A vile logic to Anders Breivik's choice of target

[bemildred]

Note this is Slavoj Zizek. Xpost in Editorials.

In Anders Behring Breivik's ideological self-justification as well as in reactions to his murderous act there are things that should make us think. The manifesto of this Christian "Marxist hunter" who killed more than 70 people in Norway is precisely not a case of a deranged man's rambling; it is simply a consequent exposition of "Europe's crisis" which serves as the (more or less) implicit foundation of the rising anti-immigrant populism – its very inconsistencies are symptomatic of the inner contradictions of this view.

The first thing that sticks out is how Breivik constructs his enemy: the combination of three elements (Marxism, multiculturalism and Islamism), each of which belongs to a different political space: the Marxist radical left, multiculturalist liberalism, Islamic religious fundamentalism. The old fascist habit of attributing to the enemy mutually exclusive features ("Bolshevik-plutocratic Jewish plot" – Bolshevik radical left, plutocratic capitalism, ethnic-religious identity) returns here in a new guise.

Even more indicative is the way Breivik's self-designation shuffles the cards of radical rightist ideology. Breivik advocates Christianity, but remains a secular agnostic: Christianity is for him merely a cultural construct to oppose Islam. He is anti-feminist and thinks women should be discouraged from pursuing higher education; but he favours a "secular" society, supports abortion and declares himself pro-gay.

His predecessor in this respect was Pim Fortuyn, the Dutch rightist populist politician who was killed in early May 2002, two weeks before elections in which he was expected to gain one fifth of the votes. Fortuyn was a paradoxical figure: a rightist populist whose personal features and even opinions (most of them) were almost perfectly "politically correct". He was gay, had good personal relations with many immigrants, displayed an innate sense of irony – in short, he was a good tolerant liberal with regard to everything except his basic stance towards Muslim immigrants.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2011/aug/08/anders-behring-breivik-pim-fortuyn

[Jefferson23]

1. Well done.

I could easily say, I agree with most and be done with it but I will post excerpts I find
compelling.

*Even more indicative is the way Breivik's self-designation shuffles the cards of radical rightist ideology. Breivik advocates Christianity, but remains a secular agnostic: Christianity is for him merely a cultural construct to oppose Islam. He is anti-feminist and thinks women should be discouraged from pursuing higher education; but he favours a "secular" society, supports abortion and declares himself pro-gay.

** Furthermore, Breivik combines Nazi features (also in details – for example, his sympathy for Saga, the Swedish pro-Nazi folk singer) with a hatred of Hitler: one of his heroes is Max Manus, the leader of the Norway anti-Nazi resistance. Breivik is not so much racist as anti-Muslim: all his hatred is focused on the Muslim threat.


***Antisemitism belongs to this series, alongside other forms of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. The state of Israel is here making a catastrophic mistake: it decided to downplay, if not completely ignore, the "old" (traditional European) antisemitism, focusing instead on the "new" and allegedly "progressive" antisemitism masked as the critique of the Zionist politics of the state of Israel. Along these lines, Bernard Henri-Lévy (in his Left in Dark Times) recently claimed that the antisemitism of the 21st century would be "progressive" or not exist at all. This thesis compels us to turn around the old Marxist interpretation of antisemitism as a mystified anti-capitalism (instead of blaming the capitalist system, the rage is focused on a specific ethnic group accused of corrupting the system): for Henri-Lévy and his partisans, today's anti-capitalism is a disguised form of antisemitism.

And last but not least, he sticks it to the moron Rubin, who will have to write another clarification perhaps...lol


****A key is provided by the reactions of the European right to Breivik's attack: its mantra was that in condemning his murderous act, we should not forget that he addressed "legitimate concerns about genuine problems" – mainstream politics is failing to address the corrosion of Europe by Islamicisation and multiculturalism, or, to quote the Jerusalem Post, we should use the Oslo tragedy "as an opportunity to seriously re-evaluate policies for immigrant integration in Norway and elsewhere". The newspaper has since apologised for this editorial. (Incidentally, we are yet to hear a similar interpretation of the Palestinian acts of terror, something like "these acts of terror should serve as an opportunity to re-evaluate Israeli politics".)



Thanks for posting.

on edit for clarity

[bemildred]

2. My pleasure.

I thought that last sentence was priceless:

Incidentally, we are yet to hear a similar interpretation of the Palestinian acts of terror, something like "these acts of terror should serve as an opportunity to re-evaluate Israeli politics".

[Jefferson23]

3. Looking in the mirror is not easy for everyone...you might have to actually change course if you do.

[bemildred]

4. Well, the situation is actually quite different.

As I expect we will hear real soon now.

[LeftishBrit]

5. Very interesting..

I could probably find specific bits to disagree with, but YES YES to the following:

'Antisemitism belongs to this series, alongside other forms of racism, sexism, homophobia, etc. The state of Israel (LB: and not just Israel) is here making a catastrophic mistake: it decided to downplay, if not completely ignore, the "old" (traditional European) antisemitism, focusing instead on the "new" and allegedly "progressive" antisemitism masked as the critique of the Zionist politics of the state of Israel. Along these lines, Bernard Henri-Lévy (in his Left in Dark Times) recently claimed that the antisemitism of the 21st century would be "progressive" or not exist at all...

This unspoken but no less efficient dismissal of those who would attack the "old" antisemitism is taking place at the very moment when the "old" antisemitism is returning all around Europe, especially in post-communist eastern European countries, from Hungary to Latvia.'

YES. Not to say that antisemitism doesn't exist on the left - it exists everywhere - but one of my frustrations is the assumption by many that right-wing antisemitism is somehow irrelevant; that Norway is 'the most antisemitic country in Europe' while antisemitism flourishes far more blatantly in Poland and Hungary and Ukraine; that Jews should join hands with right-wing Europaean xenophobes (yes, because right-wing Europaean xenophobes have SUCH a great history through the generations of being people that Jews could trust :sarcasm:).

And yes, I do detect a form of antisemitism in some of the more extreme rightist supporters of Israel and even some Israelis toward left-wing dissidents (it's an attitude with many parallels; right-wing Brits and Americans often express contempt for the weakness, immorality and 'degeneracy' of their own countries). I didn't really relish the implication from one RW writer that I am suffering from the 'Jew flu' for example!

[bemildred]

6. Agreed. nt

[shira]

7. The “I don’t hate Jews, only Zionists” Chronicles continue at CiF: The vile logic of Slavoj Žižek

The “I don’t hate Jews, only Zionists” Chronicles continue at CiF: The vile logic of Slavoj Žižek

The writings of Slavoj Žižek have all the markings of a communist revolutionary intellectual trying desperately to stay relevant in an age which has rejected such historically lethal, secular millenarian ideologies. That is, the style he employs seems intent on at least trying to hide his explicit message - one which is viciously hostile to Jews and Israel.

First, here’s a little background which will allow those vexed by his rhetorical obfuscations understand precisely the ideological territory he claims.

Žižek is a philosopher, Leninist, and foe of liberal democracy who who has attributed the attacks of 9/11 to the “antagonisms of global capitalism”, and has argued that Hitler’s greatest sin was that he was “not radical enough” in that he didn’t “dare to disturb the basic structure of the modern capitalist social space”, adding that the Nazi dictator “was not violent enough…not ‘essential’ enough.”

more...
http://cifwatch.com/2011/08/08/the-i-dont-hate-jews-only-zionists-chronicles-continue-at-cif-the-vile-logic-of-slavoj-zizek/

[bemildred]

8. I had no idea that "Comment Is Free" had it's own watchers now.

I'm not going to try to discuss the OP with you, we will both just get annoyed.

[Violet_Crumble]

13. Yeah, and they're a pretty pathetic bunch of individuals...

When I saw it after it had first started, it was a bunch of whiny morons who'd been banned from CiF and were so obsessed they sat there throwing insults at commenters they hated because they dared to oppose Israeli policy towards the Palestinians. I doubt it's improved over time, and suspect it's the motherlode of much of the illogical propaganda that some post here...

[bemildred]

14. They got banned from CiF?

And then they decided to appoint themselves "monitors" of what all the rest of us are up to, anti-semitism-wise?
WOW. Going to need extra butter.
:popcorn:

[Violet_Crumble]

15. Apparently so. I saw a bunch of them whining about it...

From what I can work out (I sporadically read but never post), to get booted from CiF, they have to have been extremely obnoxious, as from what I've seen it's pretty difficult to get banned. I know I can always turn to those wise souls when I need reminding of how antisemitic the rest of the world is! ;)

[shira]

17. Here's an example as to how such a banning occurs...

http://cifwatch.com/2011/07/24/perfect-illustration-of-guardians-biased-moderation-when-dealing-with-israel-related-reader-comments/

[azurnoir]

18. Neither commenter was banned both had off topic comments deleted

must have been a slow day for CIFwatch

[Jefferson23]

9. Seriously, you read the links embedded in this OP that is offered

to support the claims?

[King_David]

10. Too difficult and boring to read past the 1st paragraph nt

[shira]

11. In a nutshell, Zionism is racism (also antisemitic). Nazis and other Jew haters...

....are the biggest supporters of Zionism so that should tell you something about what Zionism really is (evil). No decent people should support the Zionist regime. Zionists are immoral, racist and evil as they hate anti-Zionist Jews and therefore they are the real antisemites. On and on with shit piled on top of more shit using fancy words and citations.

Of course, one state with an Arab majority is the answer.

See more here...
http://www.ynetnews.com/articles/0,7340,L-3337805,00.html

The man's a god and we're privileged to read him....

:eyes:

[Violet_Crumble]

12. That's a pretty interesting article. Thanks for posting it...

From the article: 'There is only one solution to this enigma: it is not that the US fundamentalists have changed, it is that Zionism itself has paradoxically come to adopt some antisemitic logic in its hatred of Jews who do not fully identify with the politics of the state of Israel. Their target, the figure of the Jew who doubts the Zionist project, is constructed in the same way as the European antisemites constructed the figures of the Jew – he is dangerous because he lives among us, but is not really one of us. Israel is playing a dangerous game here: Fox News, the main US voice of the radical right and a staunch supporter of Israeli expansionism, recently had to demote Glenn Beck, its most popular host, whose comments were getting openly antisemitic.'


I've seen that hatred manifest itself where a Jewish blogger who opposes the occupation is referred to as a Kapo. Another example of antisemitism aimed at Jews who oppose the occupation was posted in this forum a while back. The thread is an entertaining read to watch one poster do contortions arguing that it's not antisemitism when it's aimed at pro-Palestinian Jews - it's 'calling out haters'.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=124&topic_id=300020&mesg_id=300020

[bemildred]

16. My pleasure.

He has an "active mind", you might say, lots of ideas, and sometimes something you had not thought of yourself, but you have to sort it out yourself. He is not my favorite commie-socialist-anarchist-pinko writer, but I do like to see what he has to say.

I am in a grumpy mood today and have things to do, so I'm not going to go into the point you raise, other than to say yeah, it's been annoying me ever since I've been here, that snotty attitude towards the agnostic, the apostate, blasphemers, the oblivious, and historical Jews, basically anybody who questions their dogmas, or who interferes with their self-approval, and all those old-timey Jews who "didn't fight back." Here is one of those guys that "didn't fight back" from a couple days ago:

http://www.latimes.com/news/local/la-me-survivors-20110805,0,5045071.story

[azurnoir]

19. This sums it up quite well from the article

This unspoken but no less efficient dismissal of those who would attack the "old" antisemitism is taking place at the very moment when the "old" antisemitism is returning all around Europe, especially in post-communist eastern European countries, from Hungary to Latvia. Something that should worry us even more is the rise of a weird accommodation between Christian fundamentalists and Zionists in the US.

There is only one solution to this enigma: it is not that the US fundamentalists have changed, it is that Zionism itself has paradoxically come to adopt some antisemitic logic in its hatred of Jews who do not fully identify with the politics of the state of Israel. Their target, the figure of the Jew who doubts the Zionist project, is constructed in the same way as the European antisemites constructed the figures of the Jew – he is dangerous because he lives among us, but is not really one of us. Israel is playing a dangerous game here: Fox News, the main US voice of the radical right and a staunch supporter of Israeli expansionism, recently had to demote Glenn Beck, its most popular host, whose comments were getting openly antisemitic.

The standard Zionist argument against the critics of the policies of the state of Israel is that, of course, like every other state, Israel can and should be judged and eventually criticised, but that the critics of Israel misuse the justified critique of Israeli policy for antisemitic purposes. When the Christian fundamentalist supporters of the Israeli politics reject leftist critiques of Israeli policies, their implicit line of argument is illustrated by a wonderful cartoon published in July 2008 in the Viennese daily Die Presse: it shows two stocky, Nazi-looking Austrians, one of them holding in his hands a newspaper and commenting to his friend: "Here you can see again how a totally justified antisemitism is being misused for a cheap critique of Israel!" These are today's allies of the state of Israel.

[shira]

20. Talk about vile logic...

The vile logic in the paragraphs you posted is that while Zizek admits to rightwing antisemitism in Poland, this anti-zionist 'genius' fails to see THAT is the reason Israel should continue to exist as a safe haven for Jews worldwide. The extreme rightwing antisemitic "zionists" he derides for supporting Israel are yet another reason Israel must exist. They want Jews out of their lands. Jews should have somewhere to go where they can be themselves, just in case Europe has another historical outburst of insanity.

The "progressives" that Zizek loves are a collective Helen Thomas, where all Jews should get the hell out of Israel and go back to Poland. Or at best stay in Israel after full RoR and an Arab majority, and take their chances with that. Poland from 70 years ago would be a safer alternative than being subjugated to illiberal, antisemitic, theocratic fascist tyranny.

For a genius, the man is an idiot.

Hate blinds.

Anti-fascists like him should seriously consider being anti-totalitarian as well.

[azurnoir]

21. He merely points out that the old anti-semitism never left while all the yammering is about

what is labeled the 'new' antisemitism or criticizing Israel, did you throw in Helen Thomas to attempt to justify your point, which seems you didn't like what he said? The comparison is ridiculous at best malicious slander at worst

as to Israel as a safe haven it's getting a bit crowded wouldn't you agree? The last population estimate I saw was 7.7 million

[shira]

22. Old anti-semitism is the reason Israel must still exist. The 'genius' doesn't get that.

And FTR, the new antisemitism isn't criticism of Israel, it's OTT demonization/dehumanization, double-standards, and delegitimization that violates at least 5-6 examples in the EUMC working definition of antisemitism.

Helen Thomas is a poster child of that 'criticism'.