I am happy to hear that some of Slavoj Zizek’s best friends are Jews--though I wonder if any of them have evinced discomfort at remarks like the one I quoted: “Typical Jews! Even in the worst gulag, the moment they are given a minimum of freedom and space for maneuver, they start trading--in human blood!” Or the milder, but perhaps still more bizarre, observation in The Fragile Absolute: “As Jewish children put it when they play gently aggressive games: ‘Please, bite me, but not too hard…’”. (How many Jewish children at play has Zizek observed? Does he believe that all Jewish children everywhere play the same biting game?) Or when he threatens, in In Defense of Lost Causes, apropos of the “obscene pact between anti-Semitic Christian fundamentalists and aggressive Zionists,” that “the Jewish people will pay dearly for such pacts with the devil”?
Still, it is not Zizek’s personal feelings that are significant, but his writing, where he does indeed conscript Jews and Judaism into a fantasy with poisonous roots in theological and philosophical anti-Semitism. This is the fantasy that holds Judaism to be a religion of mere law, stubbornly impeding the millennium of Christian love--whose contemporary incarnation, Zizek believes, is to be found in revolutionary communism. As he writes in The Fragile Absolute: “From this Christian perspective, of course, the Jewish literal obedience to the Law cannot but appear as the ultimate opportunistic manipulation which implies a totally external relationship towards the Law as the set of rules to be tweaked so that one can nevertheless achieve one’s true aim--what bothers Christians is the fact that the Jews do not see the cheap trickery of their procedure, so that when they succeed in having their cake and eating it, in realizing their goal without disobeying the letter of the Law, they do not feel any guilt.” Typically for Zizek, after stating this malignant anti-Jewish stereotype, he performs a dialectical reversal--not by denying that it is true, which would be the decent and accurate response, but by advising Christians to imitate this Jewish inability to feel guilt (“far from being ‘the religion of guilt,’ the Jewish religion precisely enables us to avoid guilt--it is Christianity that manipulates guilt much more effectively”).
Zizek’s most repellent expression of this idea is the one I quoted from In Defense of Lost Causes, where Zizek writes, “The only true solution to the ‘Jewish question’ is the ‘final solution’ (their annihilation), because Jews qua objet a are the ultimate obstacle to the ‘final solution’ of History itself.” Now he says that I have misunderstood his text, that in this passage he is not explicating Alain Badiou (to whom the book is dedicated). I understand that for a man who writes as much as Zizek, it may be hard to keep track of everything one has written; but if he would consult page 5 of In Defense of Lost Causes, he will find that what he actually says is this:
In contrast to this approach, Badiou and others insist on the fidelity to the One which emerges and is constituted through the very political struggle of/for naming and, as such, cannot be grounded in any particular determinate content (such as ethnic or religious roots). From this point of view, fidelity to the name ‘Jews’ is the obverse (the silent recognition) of the defeat of authentic emancipatory struggles. No wonder that those who demand fidelity to the name ‘Jews’ are also those who warn us against the ‘totalitarian’ dangers of any radical emancipatory movement. Their politics consists in accepting the fundamental finitude and limitation of our situation, and the Jewish Law is the ultimate mark of this finitude, which is why, for them, all attempts to overcome Law and tend towards all-embracing Love (from Christianity through the French Jacobins to Stalinism) must end up in totalitarian terror.
The reader can understand, I hope, why I believed that a passage beginning “Badiou and others insist” was meant as a description of the ideas of Badiou. And also why I believe that a morally adequate response to these ideas would not be limited, like Zizek’s, to insisting that “in the history of modern Europe, those who stood for the striving for universality were precisely atheist Jews from Spinoza to Marx and Freud.” The notion that Jews can only redeem themselves from reactionary “finitude” by abjuring “fidelity to the name ‘Jews’” is a standard trope of left-wing anti-Semitism; its source is Marx himself, who wrote in his notorious essay “On the Jewish Question,” “In the final analysis, the emancipation of the Jews is the emancipation of mankind from Judaism.” In this respect, if in few others, Zizek seems to me a true follower of Marx.
But Zizek’s attitude towards Judaism is not the major problem with his thought, and it was not the main subject of my essay. The major problem is his glorification of totalitarianism and political violence. Now he writes that the best example of what he means by violence is--Gandhi! (Is it not apparent that a man who can only praise the apostle of nonviolence as an agent of violence--indeed, of a violence greater than Hitler’s--is fatally attracted to violence?) But one swallow doesn’t make a spring, and Zizek’s praise of Gandhi does not make him a practitioner of satyagraha.
Only a reader of Zizek’s Violence, in fact, can understand how misleading his letter is. For in that book, Zizek writes that philanthropists like Bill Gates and George Soros--whom he oddly calls “liberal communists”--“are the direct embodiment of what is wrong with the system as such,” and calls for their murder, using the words of Brecht’s poem “The Interrogation of the Good”: “But in consideration of your merits and good qualities/We shall put you in front a good wall and shoot you/With a good bullet from a good gun and bury you/With a good shovel in the good earth.” Zizek praises as “divine” the “violent explosion of resentment which finds expression in a spectrum that ranges from mob lynchings to organized revolutionary terror.” In fact, the central thesis of Zizek’s Violence is that “to chastise violence outright, to condemn it as ‘bad,’ is an ideological operation par excellence, a mystification which collaborates in rendering invisible the fundamental forms of social violence.” This fits neatly with Zizek’s conclusion in In Defense of Lost Causes, where he defends the Jacobin Terror: “As Saint-Just put it succinctly elsewhere: ‘That which produces the general good is always terrible.’ These words should not be interpreted as a warning against the temptation to violently impose the general good on a society, but, on the contrary, as a bitter truth to be fully endorsed.” “The problem here is not terror as such--our task today is precisely to reinvent emancipatory terror”: that is Zizek’s politics in a sentence.
Why, then, does Zizeknow want to create the impression that he thinks violence is “bad”? It seems to me that his letter continues the pattern of evasion I remarked in his New York Times op-ed and his New York Public Library appearance. In his books, he praises violence and flirts with fascism; in more public venues, he gives the impression that he is just a social democrat in a hurry. Let me conclude, then, by quoting one of the most vivid illustrations of Zizek’s humanitarianism, and of his opinions about the “decency” or otherwise of the United States. In Iraq: The Borrowed Kettle, he discusses “a well-known incident from the Vietnam War: after the US Army occupied a local village, their doctors vaccinated the children on the left arm in order to demonstrate their humanitarian care; when, the day after, the village was retaken by the Vietcong, they cut off the left arms of all the vaccinated children. ... Although it is difficult to sustain as a literal model to follow, this complete rejection of the Enemy precisely in its caring ‘humanitarian’ aspect, no matter what the cost, has to be endorsed in its basic intention.”
At least I agree with Slavoj Zizek about one thing: there are some people with whom debate is neither possible nor, indeed, necessary.
Adam Kirsch is a senior editor at The New Republic.
Click here to read Zizek's response to Kirsch's original article.
By Adam Kirsch
Intellectual rigor. Honest reporting. Influential analysis. Don't miss another issue of the magazine considered "required reading" by the world's top decision-makers. Subscribe today.
COMMENTS (54)
What is more breathtaking than Kirsch's various misquotations and distortions is his apparent illiteracy. It does not take a PhD (I had read Zizek before I began working on mine) to figure out that Zizek does not celebrate totalitarianism or anti-Semitism in his work. If Kirsch believes that the point of Zizek's Violence is to celebrate some macho pseudo-revolutionary stance, then I can only suggest that he return to the book, this time with a pair of glasses.
As for Kirsch's "theoretical" musings, I am at a loss. It is difficult to argue with someone who willfully distorts; however, it is much harder to argue with someone who willfully misunderstands.
What is more breathtaking than Kirsch's various misquotations and distortions is his apparent illiteracy. It does not take a PhD (I had read Zizek before I began working on mine) to figure out that Zizek does not celebrate totalitarianism or anti-Semitism in his work. If Kirsch believes that the point of Zizek's Violence is to celebrate some macho pseudo-revolutionary stance, then I can only suggest that he return to the book, this time with a pair of glasses.
As for Kirsch's "theoretical" musings, I am at a loss. It is difficult to argue with someone who willfully distorts; however, it is much harder to argue with someone who willfully misunderstands.
Zizek seemingly understands smooth talking.
I feel his is disingenuous.
It is impossible to conduct a fair and honest dialog with these kind of people.
Liars are difficult opponents.
Zizek seemingly understands smooth talking.
I feel his is disingenuous.
It is impossible to conduct a fair and honest dialog with these kind of people.
Liars are difficult opponents.
Well done, Mr. Kirsch. You have done an important job of exposing Zizek as just another trendy, radical left-wing monster who seeks to put a human face on mass murder. See under: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or any other bloodthirsty monster motivated bar far-left ideology.
Well done, Mr. Kirsch. You have done an important job of exposing Zizek as just another trendy, radical left-wing monster who seeks to put a human face on mass murder. See under: Lenin, Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, or any other bloodthirsty monster motivated bar far-left ideology.
Zizek's work has problems, like anyone's, but he is trying to think critically about the fundamental issues of our time, and is providing an alternative to the (neo)liberal status quo embodied by someone like Mr. Kirsch.
Does Kirsch really not agree that the positing of "violence" in our society does not work to conceal certain forms of social violence? He would do better to examine the subtle forms of violence that are embedded in our very manner of conceiving social and economic identity. One example of this would be the manner in which sometimes, even "humanitarian" aid can come part and parcel with socio-economic and socio-cultural systems that themselves wreak terrible violence. Thi ... view full comment
Zizek's work has problems, like anyone's, but he is trying to think critically about the fundamental issues of our time, and is providing an alternative to the (neo)liberal status quo embodied by someone like Mr. Kirsch.
Does Kirsch really not agree that the positing of "violence" in our society does not work to conceal certain forms of social violence? He would do better to examine the subtle forms of violence that are embedded in our very manner of conceiving social and economic identity. One example of this would be the manner in which sometimes, even "humanitarian" aid can come part and parcel with socio-economic and socio-cultural systems that themselves wreak terrible violence. This is not a controversial point, and one does not have to be a philosopher to make it. But one would have to be a fool or a hack to dismiss it so offhandedly--and, alas, that seems to be the case with Mr. Kirsch, and with the great majority of the articles published on TNR.
As for Kirsch's accusation of Zizek's supposed anti-semitism, as a Jew, honestly, it makes me embarassed to see this term thrown around so casually now: Jews have real problems in the world, both as Jews, and as citizens of humanity. To try to cast Zizek's thought off as "anti-semitic" is despicable; he is talking about the problems of excessive fidelity to any form of identity (a point that TNR's own Leon Wieseltier might like), and the manner in which such fidelity can be used to legitimize the status quo. Is this not a real concern?
The nature of one's relationship to identity can be debated, but an anti-semitic slur is not really helpful. I would recommend that Kirsch (and others) read George Steiner's essay "A Kind of Survivor." I'm sure that Zizek would endorse the model of universalist Judaism that Steiner proposes--even as Kirsh might label it as "self-hating" or whatever.
As for Zizek's views on Gandhi, I don't think that it's his just being "evasive." While I do think that Zizek has justified violence in idiotic ways, he has also made an excellent case for the radicality of genuine non-violence, as opposed to the more "humanitarian" forms of violence that Kirsch might endorse: see his essay on Vaclav Havel, published a couple of years back in the LRB.
"a well-known incident from the Vietnam War: after the US Army occupied a local village, their doctors vaccinated the children on the left arm in order to demonstrate their humanitarian care; when, the day after, the village was retaken by the Vietcong, they cut off the left arms of all the vaccinated children. ... Although it is difficult to sustain as a literal model to follow, this complete rejection of the Enemy precisely in its caring 'humanitarian' aspect, no matter what the cost, has to be endorsed in its basic intention."
Is this not the fictional account told by Marlon Brando's character near the end of Apocalypse Now? How like Zizek both to take this invented tale of horror at ... view full comment
"a well-known incident from the Vietnam War: after the US Army occupied a local village, their doctors vaccinated the children on the left arm in order to demonstrate their humanitarian care; when, the day after, the village was retaken by the Vietcong, they cut off the left arms of all the vaccinated children. ... Although it is difficult to sustain as a literal model to follow, this complete rejection of the Enemy precisely in its caring 'humanitarian' aspect, no matter what the cost, has to be endorsed in its basic intention."
Is this not the fictional account told by Marlon Brando's character near the end of Apocalypse Now? How like Zizek both to take this invented tale of horror at face value and to endorse it.
I was fairly amazed at the amount of misrepresentation and bad faith in the original article Mr Kirsch wrote. Now his 'reply to Zizek' takes selective quotation and fantastically contorted misrepresentation to a new low even for him. Comment is one thing - what we get in the Kirsch articles is disregard for truth and integrity. The fact that the NR publishes this poisonous stuff means, I suppose, that they just don't care any more about standards of fairness and accuracy.
I was fairly amazed at the amount of misrepresentation and bad faith in the original article Mr Kirsch wrote. Now his 'reply to Zizek' takes selective quotation and fantastically contorted misrepresentation to a new low even for him. Comment is one thing - what we get in the Kirsch articles is disregard for truth and integrity. The fact that the NR publishes this poisonous stuff means, I suppose, that they just don't care any more about standards of fairness and accuracy.
Mr. Kirsch,
How did you get your job?
Mr. Kirsch,
How did you get your job?
Kirsch illustrates here the impulse that prompted is earlier misreading - he really can't get past the author's name or persona. Let me try to make something plain: the contention that the Jewish question will persist until there is a final solution is not a problem brought on by the Jews (much much less is it call for such a solution) - it is a recognition that the Jewish problem is really just the problem of the universal and the particular. Badiou is extremely Xtian on this point (he thinks Jews should convert to a new form of universalism) but this isn't Zizek's position! Zizek is clearly critical of Badiou's undialectical conception of a "pure act" - so why does Kirsch leave this out ... view full comment
Kirsch illustrates here the impulse that prompted is earlier misreading - he really can't get past the author's name or persona. Let me try to make something plain: the contention that the Jewish question will persist until there is a final solution is not a problem brought on by the Jews (much much less is it call for such a solution) - it is a recognition that the Jewish problem is really just the problem of the universal and the particular. Badiou is extremely Xtian on this point (he thinks Jews should convert to a new form of universalism) but this isn't Zizek's position! Zizek is clearly critical of Badiou's undialectical conception of a "pure act" - so why does Kirsch leave this out?
Why, moreover, does Kirsch totally scuttle the various distinctions between different forms of violence which are crucial to Zizek's book? While many will argue that Zizek bends and twists the meaning of the term violence to the point that it loses any of its semantic content Kirsch doesn't - indeed, he doesn't even alert his reader to Zizek's different senses of violence, he just stands back and blithely wonders how Gandhi can be more violent than Hitler ... as if this wasn't what the whole book was about!
I remember a couple of years back when Brian Leiter complained that Leon had written a review (a critical one) in the NYT of Daniel Dennett's book on religion. How can a non-philosopher attempt to review the work of a philosopher?, Leiter whined. I didn't agree with Leiter then and still don't (the review was great) but I was reminded of it while reading this exchange. The issue here, though, is not so much Kirsch's lack of expertse (which is, however, a factor) but his general obstinacy and ill-will.
Thank you, Mr. Kirsch, for your eloquent takedown of Slavoj Zizek in your original article and in response to Zizek's disingenous reply to your article. Zizek is unreadable; God knows I have tried. He yokes the demotic to the eccentric to mad revolutionary fantasies. He is an apostle of violence, which is the central motif of your article. He might be dubbed the Georges Sorel of the 21st century, only without the lucidity of Sorel.
Thank you, Mr. Kirsch, for your eloquent takedown of Slavoj Zizek in your original article and in response to Zizek's disingenous reply to your article. Zizek is unreadable; God knows I have tried. He yokes the demotic to the eccentric to mad revolutionary fantasies. He is an apostle of violence, which is the central motif of your article. He might be dubbed the Georges Sorel of the 21st century, only without the lucidity of Sorel.
Kirsch's analysis of Zizek, both in the original article and this reply, is naively simplistic.
Kirsch's analysis of Zizek, both in the original article and this reply, is naively simplistic.
From the tone of Mr. Zizek's response alone, it sounds like you have gotten under his skin! It takes courage to do what you did, Mr Kirsch. The response from Zizek seems odd to me. I think he protests too much. I am not well versed enough in philosophy to make a detailed argument, so won't even try. But it does seems strange for some readers to actually attempt to defend this man! After all -- he's the philosopher, author, and public intellectual. I don't think he needs the defense of any poster on a magazine "talk-back" forum. My point is, why is there even any ambiguity at all in Zizek's work on Jews and Judaism? Why throw around terms so loosely as he does? Why even create the imp ... view full comment
From the tone of Mr. Zizek's response alone, it sounds like you have gotten under his skin! It takes courage to do what you did, Mr Kirsch. The response from Zizek seems odd to me. I think he protests too much. I am not well versed enough in philosophy to make a detailed argument, so won't even try. But it does seems strange for some readers to actually attempt to defend this man! After all -- he's the philosopher, author, and public intellectual. I don't think he needs the defense of any poster on a magazine "talk-back" forum. My point is, why is there even any ambiguity at all in Zizek's work on Jews and Judaism? Why throw around terms so loosely as he does? Why even create the impression that he apparently does? The burden is on him to prove that his words, actually, do not mean what they seem to say in plain language. If he is such a brilliant man, this should not be difficult. So, I wonder why is it is that he seems so petty in his reply to Adam. If his words really meant other than what Adam, very clearly, points out that they likely mean -- why not just gently correct him? Any misunderstanding could be easily cleared up. It sounds like Mr Kirsch is on to something, and has the courage to say it.
benberger writes, "The issue here, though, is not so much Kirsch's lack of expertse (which is, however, a factor) but his general obstinacy and ill-will." That nailed it. Kirsch is just being malicious. What a jerk.
benberger writes, "The issue here, though, is not so much Kirsch's lack of expertse (which is, however, a factor) but his general obstinacy and ill-will." That nailed it. Kirsch is just being malicious. What a jerk.
I don't know Cizek's work in sufficient detail to comment on the dispute. However, I recall a rather poverty stricken account that Mr. Kirsch gave of Adorno's work back in the recent days of New York Sun which led me to suspect that maybe he wasn't up to par in discussing philosophy.
I don't know Cizek's work in sufficient detail to comment on the dispute. However, I recall a rather poverty stricken account that Mr. Kirsch gave of Adorno's work back in the recent days of New York Sun which led me to suspect that maybe he wasn't up to par in discussing philosophy.
By avoiding to rebut his response and instead continuing to reiterate your already tired argument, you really drove home that 'point on which you both agree.'
Congratulations, before this article I had never heard of you!
By avoiding to rebut his response and instead continuing to reiterate your already tired argument, you really drove home that 'point on which you both agree.'
Congratulations, before this article I had never heard of you!
Unless his supporters can produce evidence that Zizek specifically does not mean any of the things he is charged with saying - and quoted extensively as saying - their ranting has no value. Zizek seems to me, leaving aside specific allegations for the moment, to be no more than the latest in a long line of people who have committed what we might call "the 68ers' mistake", and conflated performance art with politics. In performance art, everything is permitted, indeed encouraged, because it does not matter, and changes nothing. Politics, however, is the art of the possible. What Zizek and his supporters want is impossible [insofar as it can be even dimly discerned amidst their flourishes of g ... view full comment
Unless his supporters can produce evidence that Zizek specifically does not mean any of the things he is charged with saying - and quoted extensively as saying - their ranting has no value. Zizek seems to me, leaving aside specific allegations for the moment, to be no more than the latest in a long line of people who have committed what we might call "the 68ers' mistake", and conflated performance art with politics. In performance art, everything is permitted, indeed encouraged, because it does not matter, and changes nothing. Politics, however, is the art of the possible. What Zizek and his supporters want is impossible [insofar as it can be even dimly discerned amidst their flourishes of gibberish], and therefore will always remain irrelevant to what happens to actual people in real social, political and economic conditions. Unless, of course, they do something really stupid like trying to act out fantasies of apocalyptic violence offstage, in which case good luck to them before the police catch up.
What's laughable is that Kirsch fails miserably in attacking the weak spot of Zizek (his ontology of non-all).
Apart from the miserable intellectual level, it not only seems that Kirsch has completely failed to understand the meaning of Zizek's work. Kirsch also stands guilty of deliberately attempting a dogmatic labelling, well along with the typical contemporary (neo-conservative and liberal) reversals of signifyers such as "freedom", "democracy", "peace", "market economy".
www.rthansen.com
What's laughable is that Kirsch fails miserably in attacking the weak spot of Zizek (his ontology of non-all).
Apart from the miserable intellectual level, it not only seems that Kirsch has completely failed to understand the meaning of Zizek's work. Kirsch also stands guilty of deliberately attempting a dogmatic labelling, well along with the typical contemporary (neo-conservative and liberal) reversals of signifyers such as "freedom", "democracy", "peace", "market economy".
www.rthansen.com
"What Zizek and his supporters want is impossible [insofar as it can be even dimly discerned amidst their flourishes of gibberish], and therefore will always remain irrelevant to what happens to actual people in real social, political and economic conditions." What happens to actual people, etc. is ... violence. Why is the admission of that impossible. Isn't that the first step towards dealing with it in a meaningful rather than shambolic way (the point of Zizek's "story" about the vaccinations, by the way). I'm a Jew and I've never found him to be the least bit anti_Semitic. But what do I know, right? I'm probably a bad Jew (I like Spinoza, marx, Freud ...)
"What Zizek and his supporters want is impossible [insofar as it can be even dimly discerned amidst their flourishes of gibberish], and therefore will always remain irrelevant to what happens to actual people in real social, political and economic conditions." What happens to actual people, etc. is ... violence. Why is the admission of that impossible. Isn't that the first step towards dealing with it in a meaningful rather than shambolic way (the point of Zizek's "story" about the vaccinations, by the way). I'm a Jew and I've never found him to be the least bit anti_Semitic. But what do I know, right? I'm probably a bad Jew (I like Spinoza, marx, Freud ...)
Very interesting response. Paul de Man once quipped that the "resistance to theory is a resistance to reading." It would seem to never have held more true for you. The problem with reading is that texts often situate themselves in some kind of context. For example "violence" is an interesting word that is always used. Perhaps because it is used in psychoanalytical context, it may alter your reading. Gandhi upsets the order, went against the normal, he broke the simulacrum if you will. Hitler, Napoleon, Ivan the terrible, all fall within some concept of the tyrant who protect their own interests and often a reactionary social order with physical violence and terror. Thus these trynann ... view full comment
Very interesting response. Paul de Man once quipped that the "resistance to theory is a resistance to reading." It would seem to never have held more true for you. The problem with reading is that texts often situate themselves in some kind of context. For example "violence" is an interesting word that is always used. Perhaps because it is used in psychoanalytical context, it may alter your reading. Gandhi upsets the order, went against the normal, he broke the simulacrum if you will. Hitler, Napoleon, Ivan the terrible, all fall within some concept of the tyrant who protect their own interests and often a reactionary social order with physical violence and terror. Thus these trynannts and unuquivocable bad people fell into an oder with prediucted actions, and only supported the system. Gandhi did more violence to the system by breaking the social norms.
I know this is nearly impossible to understand. However, I implore you to actually a text. As Bacon said, devour it. You must actually thing in philosophy, a difficult and challenging but often rewarding task.
"Unless his supporters can produce evidence that Zizek specifically does not mean any of the things he is charged with saying - and quoted extensively as saying - their ranting has no value. "
So people are guilty until presumed innocent now?
My overall impression Kirsch and his applauders have read very little to no Zizek, and this is probably something of a predesigned smear campaign now that Zizek is really and truly gaining traction among members of the Left.
"Unless his supporters can produce evidence that Zizek specifically does not mean any of the things he is charged with saying - and quoted extensively as saying - their ranting has no value. "
So people are guilty until presumed innocent now?
My overall impression Kirsch and his applauders have read very little to no Zizek, and this is probably something of a predesigned smear campaign now that Zizek is really and truly gaining traction among members of the Left.
Kirsch wrote yesterday in the IHT about Kafka that the greatness of Kafka's genius lies in his ability to become: "the poet of the inexpungible guilt in all of us." Really? Perhaps the credibility of someone who tethers genius to guilt should be re-evaluated. Maybe Kirsch considers himself a kind of moral giant whose genius manifests itself in the form of his pathetically ill-informed and intellectually degenerate indictment of Zizek.
Kirsch wrote yesterday in the IHT about Kafka that the greatness of Kafka's genius lies in his ability to become: "the poet of the inexpungible guilt in all of us." Really? Perhaps the credibility of someone who tethers genius to guilt should be re-evaluated. Maybe Kirsch considers himself a kind of moral giant whose genius manifests itself in the form of his pathetically ill-informed and intellectually degenerate indictment of Zizek.
Another dodge from Mr. Kirsch, who should really stay out of philosophy if he's unwilling to let concepts breathe, to let meaning change, to consider the mere possibility that notions and words handed down from past centuries might need some re-evaluating. Is psychological abuse "violence"? Hell, is the earth flat? I'm certainly glad someone along the line doubted the status quo about those notions. And what of today's notions? Is the pacified space of neoliberalism, of global markets (and the allied states that protect them), really free from "violence"? Or should some "violence" be done to this status quo? It's a serious question, and one better served by a philosophical dialogue than a po ... view full comment
Another dodge from Mr. Kirsch, who should really stay out of philosophy if he's unwilling to let concepts breathe, to let meaning change, to consider the mere possibility that notions and words handed down from past centuries might need some re-evaluating. Is psychological abuse "violence"? Hell, is the earth flat? I'm certainly glad someone along the line doubted the status quo about those notions. And what of today's notions? Is the pacified space of neoliberalism, of global markets (and the allied states that protect them), really free from "violence"? Or should some "violence" be done to this status quo? It's a serious question, and one better served by a philosophical dialogue than a poor hatchet job by Mr. Hack, I mean Kirsch. If someone wants a sane, smart, mainstream liberal thinker to counter the revolutionary Zizek (who, in my opinion, might REALLY BE a "social democrat in a hurry," but that's another debate) then one should go read the works of Rawls or Rorty. Be warned, however, you'll still have to actually read their entire books to understand them.
Two simple points. One, Kirsch's treatment of Zizek's Welcome to the Desert of the Real shows clearly that Kirsch is far from familiar with Lacan's concepts on which Zizek bases his work. Two, his completely unsubstantiated claim about the toll that the Holocaust is supposed to have taken on the Jewery of Ljubljana makes one doubt the credibility and seriousness of his entire article.
Two simple points. One, Kirsch's treatment of Zizek's Welcome to the Desert of the Real shows clearly that Kirsch is far from familiar with Lacan's concepts on which Zizek bases his work. Two, his completely unsubstantiated claim about the toll that the Holocaust is supposed to have taken on the Jewery of Ljubljana makes one doubt the credibility and seriousness of his entire article.
"The reader can understand, I hope, why I believed that a passage beginning 'Badiou and others insist' was meant as a description of the ideas of Badiou." No, as a reader, I cannot understand why one would impute anything that follows this phrase to Badiou alone. It would be one thing if it were 'Badiou and his followers,' but the consideration we are expected to give Badiou's mention is, at most, as an articulate representative of "how the French Zionist critics perceive contemporary Europe" (i.e. the "and others" part). This is not a failure of a philosophy student to appreciate abstraction or nuance. This is a failure or willful stupidity in simply reading.
"The reader can understand, I hope, why I believed that a passage beginning 'Badiou and others insist' was meant as a description of the ideas of Badiou." No, as a reader, I cannot understand why one would impute anything that follows this phrase to Badiou alone. It would be one thing if it were 'Badiou and his followers,' but the consideration we are expected to give Badiou's mention is, at most, as an articulate representative of "how the French Zionist critics perceive contemporary Europe" (i.e. the "and others" part). This is not a failure of a philosophy student to appreciate abstraction or nuance. This is a failure or willful stupidity in simply reading.
The brilliance of Kirsch is that he comes off as a mere symptom of our times. What he does to Zizek is no different than what Hitler did to Nietzsche. Both turn philosophy into a garden tool to give support to their own ideological frame. But how is Kirsch a more modern day symptom than Hitler? Political correctness is what supports the day in and day out ideological regime of tolerance -- which, in turn, acts as the perfect political supplement to global capitalism. THIS is what bugs Kirsch. And if Kirsch were king he would indict Zizek as an anti-semite on grounds of political incorrectness. Think of irony here -- of the times in which we live. Heidegger actually, for a spell, supported Hi ... view full comment
The brilliance of Kirsch is that he comes off as a mere symptom of our times. What he does to Zizek is no different than what Hitler did to Nietzsche. Both turn philosophy into a garden tool to give support to their own ideological frame. But how is Kirsch a more modern day symptom than Hitler? Political correctness is what supports the day in and day out ideological regime of tolerance -- which, in turn, acts as the perfect political supplement to global capitalism. THIS is what bugs Kirsch. And if Kirsch were king he would indict Zizek as an anti-semite on grounds of political incorrectness. Think of irony here -- of the times in which we live. Heidegger actually, for a spell, supported Hitler. Zizek is declared an anti-semite on grounds of being politically incorrect. The difference between Kirsch and Zizek. Kirsch proves himself to be a mere symptom of our times -- while Zizek has clearly demonstrated in his work that he is one of our greatest thinkers in analyzing the many symptoms of our time.
How to spot a compulsive liar? Two articles of should be enough. The best hypothesis portraits A. kirsch as a pathetic illiterate. Sadly, he knows the extent of his misreading. Liar: accurate enough.
How to spot a compulsive liar? Two articles of should be enough. The best hypothesis portraits A. kirsch as a pathetic illiterate. Sadly, he knows the extent of his misreading. Liar: accurate enough.
The commentaries against Kirsch do not include proof. Most, if not all of, Zizek's advocates are just saying Kirsch did this or that but not proving it. Whay don't you prove that Kirsch lies or misrepresents, etc.? Why don't you use, against Kirsch's sentences, arguments based on reason based on the very words contained in Zizek's books?
I wonder how many of these critics are attacking Kirsch because they, being dazzled and stimulated in their own prejudices by Zizek, feel the need of protecting wahte teh habe been repeating and defending (for example, in PhD work)?
The commentaries against Kirsch do not include proof. Most, if not all of, Zizek's advocates are just saying Kirsch did this or that but not proving it. Whay don't you prove that Kirsch lies or misrepresents, etc.? Why don't you use, against Kirsch's sentences, arguments based on reason based on the very words contained in Zizek's books?
I wonder how many of these critics are attacking Kirsch because they, being dazzled and stimulated in their own prejudices by Zizek, feel the need of protecting wahte teh habe been repeating and defending (for example, in PhD work)?
Kirsch hasn't read any philosophy has he. What a numpty! The arguments in his favour seem generally to be - "abtract thought is dangerous, we should speak in 'common sense'" and "Words have clear understandable meanings". Both of which Zizek disputes. Kirsch simply doesn't have the cognitive capacity to undersand this work! HE IS IT'S SUBJECT!
Kirsch hasn't read any philosophy has he. What a numpty! The arguments in his favour seem generally to be - "abtract thought is dangerous, we should speak in 'common sense'" and "Words have clear understandable meanings". Both of which Zizek disputes. Kirsch simply doesn't have the cognitive capacity to undersand this work! HE IS IT'S SUBJECT!
Please Mr. Kirsch for those of us who take a decent, sincere approach to politics can you stop slandering the guy? It is clear that your agenda is running riot here.
Please Mr. Kirsch for those of us who take a decent, sincere approach to politics can you stop slandering the guy? It is clear that your agenda is running riot here.
Adam Kirsch was just pissed that Slavoj Zizek called him out on his reason for so few Jews in Slovenia. Kirsch does not grasp philosophy nor know his history well enough to live out this feud... the worst part is that Kirsch probably believes this and is... you know like tellin' all his budies, "this one time I TOTALLY SCHOOLED Zizek," jokes on you asshole.
Adam Kirsch was just pissed that Slavoj Zizek called him out on his reason for so few Jews in Slovenia. Kirsch does not grasp philosophy nor know his history well enough to live out this feud... the worst part is that Kirsch probably believes this and is... you know like tellin' all his budies, "this one time I TOTALLY SCHOOLED Zizek," jokes on you asshole.
"Adam Kirsch was just pissed that Slavoj Zizek called him out on his reason for so few Jews in Slovenia."
But Zizek is lying about this of course. He says there were only ever a few hundred Jews in Slovenia, but in fact there were several thousand in 1941, a figure of 8000 being testified to under oath by Alexander Arnon (Secretary of the Jewish Community in Zagreb) a witness at the Eichmann trial. As for the Nazi impact on the capital of today's Slovenia, Ljublijana (which was never home to most of Slovenia's Jews), no reputable historian disputes that the few Jews remaining in Ljubliana when the Nazis took over from the Italians were deported to death camps. There is no reason for Zizek or ... view full comment
"Adam Kirsch was just pissed that Slavoj Zizek called him out on his reason for so few Jews in Slovenia."
But Zizek is lying about this of course. He says there were only ever a few hundred Jews in Slovenia, but in fact there were several thousand in 1941, a figure of 8000 being testified to under oath by Alexander Arnon (Secretary of the Jewish Community in Zagreb) a witness at the Eichmann trial. As for the Nazi impact on the capital of today's Slovenia, Ljublijana (which was never home to most of Slovenia's Jews), no reputable historian disputes that the few Jews remaining in Ljubliana when the Nazis took over from the Italians were deported to death camps. There is no reason for Zizek or you, Joel Gardner, or D, to dispute this. The history of the Nazi extermination of the Jews (and Roma, and communists) of Slovenia is not "a hoax"; this kind of gross revisionism Zizek is peddling is popular in Slovenia and Croatia with the ethno-racial nationalists of which he is one, who wish to paint a portrait of little ethnically pure statelets in the making going back centuries to justify their ethnic cleansings of the 90s, but it is false and easily debunked. There were Jews in Slovenia in the early 20th century; a higher percentage than elsewhere in central and eastern europe (Poland for example) survived the second world war because initially occupied by Italians and many escaped, but most were in fact murdered by Nazis and their collaborator accomplices and most survivors emigrated after the war. Zeal to defend Zizek is carrying you away into following him down the road of Holocaust revisionism, perhaps without your knowing it, but even if unwitting on your part, it is distasteful and typical of Zizek's routines of bullshit-invention, like his presenting the racist limb-chopping fantasies of Francis Ford Coppolla as historical fact. All Zizek's defenders here seem to insist on his work being "read carefullly". You ought take your own advice.
the new republic wow.....not a word on the nazi-israel massacre in Gaza....let's soak those children and women in bloood eeh? Bet Kirsch luuuvs the smell of burning Palestinian flesh in the morning haha
so why by surprised when this moron takes on Mr.Z?
but wait ..the schooling about the Mighty Emperor of the Haspurgs almost got me off my chair laughing!
the new republic wow.....not a word on the nazi-israel massacre in Gaza....let's soak those children and women in bloood eeh? Bet Kirsch luuuvs the smell of burning Palestinian flesh in the morning haha
so why by surprised when this moron takes on Mr.Z?
but wait ..the schooling about the Mighty Emperor of the Haspurgs almost got me off my chair laughing!
To mach a leben as an intellectual requires incessant
debate too often about 'nothing new' under the sun. My
personal view that partakes of universal Truth is that
only one particular nationalism is good: Zionism. All
the rest are, were, will be above & below Truth that
is more human humans who instinctively say & do good.
The theology of Christianity (Jewish cult of death) is
too forgiving & forgetful in the name of love allowing
market capitalism to build an imperial empire for good
and then culminating in its demise wherein the Jewish
object of worship must be annihilated to end history.
The theology of Islam based in a "n ... view full comment
To mach a leben as an intellectual requires incessant
debate too often about 'nothing new' under the sun. My
personal view that partakes of universal Truth is that
only one particular nationalism is good: Zionism. All
the rest are, were, will be above & below Truth that
is more human humans who instinctively say & do good.
The theology of Christianity (Jewish cult of death) is
too forgiving & forgetful in the name of love allowing
market capitalism to build an imperial empire for good
and then culminating in its demise wherein the Jewish
object of worship must be annihilated to end history.
The theology of Islam based in a "new Torah" mirrors
laws of war, purity, prayer, kashrut to a degree that
permits "old/new Israel" Christians to maintain their
hope that Jesus (Shia 12th Imam) will still resurrect
a necessary, ineluctable destruction of Jewish people.
Will Christians, Muslims, or pagan humanists recognize
history is to be fulfilled by the Jewish State because
of the inside/outside nature of Truth in action that
permits separate formal identifications when in truth,
every human aspires to live "jewishly" by its meaning?
Mr Kirsch- I must say that your journalism is at best disingenous, and at the very worst incredibly sophmoric, and malicious. I sincerely doubt that you have really read Professor Zizek's work- in full. Perhaps a little more than a sideward glance is required when reviewing a philosophical work in future?
Mr Kirsch- I must say that your journalism is at best disingenous, and at the very worst incredibly sophmoric, and malicious. I sincerely doubt that you have really read Professor Zizek's work- in full. Perhaps a little more than a sideward glance is required when reviewing a philosophical work in future?
I know I'll probably get crucified for this (ha!), but let's accept Kirsch's argument, that Zizek is in fact anti-Semitic. It does nothing to dismiss any of Zizek's work. Kirsch could have just as easily picked a few hundred words (out of what must easily be at least a few million Zizek has in print) and tried to make the case that Zizek is a homophobe. But he didn't, because it's acceptable to hate homosexuals, though not acceptable to hate Jews. I would guess that most of the conservative commentators that revel in (some even after admitting they know nothing of Zizek's work, or even of philosophy!) seeing what they think as someone "taking down" an intellectual, probably hold homosexuals ... view full comment
I know I'll probably get crucified for this (ha!), but let's accept Kirsch's argument, that Zizek is in fact anti-Semitic. It does nothing to dismiss any of Zizek's work. Kirsch could have just as easily picked a few hundred words (out of what must easily be at least a few million Zizek has in print) and tried to make the case that Zizek is a homophobe. But he didn't, because it's acceptable to hate homosexuals, though not acceptable to hate Jews. I would guess that most of the conservative commentators that revel in (some even after admitting they know nothing of Zizek's work, or even of philosophy!) seeing what they think as someone "taking down" an intellectual, probably hold homosexuals in the same regard that Kirsch claims Zizek holds Jews (I would wager, as well, that those conservative commentators, if an arbitrary book told them that homosexuals had to possess an arbitrary piece of land in order for Jesus to ride down from the sky flanked by thousands of angels, would support homosexuals as eagerly as they do Jews). Kirsch is a competent critic (less so a poet), but there are two fundamental problems with Kirsch's article and response. The first problem is that Zizek could hate every ethnic and religious group on the face of the planet, and that fact in no way would imply that there was anything wrong with his actual work (certainly there are justifiable, nuanced criticisms of Zizek’s work; some people have actually endeavored to this). The second is that Kirsch simply hasn't displayed anything like the dedication, ambition, hard work (there you go, conservatives) or intellect that Zizek has, and as a result we can't take his criticism as anything more than the common sense opinion of the everyman, which, if I wanted that, I could just turn on am radio.
RE. Invented Vietnam incident: Peter Cowie quotes Milius as claiming that he based "the Sheen character, and some of Kurtz, on a friend of mine, Fred Rexer, who actually experienced the scene [related by Brando] where the arms are hacked off by the Viet Cong" (Cowie, Peter. Coppola. New York: Scribner's, 1990. p.120).
RE. Invented Vietnam incident: Peter Cowie quotes Milius as claiming that he based "the Sheen character, and some of Kurtz, on a friend of mine, Fred Rexer, who actually experienced the scene [related by Brando] where the arms are hacked off by the Viet Cong" (Cowie, Peter. Coppola. New York: Scribner's, 1990. p.120).
Kirsch says: "It seems to me that his letter continues the pattern of evasion I remarked in his New York Times op-ed and his New York Public Library appearance. In his books, he praises violence and flirts with fascism; in more public venues, he gives the impression that he is just a social democrat in a hurry." --
Allow me to propose an alternative theory. In his book, Zizek constructs complex arguments, grapples with dense academic jargon, and defines his terms before using them as any academic would do. In public appearances, Zizek dials down his commentary to the education level of the audience. Zizek promotes the same general views and ideas in both venues, but a dumb hack with an axe ... view full comment
Kirsch says: "It seems to me that his letter continues the pattern of evasion I remarked in his New York Times op-ed and his New York Public Library appearance. In his books, he praises violence and flirts with fascism; in more public venues, he gives the impression that he is just a social democrat in a hurry." --
Allow me to propose an alternative theory. In his book, Zizek constructs complex arguments, grapples with dense academic jargon, and defines his terms before using them as any academic would do. In public appearances, Zizek dials down his commentary to the education level of the audience. Zizek promotes the same general views and ideas in both venues, but a dumb hack with an axe to grind who churns through books without reading them in order to cherry-pick quotes for a hit piece can readily find a few cherries and convinces himself he's uncovered the double-secret truth about the author. --
Here's a hint, Kirsch: reading philosophical treatises and judging them by their "plain meaning" rather than their context and defined terms, and then deploying a random-idiot-on-the-internet level of logical argumentation... this is Joe-the-Plumber caliber journalism. Even you and Mad Marty Peretz are capable of doing better work than this.
"Peter Cowie quotes Milius as claiming that he based "the Sheen character, and some of Kurtz, on a friend of mine, Fred Rexer, who actually experienced the scene [related by Brando] where the arms are hacked off by the Viet Cong"...while tripping, you forgot to add. Well, and you quote zizek as claiming there have never been more than a few hundred Jews in Slovenia since the 16th century. There are some widely accepted standards of historical evidence and proof which even extremist postmoderns like Hayden White concede the validity of. Your unsuported claims, Zizek's unsupported claims, screenwriter lunatic John Milius' unsupported claims, meet none of them. Zizek also is in the habit of te ... view full comment
"Peter Cowie quotes Milius as claiming that he based "the Sheen character, and some of Kurtz, on a friend of mine, Fred Rexer, who actually experienced the scene [related by Brando] where the arms are hacked off by the Viet Cong"...while tripping, you forgot to add. Well, and you quote zizek as claiming there have never been more than a few hundred Jews in Slovenia since the 16th century. There are some widely accepted standards of historical evidence and proof which even extremist postmoderns like Hayden White concede the validity of. Your unsuported claims, Zizek's unsupported claims, screenwriter lunatic John Milius' unsupported claims, meet none of them. Zizek also is in the habit of telling his audience that Toussaint L'Ouverture led a "black delegation" from an independent Haiti to France in 1793 where they were cheered enthusiastically by the "National Assembly" led by Jacobins. It has been pointed out to him repeatedly that his story is fictional, that Haiti did not declare independence until 1804, that Toussaint had never visited France until brought there as Napoleon's prisoner in 1803, to be thrown in prison where he shortly died, and that in 1793 Toussaint was in San Domingue allied with Spain against France and the governing body of France was the Convention. Nonetheless, Zizek repeats this tale incessantly. He knew of course he'd made it up (or "adapted it", like john Milius) the first time he told it so its unsurprising he should continue to tell it even after having had this pointed out. Another story he frequently tells is that "according to most polls" the number one reason French and Irish voters rejecting the EU treaty gave for their "no" votes was opposition to Turkish membership. In fact not a single poll discovered even a single voter who gave this as a reason for their vote. The fictional nature of this "historical fact" Zizek repeats has also been pointed out to him, but this has not discouraged him from continuing to repeat it in print and in lectures. More disturbing, he repeats a long debunked bit of Israeli propaganda about the antiSemitic content of Palestinian textbooks, even though he has been sent numerous letters correcting him on this point. He repeats this dangerous propaganda fabrication knowing it is not true. I could go on, but even one such case of deliberately and repeatedly presenting tendentious fables as fact - as this latest laughable minimising the victims of Nazi extermination policy in Slovenia, which is also proposing a rather bizarre idea of Jewishness as insect infestation you could exterminate once in the 16th century and that alone would explain the situation centuries later - should be more than enough to establish Zizek's "provocative" mendacity. An attitude which sacrifices accuracy in history to the needs of right wing entertainers is very typical of his reactionary stances generally, and of course another thing he shares with original flavour fascists.
Mr. Negotionist... um your wrong... I am not trying to dispute that the Nazi's deported those Jews left in Slovenia. Your statistic from 1941 is from the Zagreb Jewish community which is... psyche... in Croatia. The statistic may very well be for all of Yugoslavia not just Slovenia. So... no 8000 Jews were not living in Solvenia. Prior to the invasion of Nazi's there were 2,500 Jews in Yugoslavia and only a few of which resided in Slovenia mostly because of its anti-semetic policies. In no way does Zizek assume the Nazi extermination of Jews in Slovenia was a hoax but rather that it was not the main reason why there are so few Jews in Slovenia. The point being the Jewish community was very s ... view full comment
Mr. Negotionist... um your wrong... I am not trying to dispute that the Nazi's deported those Jews left in Slovenia. Your statistic from 1941 is from the Zagreb Jewish community which is... psyche... in Croatia. The statistic may very well be for all of Yugoslavia not just Slovenia. So... no 8000 Jews were not living in Solvenia. Prior to the invasion of Nazi's there were 2,500 Jews in Yugoslavia and only a few of which resided in Slovenia mostly because of its anti-semetic policies. In no way does Zizek assume the Nazi extermination of Jews in Slovenia was a hoax but rather that it was not the main reason why there are so few Jews in Slovenia. The point being the Jewish community was very small before World War II and further exterminated between 1941-1945 which was obviously a tragedy. To render Zizek a holocaust revisionist or the like... is just not true. Oh yeah and "original flavour fascists" what the fuck is that... we are not talking about packs of gum.
This really is the most brilliant misreading I ever readed. Does Mr. Kirsch has an PhD in philosophy?
This really is the most brilliant misreading I ever readed. Does Mr. Kirsch has an PhD in philosophy?
Kirsch is a hysterical fear-monger. Whether it is intentional or not, he totally misunderstands what Zizek means by "objective" violence. Yes, Ghandi was more violent than Hitler in the sense that his actions sought to transform society, both who controls it and what it stands for, what its ethics are.
As for TNR itself, this article and its sequel are a sorry symptom of the recent history of this magazine. Since 9/11, the "New" in TNR has basically meant: get use to the new way things are under Bush, i.e. less critique, more "cooperation," and, of course, "country first."
Kirsch is a hysterical fear-monger. Whether it is intentional or not, he totally misunderstands what Zizek means by "objective" violence. Yes, Ghandi was more violent than Hitler in the sense that his actions sought to transform society, both who controls it and what it stands for, what its ethics are.
As for TNR itself, this article and its sequel are a sorry symptom of the recent history of this magazine. Since 9/11, the "New" in TNR has basically meant: get use to the new way things are under Bush, i.e. less critique, more "cooperation," and, of course, "country first."
Dear editors, please stop this. Kirsch, who now seems to fancy himself a 'philosopher of the people' (see his flaccid intellect a'wiggle again on Hannah Ardent!), is so far out of his league I took almost no pleasure in reading this second embarrassment.
Dear editors, please stop this. Kirsch, who now seems to fancy himself a 'philosopher of the people' (see his flaccid intellect a'wiggle again on Hannah Ardent!), is so far out of his league I took almost no pleasure in reading this second embarrassment.
I side clearly with Zizek, but his supporters should chill a little. Zizek writes in an extremely provocative way that calls for moralistic misreadings. In some sense he is getting what he deserves (and perhaps wishes for). Sometimes he is writing his stuff on violence and stalinism with Kirsches of the world in his mind, perhaps giggling at the same time.
Kirsch concentrates on Zizek the public intellectual, someone with opinions, sympathies and moral lessons. Most of commentators seem to like Zizek the philosopher, someone who offers new ways of thinking and reading.
I side clearly with Zizek, but his supporters should chill a little. Zizek writes in an extremely provocative way that calls for moralistic misreadings. In some sense he is getting what he deserves (and perhaps wishes for). Sometimes he is writing his stuff on violence and stalinism with Kirsches of the world in his mind, perhaps giggling at the same time.
Kirsch concentrates on Zizek the public intellectual, someone with opinions, sympathies and moral lessons. Most of commentators seem to like Zizek the philosopher, someone who offers new ways of thinking and reading.
and I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
and I, for one, welcome our new robot overlords.
Ardent? flaccid intellect...
Ardent? flaccid intellect...
"Your statistic from 1941 is from the Zagreb Jewish community which is... psyche... in Croatia.The statistic may very well be for all of Yugoslavia not just Slovenia. So... no 8000 Jews were not living in Solvenia. Prior to the invasion of Nazi's there were 2,500 Jews in Yugoslavia "
I did not say Zagreb was in Croatia, I referred to the testimony of Alexander Arnon at the Eichmann trial, identifying him as the secretary of the Zagreb community, which he was. He testified at the Eichmann trial that there were 8000 jews in Slovenia (the province) and 75,000 in Yugoslavia as a whole. According to Shelah, "The Extermination", the total individually verified Jewish victims of the Nazi exterminati ... view full comment
"Your statistic from 1941 is from the Zagreb Jewish community which is... psyche... in Croatia.The statistic may very well be for all of Yugoslavia not just Slovenia. So... no 8000 Jews were not living in Solvenia. Prior to the invasion of Nazi's there were 2,500 Jews in Yugoslavia "
I did not say Zagreb was in Croatia, I referred to the testimony of Alexander Arnon at the Eichmann trial, identifying him as the secretary of the Zagreb community, which he was. He testified at the Eichmann trial that there were 8000 jews in Slovenia (the province) and 75,000 in Yugoslavia as a whole. According to Shelah, "The Extermination", the total individually verified Jewish victims of the Nazi extermination policy from Yugoslavia is 62,242 out of a population estimated by Shelah at 80,000. You would to reduce this to less than 2500, I won't even ask why. But there's no word for it but "revisionism" since it is so wildly at odds with the figures all reputable historians have arrived at from the plentiful evidence.
Here are excerpts of Arnon's testimony: "Q. Where did you live until the outbreak of war with
Yugoslavia on 10 April 1941?
A. In Zagreb.
Q. What did you do in Zagreb?
A. I had several occupations. At first I was secretary of
the Jewish Community in Zagreb. Then I was director of
HICEM, the emigration organization. Later I was territorial
director of JOINT, secretary general of the territorial
committee for aid to refugees.
Q. When you speak of "territorial committee" - do you mean
of the whole of Yugoslavia?
A. Yes.
Q. I should like you to tell the Court, as briefly as possible, about this first year, after April 1941, about what you saw, what you did, what you learned at first-hand about persecutions of the Jews.
A. In order to be able to provide a clear picture of the events in Yugoslavia, I should like to be allowed to give an introduction about the structure of the Yugoslav Jewish community.
Before the Second World War, 75,000 Jews lived in Yugoslavia, that is one half of one percent of the total population of Yugoslavia. The 75,000 Jews were organized in 117 autonomous Jewish religious communities, which were united in the Federation of Jewish Communities in Belgrade, and the orthodox communities in the Federation of the Orthodox Jewish Communities.
The Jews of Yugoslavia played an important role in the economic, social and cultural life of Yugoslavia - less so in the political sphere, except in Serbia, where two Jews were members of Parliament representing the Yugoslav National Party before the First World War....[later]Q. Mr. Arnon, later on trains arrived in Zagreb from Bosnia and Slovenia. Do you remember the Trade Fair Grounds? Tell the Court about these things.
A. About 15,000 Jews lived in Bosnia and about 8,000 in Slovenia. In the course of June, and a few months later, trains full of Jews from these regions arrived day after day and every night at the Zagreb Trade Fair Grounds, which was the point of concentration of the Jews arrested in Zagreb.
Q. Were there transports, deportations, from the Trade Fair Grounds?
A. Transports to the East left from the Trade Fair Grounds a few days later.
Q. Mr. Arnon, when the Jews from Bosnia and Slovenia were concentrated in Zagreb, as you described...
Presiding Judge: Is there a difference between Slovenia and Slavonia?
Witness Arnon: Slavonia is part of Croatia. Slovenia is an independent province which was at that time under Italian control.
State Attorney Bar-Or: When the Jews of Bosnia and Slovenia were concentrated in Zagreb, as you described, did you hear of protest actions from any source? Did you learn about objections to the transports from any quarter?
Witness Arnon: Unfortunately there were no protests. Croatia was definitely a Catholic state. Not even the Catholic Church in Zagreb said one word against the deportations and sufferings of the Jews.
Q. As far as you know, was there any connection - and if there was, what was the connection - between these occurrences and the Germans?
A. I know. As I had to be at the Gestapo every day and to report daily to the Directorate for Public Order and Security, we knew approximately when the deportations would begin, and we also knew that this was done at the order of the Germans."
This piece is a embarrassment to TNR, and if it doesn't embarrass Kirsch personally, it should.
This piece is a embarrassment to TNR, and if it doesn't embarrass Kirsch personally, it should.
As neither a supporter nor enemy of Zizek (I own some of his books, read them, enjoy them but disagree with him on many issues) I still found the Kirsch articles quite painful. As far as I could see, Zizek responds to Kirsch by explaining that he has basically misunderstood some of his basic terminology. Philosophy 101 would say "if you're going to reply to him, show him that either you haven't misunderstood his terminology and that your point still stands OR that you accept his new terminology, but would like to point out that it is nonsensical". That would be an actual reply.
I'm not a Zizek follower- so please don't use the ad hominem "oh you Zizek obsessives can't handle him being crit ... view full comment
As neither a supporter nor enemy of Zizek (I own some of his books, read them, enjoy them but disagree with him on many issues) I still found the Kirsch articles quite painful. As far as I could see, Zizek responds to Kirsch by explaining that he has basically misunderstood some of his basic terminology. Philosophy 101 would say "if you're going to reply to him, show him that either you haven't misunderstood his terminology and that your point still stands OR that you accept his new terminology, but would like to point out that it is nonsensical". That would be an actual reply.
I'm not a Zizek follower- so please don't use the ad hominem "oh you Zizek obsessives can't handle him being criticised", because I want him to be criticised. He's not the messiah- he needs to be attacked but not in this way. This is why his book with Laclau and Butler was productive, and this article and reply are not.
Yes, we need people to question Zizek on his more dangerous ideas- but (dare I say it) as part of a true dialectic. This was weak. If that div edits the journal, I probably won't read any future issues. I only dropped in because I hoped for a decent critical review of Zizek's work- because frankly he demands one.
is it not a sort of antisemtism to blame things on the nazi's that never happened. so now an antisemite can read mr kirschas,
"oh look this guy talking all about how bad the holocaust was does not even know where it was, maybe the whole thing is made up"
so can we accept that in america there are two source of antisemitism,
Christianity and the whole neo-conservative attempt to frame any one who has the slightest sympathy for arabs in general but Palestinians in specific are antisemites
is it not a sort of antisemtism to blame things on the nazi's that never happened. so now an antisemite can read mr kirschas,
"oh look this guy talking all about how bad the holocaust was does not even know where it was, maybe the whole thing is made up"
so can we accept that in america there are two source of antisemitism,
Christianity and the whole neo-conservative attempt to frame any one who has the slightest sympathy for arabs in general but Palestinians in specific are antisemites
Well Mr. Kirsch,
Not only have you failed to understand the obvious conceptual frameworks that Dr Zizek laid out through his work (absolutism is a mute point with you), but you seek to bastardise your own distorted understanding through the original article and bloated reply.
It would not have been wrong to have honestly remarked Zizek was paradoxical, seemingly contradictory and down right confusing at times. Because he can be, and I am sure the man would have happily cleared up any real queries you had. But you were too quick to jump on a bandwagon of anti-semitism and typical new right fear-mongering accuations.
Are you not ashamed by the sheer amount of laughter from all these comments fo ... view full comment
Well Mr. Kirsch,
Not only have you failed to understand the obvious conceptual frameworks that Dr Zizek laid out through his work (absolutism is a mute point with you), but you seek to bastardise your own distorted understanding through the original article and bloated reply.
It would not have been wrong to have honestly remarked Zizek was paradoxical, seemingly contradictory and down right confusing at times. Because he can be, and I am sure the man would have happily cleared up any real queries you had. But you were too quick to jump on a bandwagon of anti-semitism and typical new right fear-mongering accuations.
Are you not ashamed by the sheer amount of laughter from all these comments forcing past your ears? You are not a philosopher, not because it is a elitest position to hold, but because it requires an open mind. I'm afriad your mind is as closed as the Queen Vic's legs after Albert died.
On the plus side your rubbish article and repsonse has restored my faith other people's intelligence.
The most odd thing about Kirsch's writing here is that he display the very move that largely exhonerates Zizek from the accusation of literally supporting totalitarian violence. Zizek is plainly saying not that we must reassert belief in barbarity for a good cause, but that this barbarity may nonetheless contain dramatic lessons that we should not simply dismiss out of shock and horror, both of which are pre-reflective attitudes. For example in the case of the Viet-cong violence, Zizek is here reminding us of the necessity to remember what the real purpose of many humanitarian acts on the part of the US and other imperialist nations: they serve as masks for the more fundamental structures of ... view full comment
The most odd thing about Kirsch's writing here is that he display the very move that largely exhonerates Zizek from the accusation of literally supporting totalitarian violence. Zizek is plainly saying not that we must reassert belief in barbarity for a good cause, but that this barbarity may nonetheless contain dramatic lessons that we should not simply dismiss out of shock and horror, both of which are pre-reflective attitudes. For example in the case of the Viet-cong violence, Zizek is here reminding us of the necessity to remember what the real purpose of many humanitarian acts on the part of the US and other imperialist nations: they serve as masks for the more fundamental structures of violence and domination they oversee. That is to state a contention about motivation, not to endorese violence, though some might regard Zizek's example as tasteless, others might say it is an important one because it forces us to think clearly about the dimensions of history we most desire to immediately reject. As for Mr Kirsch's accusations against Slavoj Zizek, they seem to amount to this: whenever this man says that he is only using a reference to violence, stalinism, fascism or another atrocity to extract a very specific reminider or truth from the horror, he is actually affirming and fantasising about that very crime, you can ignore all his subjective statements as lies!. If we were to take this seriously on every occasion this would be to reduce our scholarly relationship to the traumas of historical memory to mere denial and to limit out discussion to the most narrow liberal orthodoxy, besides which surely this accusation remains psychological speculation?