Myfanwy posted:

Good article

JA: So the enemy is the one who overidentifies ?

SZ: It is a false enemy. Basically, fundamentalists are not the danger. The crucial question is, do we accept this narrow Spinozist universal signifying field? Is this the ultimate reality that we have to accept, or not? Yes, for me this is the ultimate question, the only true problem. I think the whole conflict of fundamentalism versus nonfundatnentalism is basically a false problem. Those whom we perceive as fundamentalists are not really it. For example, let's take the Moral Majority preachers, usually regarded here as fundamentalists. Did you notice how the same rule applies to them as to (Joan Copjec developed this very nicely in October # 68) the problematic of the so-called "Teflon president," Ronald Reagan? You know how Reagan made a series of mistakes in his public appearances and speeches; each time, the journals mocked him, they made the whole list of-them. The real mystery is that not only it did not affect his popularity adversely, it even helped it. In a way, the poor liberals thought that by proving how wrong Reagan was, by enumerating all the mistakes, all the gaffes, they would somehow hurt him. They did not hurt him; they helped him.

My point is that the same goes, at least up to a point, for the Moral Majority preachers. It is wrong to label them as fundamentalists. Those who follow them know that this is fake. For examples Jimmy Swaggart: again and again it is proven that he is involved in sexual scandals; yet he still functions. That is the so-called mystery. I would even say the same thing about David Duke. The problem is not one of, is he really a racist or, does he really believe in anti-Semitism? These are false questions; his position is a kind of imposture, but the point is he is even more dangerous because of it.

JA: Because of its being his ethics ?

SZ: Yes, he is not a serious anti-Semite. I'm not saying he's simply joking, but there is a much more refined dialectic at world there. Let's put it this way: it's his ethics. Fredric Jameson, in one of his articles on film, speaks of this. Fifteen years ago we had this wave of horror movies, like The Exorcists, Jaws, etc. The Exorcist did not rely on the simple belief in supernatural forces. Jameson's idea was that these movies expressed a kind of nostalgia for the lost world, where it was still naively possible to believe in devils. This is a more refined dialectic. This is the same game David Duke is playing. Of course, we cannot be really anti-Semitic today. Duke is a kind of nostalgic figure. His thing is, "Wasn't it nice when it was still possible, like in Hitler's good old days?" I'm not saying it is not dangerous; it is even more disgusting, even more dangerous. Do you know why?

JA: Is it the same, but with no sublime object?

SZ: There still is the symbolic in play, but again, the basic feature of today's ideology, in correspondence with this Spinozist universality of the signifier, is not a kind of fundamentalism, but a mixture of nostalgia and cynicism: cynical distance, nostalgia, etc. We, as theoreticians from a long-term political perspective, cannot accept this as the ultimate stage and say to it "Okay, now humanity will just float in the bliss of the universal signifier to the end." This is not the ultimate horizon; I cannot accept this.

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/zizek-it-doesnt-have-to-be-a-jew/

Goethestein posted:

Crow posted:
lol actually its a complete failure, see: everything going on right now. even a bigger failure than communism, and thats saying something

surely if the murder of tens of millions is Not Real Communism then a bit of financial instability in the master race countries is Not Real Social Democracy

are you talking about the murder of tens of millions of socialist peoples by the murderous social democrat nation of Germany in WWII?

babyfinland posted:

Myfanwy posted:

Good article

JA: So the enemy is the one who overidentifies ?

SZ: It is a false enemy. Basically, fundamentalists are not the danger. The crucial question is, do we accept this narrow Spinozist universal signifying field? Is this the ultimate reality that we have to accept, or not? Yes, for me this is the ultimate question, the only true problem. I think the whole conflict of fundamentalism versus nonfundatnentalism is basically a false problem. Those whom we perceive as fundamentalists are not really it. For example, let's take the Moral Majority preachers, usually regarded here as fundamentalists. Did you notice how the same rule applies to them as to (Joan Copjec developed this very nicely in October # 68) the problematic of the so-called "Teflon president," Ronald Reagan? You know how Reagan made a series of mistakes in his public appearances and speeches; each time, the journals mocked him, they made the whole list of-them. The real mystery is that not only it did not affect his popularity adversely, it even helped it. In a way, the poor liberals thought that by proving how wrong Reagan was, by enumerating all the mistakes, all the gaffes, they would somehow hurt him. They did not hurt him; they helped him.

My point is that the same goes, at least up to a point, for the Moral Majority preachers. It is wrong to label them as fundamentalists. Those who follow them know that this is fake. For examples Jimmy Swaggart: again and again it is proven that he is involved in sexual scandals; yet he still functions. That is the so-called mystery. I would even say the same thing about David Duke. The problem is not one of, is he really a racist or, does he really believe in anti-Semitism? These are false questions; his position is a kind of imposture, but the point is he is even more dangerous because of it.

JA: Because of its being his ethics ?

SZ: Yes, he is not a serious anti-Semite. I'm not saying he's simply joking, but there is a much more refined dialectic at world there. Let's put it this way: it's his ethics. Fredric Jameson, in one of his articles on film, speaks of this. Fifteen years ago we had this wave of horror movies, like The Exorcists, Jaws, etc. The Exorcist did not rely on the simple belief in supernatural forces. Jameson's idea was that these movies expressed a kind of nostalgia for the lost world, where it was still naively possible to believe in devils. This is a more refined dialectic. This is the same game David Duke is playing. Of course, we cannot be really anti-Semitic today. Duke is a kind of nostalgic figure. His thing is, "Wasn't it nice when it was still possible, like in Hitler's good old days?" I'm not saying it is not dangerous; it is even more disgusting, even more dangerous. Do you know why?

JA: Is it the same, but with no sublime object?

SZ: There still is the symbolic in play, but again, the basic feature of today's ideology, in correspondence with this Spinozist universality of the signifier, is not a kind of fundamentalism, but a mixture of nostalgia and cynicism: cynical distance, nostalgia, etc. We, as theoreticians from a long-term political perspective, cannot accept this as the ultimate stage and say to it "Okay, now humanity will just float in the bliss of the universal signifier to the end." This is not the ultimate horizon; I cannot accept this.

http://www.egs.edu/faculty/slavoj-zizek/articles/zizek-it-doesnt-have-to-be-a-jew/

That's interesting. But it still leaves the problem of those-who-are-called-fundamentalists

loyellthecat22 posted:

Crow posted:

get well kermit

he is doing OK dont worry! i'd just recently spoken with him over email at muaythaikermi88@yahoo.com. he says he's feeling very healthy and virile. he even sent me a signed autograph!

NounsareVerbs posted:
moderate block = vast swaths of individuals who have simply given up

Given up on fantasies.

Occupy Madison Loses Permit Because Protesters were "Publicly Masturbating"
http://www.punditpress.com/2011/10/occupy-madison-loses-permit-because.html