i zato je marginalizovana (skoro) svuda na zapadu.

 

 

?

 

Avrame, editovao sam post sad. Treba imati u vidu jednu stvar, i dodati je ovoj kritici: "ljudska prava" se često vide kao homogeni fenomen, a ona to nisu. I ja upadam u tu zamku ponekad. "Tolerancija" i "poštovanje  različitosti" su deo repertoara savremene ideologije liberalizma, to su sve pojmovi koji ulaze u javni diskurs sa globalnom ofanzivom liberalnog kapitalizma, i kao takvi se kritikuju. Način na koji mi danas vidimo ljudska prava, dominantno određuje ova ofanziva i ideološki zaokreti koje je ona prouzrokovala. Ljudska prava u načelu nisu jednaka "toleranciji" (iako ovaj diskurs samo pojačava neke protivrečnosti već sadržane u ideologiji ljudskih prava). Marks je objašnjavao licemerje političkih prava, ali mu je ipak najvažnije bilo da pokaže zašto je bitno da ih svi socijalisti podrže. Savremeni teoretičari ipak kritikuju nešto drugo, a to je savremena ideologija ljudskih prava, koja se vrti oko nekih sasvim drugih pojmova i ima drugačije implikacije.

 

Ako će biti jasnije,hteo sam da kažem "kritikuje multikulturalizam". Pritom ne predlaže ništa specijalno novo, već je cilj ovih mera isključivo da spreči anti-imigrantsku histeriju i trijumf desnog fundamentalizma.

Edited November 16, 2015 by FERNOUX H

[dillinger]

 

 

Another taboo that must be overcome involves the equation of any reference to the European emancipatory legacy to cultural imperialism and racism. In spite of the (partial) responsibility of Europe for the situation from which refugees are fleeing, the time has come to drop leftist mantras critiquing Eurocentrism.

 

Global capitalism has no problem in accommodating itself to a plurality of local religions, cultures and traditions. So the irony of anti-Eurocentrism is that, on behalf of anti-colonialism, one criticizes the West at the very historical moment when global capitalism no longer needs Western cultural values in order to smoothly function. In short, one tends to reject Western cultural values at the very time when, critically reinterpreted, many of those values (egalitarianism, fundamental rights, freedom of the press, the welfare-state, etc.) can serve as a weapon against capitalist globalization. Did we already forget that the entire idea of Communist emancipation as envisaged by Marx is a thoroughly “Eurocentric” one?

 

 

 

Meni ovo do jaja. Iako je načelno u pravu u drugom citiranom pasusu (kapitalizmu zaista nisu potrebne zapadne vrednosti za širenje i promociju), da li je po njemu globalni kapitalizam proterao ljude iz Sirije? Možda je vreme da Žižek odbaci tabu kako su današnji antiimperijalisti isključivo marksisti.