Those who virulently criticized Mel Gibson’s The Passion even before its release seem unassailable: Are they not justified to worry that the film, made by a fanatic Catholic known for occasional anti-Semitic outbursts, may ignite anti-Semitic sentiments? More generally, is The Passion not a manifesto of our own (Western, Christian) fundamentalists? Is it then not the duty of every Western… return to article
-
subscribe to print magazine
-
email this article to a friend
-
Reader Comments (44)Page 1 of 1 pagesFor Zizek, heartfelt Jewish concerns about the murderous legacy of theological antisemitism are to be dismissed as “political correctness.”
Moreover, Zizek fails to notice that antisemitism was at the heart of “the traditional European fascism” that culminated in the Holocaust.
Beneath all of his pretentious intellectual posturing, Zizek has embraced “the socialism of fools.”
Posted by Marion I. Lipshutz on Feb 27, 2004 at 9:24 PM The entire muslim world has a GDP output lower than Spain. Honestly, learn how to contribute to society and stop hating women. What are the Islmastists contributions to this world lately (and yeah, we got the numbers, try something this century)?
Can you help the AIDS epidemidic in Africa? No. Can you help the development of cancer drugs? No. The birthplace of humanity is Africa, they should be ruling the world after these eons. But they can’t even figure out a way to own property. What morons.
Posted by Ty on Feb 27, 2004 at 11:58 PM Hey Ty,
u idiot..
if i follow what u’ve just said..
Muslim’s contribution, for example, is to not having AIDS as much as Africa, Europe or US has.U idiot..
what’s US contribution to the world?
killing tens of thausands human being in every possible corner of the world.forger Islamic world..just look your south..whats happening in Haiti..
or ask another question, what has happened in entire latin america..
US sucked their blood one after another..yes, Islam is resisting..
u like it or not..islam is the only refuge where one can resist against capitalist world system.yes they are underdeveloped..they have plenty of stupid problems..they are having a long list..
but, first of all, u, i mean, US, i mean, the West, comes first in that list..
“The entire muslim world has a GDP output lower than Spain. “
is that all u got..
we’ll be more than happy if you show the source of your stupid claim.or answer this question: Where is Islamic world? where it starts where it finishes?
Posted by click on Feb 28, 2004 at 12:17 AM Click-"The entire Muslim world has a GDP lower that Spain"- you’re right, how could that possibly be true?! How ridiculous is that statement?! There are millions and millions of more Islamists than Spaniards on this planet. They would have to be retarded to produce less in a year. Please write back asking for the source! Let’s be fair- a buck bet? Independent sourced?
Posted by Ty on Feb 28, 2004 at 1:06 AM i m posting JUST 4 of them.
Iran$458.3 billion
Malaysia$198.4 billion
Pakistan$295.3 billion
Turkey$489.7 billionSpain $850.7 billion
Stats from 2002
do the math by urself.
source: http://www.cia.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/ir.html
Posted by click on Feb 28, 2004 at 1:59 AM Just one more funny but hundered times heard arguments… zizek recycles himselves over and over, but maybe that’s the only think one can do in this late capitalism condition. At least if you want to reactivate real politics. And in this point i’m dealing the same postition with Zizek, guy from my neighbor country Slovenia.
Posted by Leon on Feb 28, 2004 at 6:14 AM If Marion I. Lipshutz is going to deplore a movie that paints a grim picture of some Jewish bureaucrats 2000 years ago, what does he/she have to say about (at least) 500 movies in which today’s Arabs are depicted negatively? Come to think of it, I can’t name a movie that is kind to Arabs.
As for Ty, well--he should re-acquaint himself with the term “blood libel.”Austin in DC
Posted by ATS on Feb 28, 2004 at 7:53 AM One thing I should never do is bar hop and surf the web. Plus, I hooked up with girl that actually lives in my building so I’m just hating life right now.
Anyway, here are 2 links. One that hashes the info out and the other is the link to actually buy the report.
Now, do you think the UN is a trusted source? Thomas Friedman? Or do you think the desk jockeys at In These Times who have never been the middle east are more informed?
http://www.undp.org/rbas/ahdr/english2003.html
http://www.merip.org/mero/mero072602.html
oh, and to be fair one more splitting the difference-
http://www.ictdar.org/presentations/GLFMS2004_files/frame.htm
Posted by Ty on Feb 28, 2004 at 10:36 AM oh and “click” you are absolutely right about the GDP thing (and have proved it with facts). What I meant to say, but Mr Jager blocked last night, was that “Arabs” (not Islamists, obviously the Persian Iranians are exempt) have a GDP lower than Spain sans their oil revenue.
My bad, you were right there.
When was the last time you actually bought something manufactured in an Arab country? They have no manufacturing, no IT sectors, no drug development, no science, no human rights, no service sector, etc. etc.
They can make homicide bombs pretty good.
Compare that to the development of nations largely infused with “Christian/Judeo” citizens. If we want to keep going with stats comparing the 2 camps we can.
Iran was the one hope for democratic liberalization. And look what just happened. Arab states are a drain on this planet and an affront to women’s rights.
Posted by Ty on Feb 28, 2004 at 11:08 AM Ty,
it is very simple..
u dont know how to calculate.Arabs are just 10% of entire muslim polulation.
In your first email u made a claim that “The entire muslim world has a GDP output lower than Spain.”what i m telling is that it is not true. Simple it is.
By the way? what happened in Iran? Whats the difference between in last election in Iran and the 2000 elections in USA?
“When was the last time you actually bought something manufactured in an Arab country? They have no manufacturing, no IT sectors, no drug development, no science, no human rights, no service sector, etc. etc.”
Did you think why they dont have these?
May be it has something to do with oil that you are filling your tanks with a ridiculous price?
or ask yourself, why a bottle of Coca Cola is cheaper than a bottle of gas.
Posted by click on Feb 29, 2004 at 12:32 AM By Slavoj Zizek | 2.27.0
The Passion
Do you need a translator to understand this somewhat disjointed group of thoughts that barely hold together and sometimes don’t? Do you need a doctorate to try and figure out these points? I don’t consider myself stupid---but this is the best you can do on a major cultural event?
Let’ see---Vatican II was wrong and the church should have kept blaming the Jews---all they have been doing is repressing a volcanic urge? I see, so regular showing of Birth of Nation would ease racial tensions and they wouldn’t boil up into racial attacks. Is that it--or I am too stupid to see the point?
Segue into necrophilia. Okay. Then, later on, say that religious fundamentalism is not the answer---Gibson’s use of subtitles show this is not possible? Did I miss the point? Is fundamentalism defined by a picture that self-limits itself to dead langugages that cannot possible pack them in at malls. The use of subtitles shows how wrong Gibson’s vision is? Did I miss something?
In the third to the last paragraph---we are told that Islam has a core that can be harnessed in a socialist direction---then we are told we must criticize the core of all religions--but only materialists can be ethical?
Far be it from me to comment that ‘socialists’ are constantly romanticizing the ‘core’ of resistance to capitalism in any set of beliefs/alternative world view---and it so rarely works out in a ‘progressive’ manner. The slave owners resisted capitalism----lets look at that as a model of ‘resistance’. Stalin set up a model--oops few mistakes there. Enver Hoxha of Albania--forget about him--he was too weird. European fascism--lets pigeonhole it as resistance to capitalism not correctly channeled. A highly disputable point and certainly not one that confidentially be asserted in a few lines.
Well, you know, I would rather have tame, polite, unpassionate religion than passion. I would rather have a billion Muslims sitting happily in front of their TVs, watching crappy Western TV and worrying about car payments--than trying to extract the core of capitalist resistance from potential Islamo-fascism.
Anyway, this is the best you can do in terms of analysis? Jesus Christ. Don’t put Zisek on a talk show. Even an intellectual one. The other people and the audience will need subtitles---even if he speaks in English.
Posted by Laslo on Feb 29, 2004 at 1:53 AM This is a little long perhaps, but very much worth reading in relation to the various forms of “spiritual marxism” we have talked about
paul
Posted by maggie on Feb 29, 2004 at 11:09 AM I don’t know if the last message went out since this isn’t my normal email. This Zizek article is very insightful about the relationship between religious fundamental “idealism” and the socialist project.
Paul
Posted by maggie on Feb 29, 2004 at 11:11 AM This article demostrates that there remains a religous realpolitik. It’s difficult to explain in words, but rather passion is it’s true expression. This movie has within it and with what it could have left out demostrated this particular dichotomy. So this movie comes down to, as the author claims, an act of fidelity or an incomprehensible exotic spectacle. It all depends on what you want to believe.
As far as Islam having a strain of violence ingrained within it I would have to agree. The followers of Islam are going through the same process as Christianity did and to some extent is still doing. The followers of Islam are using their religion as a political belief, just as Christianity did until some horrific wars and education taught them to approach politics with radical ideals. Eventually moderate ideals appeared, but at the same time so did a wealthy society. So what makes moderate thought: Democracy or money?
Posted by Jack on Feb 29, 2004 at 12:57 PM The antisemitism is a completely irrelevant argument, as is what about Islam.
the whole point of the article was that we should be critical of our own spirituality. From that perspective I believe that the Jews did kill JC, but he was meant to die, so it does not matter who killed him.
If the passion shows us something it is that Catholicism and Judaeism need to look less at blame and iconography and more at the individuals route into spirituality.
If you want to see a powerful movie, go and see Robert Duvall in the Apostle!
Posted by isamuel on Feb 29, 2004 at 5:34 PM Can Zizek ever bring himself to make even the simplest act of solidarity with Jews?
The pastor of the largest Baptist church in central Texas proclaimed last week that there is no evidence that Passion Plays ever led to the death of Jews. Another, more subtle, and thus perhaps more dangerous, form of holocaust denial.
Why is the Left still paying any attention to this Lacan bullshit?
Posted by Jim Aune on Feb 29, 2004 at 6:18 PM His main point, in the last paragraph, is not clearly stated and not expanded sufficiently.
Posted by laura rasmussen on Mar 1, 2004 at 1:24 AM Before:
Anti-semitism was about who hates jews.Now:
It is about who the Jew hates from. Jews started to call everybody anti-semitic that they dont like.it is huge paradigm shift!
Posted by Paul on Mar 1, 2004 at 5:39 AM The film is virulently Anti-Semitic. Period. Can’t a “progressive” rag ever confront Anti-Semitism? Ever?
What trash. At least Gibson proved that “the Jews” don’t control Hollywood. As if Reagan, Arnold, Murdock, and Sony didn’t already prove the point.
Any Jews at In These Times? Care to speak up? Come on kids, open your weasley little mouths and stand up for yourselves...just once...come on…
Posted by Albert Greenberg on Mar 1, 2004 at 12:53 PM why should anyone bother to “criticize the very core-in ALL religions.” if they already believe there are no absolutes.
Posted by Santa's Claws on Mar 1, 2004 at 12:54 PM oh yeah and while your criticizing every religon just try to find any historical, archeological, pure logical or better yet theological evidence to refute anything presented in the movie or more importantly the bible but i know Slavoj told you to close your eyes and masturbate
Posted by Santa's Claws on Mar 1, 2004 at 1:08 PM and another thing if your idea of sanity is relative to whatever society you just happen to be in, then the acceptance of THAT kind of sanity or lets say reality, is the most absurd and pathetic madness I can think of but then again I’m not a psychoanalist
Posted by Santa's Claws on Mar 1, 2004 at 1:22 PM Islam and politics. Let me see. Can any religion actually separate itself from the day to day running of the society in which it exists? For example, Israel, it’s a pure Jewish state made up of less then pure Jews. The US, don’t ever forget Regan when he was been sworn in, the first thing he did while standing on the podium, was to turn to the crowd and say, “let is pray”.
Islam gets a bad rap because it is so different from the other religions. As for the violent strains it shows, a Muslim can never be the one to start the aggression. It is permitted to defend yourself, your religion and your home. The problem now is that Islam is under siege from many different sources. From the direct armed actions of the USA and its poxy (Ops) proxy state, Israel, to the cultural attacks it now faces.
Posted by Aidan on Mar 1, 2004 at 4:13 PM Aidan made a good point. Neo-liberal capitalist globalization threatens islam. Unlike other religions Islam resists this gross occupation. It rejects all eurocentric historical offers. It refuses US imperial ambitions. That’s why entire West focuses on how to create of produce a liberal Islam. Thanks to resisting power of Islam, it is refusing and destrying these plans at leat for the time-being.
Posted by David on Mar 1, 2004 at 6:26 PM Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I’ve read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the ‘postmodern’ academy, as an ‘old-style Leftist’, or sometimes (Ty’s preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don’t think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?
Posted by phatjaymac on Mar 3, 2004 at 5:03 PM Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I’ve read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the ‘postmodern’ academy, as an ‘old-style Leftist’, or sometimes (Ty’s preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don’t think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?
Posted by phatjaymac on Mar 3, 2004 at 5:03 PM Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I’ve read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the ‘postmodern’ academy, as an ‘old-style Leftist’, or sometimes (Ty’s preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don’t think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?
Posted by phatjaymac on Mar 3, 2004 at 5:03 PM Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I’ve read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the ‘postmodern’ academy, as an ‘old-style Leftist’, or sometimes (Ty’s preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don’t think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?
Posted by phatjaymac on Mar 3, 2004 at 5:04 PM Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I’ve read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the ‘postmodern’ academy, as an ‘old-style Leftist’, or sometimes (Ty’s preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don’t think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?
Posted by phatjaymac on Mar 3, 2004 at 5:04 PM Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I’ve read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the ‘postmodern’ academy, as an ‘old-style Leftist’, or sometimes (Ty’s preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don’t think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?
Posted by phatjaymac on Mar 3, 2004 at 5:04 PM Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I’ve read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the ‘postmodern’ academy, as an ‘old-style Leftist’, or sometimes (Ty’s preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don’t think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?
Posted by phatjmac on Mar 3, 2004 at 5:14 PM Zizek is one of my favourite people to read...in fact I’ve read this piece twice before (in two of his books). One suspicion that I have had - which has now been confirmed thanks to Ty- is that you can read Zizek in a number of different ways: as a critical voice within the ‘postmodern’ academy, as an ‘old-style Leftist’, or sometimes (Ty’s preferred reading) as a biggot/homophobe/eurocentrist. His refreshing critiques of postmodern dogmas can sometimes be construed as reactionary and pre-modern. I don’t think this is the best or even a good reading of Zizek...but it is one that exists. What type of responsibility does Zizek bear when someone like Ty decides to start practicing the violence he seems to favour?
Posted by phatjmac on Mar 3, 2004 at 5:14 PM With Slavoj Zizek, anything can happen, but the overall pattern of his work is one in which valuable but discrete points are made, which rarely, if ever add up to a whole greater than the sum of the parts. Moreover, it is usually his attempt to create just such a cohesion which defeats that very purpose. So it is with “Passion:Regular or Decaf”.
I couldn’t agree more with Zizek that modern capitalism makes omnibus promises (mostly implied) that result in silly stuff like chocolate Ex-Lax and the decaf latte. And he is right to note, as have many others, that what liberal/radical Westerners see as “diversity” is a recipe for torpor. Personally, I find so-called multiculturalism little more than mandatory obsequity towards anyone not white, male and Christian. Yeah, that’s real liberation, ain’t it.
But to proceed from there to partially whitewash fascism and Islam, which properly belong side-by-side in the front case at the Museum of Anti-Modernity, is more than just the proverbial taking of the cake. For Zizek to think either of these kook creeds is any sort of misdirected anti-capitalism is to indulge in the same sort of selectivity he faults lifestyle consumption for.
Sadly, the results aren’t the same. The Dalai Lama and one’s New Age neighbor look like intellectual giants next to the senior researcher from Essen. I’ve known “ashram culture” from the inside for some time. There’s much more recognition of it’s ugly sides from it’s adherents, along with attempts to deal honorably with such than I’ve ever come across in the various Marxist-Leninist groups I worked with over the course of nearly three decades. And at least the New Agers don’t carry on as if creature comforts and pleasures are per se decadence, even as they indulge in a few.
Just once, I’d like to see Zizek and In These Times admit that the “spirit of collective discipline and sacrifice” that animates their (doubtless passionately) hoped-for “people’s community” is itself fraught with potential problems. Such an admission ought to be the basis of any post-capitalist future that doesn’t devolve into “the socialism of fools.”
Posted by Doug P. on Mar 4, 2004 at 7:09 PM With Slavoj Zizek, anything can happen, but the overall pattern of his work is one in which valuable but discrete points are made, which rarely, if ever add up to a whole greater than the sum of the parts. Moreover, it is usually his attempt to create just such a cohesion which defeats that very purpose. So it is with “Passion:Regular or Decaf”.
I couldn’t agree more with Zizek that modern capitalism makes omnibus promises (mostly implied) that result in silly stuff like chocolate Ex-Lax and the decaf latte. And he is right to note, as have many others, that what liberal/radical Westerners see as “diversity” is a recipe for torpor. Personally, I find so-called multiculturalism little more than mandatory obsequity towards anyone not white, male and Christian. Yeah, that’s real liberation, ain’t it.
But to proceed from there to partially whitewash fascism and Islam, which properly belong side-by-side in the front case at the Museum of Anti-Modernity, is more than just the proverbial taking of the cake. For Zizek to think either of these kook creeds is any sort of misdirected anti-capitalism is to indulge in the same sort of selectivity he faults lifestyle consumption for.
Sadly, the results aren’t the same. The Dalai Lama and one’s New Age neighbor look like intellectual giants next to the senior researcher from Essen. I’ve known “ashram culture” from the inside for some time. There’s much more recognition of it’s ugly sides from it’s adherents, along with attempts to deal honorably with such than I’ve ever come across in the various Marxist-Leninist groups I worked with over the course of nearly three decades. And at least the New Agers don’t carry on as if creature comforts and pleasures are per se decadence, even as they indulge in a few.
Just once, I’d like to see Zizek and In These Times admit that the “spirit of collective discipline and sacrifice” that animates their (doubtless passionately) hoped-for “people’s community” is itself fraught with potential problems. Such an admission ought to be the basis of any post-capitalist future that doesn’t devolve into “the socialism of fools.”
Posted by Doug P. on Mar 4, 2004 at 7:10 PM With Slavoj Zizek, anything can happen, but the overall pattern of his work is one in which valuable but discrete points are made, which rarely, if ever add up to a whole greater than the sum of the parts. Moreover, it is usually his attempt to create just such a cohesion which defeats that very purpose. So it is with “Passion:Regular or Decaf”.
I couldn’t agree more with Zizek that modern capitalism makes omnibus promises (mostly implied) that result in silly stuff like chocolate Ex-Lax and the decaf latte. And he is right to note, as have many others, that what liberal/radical Westerners see as “diversity” is a recipe for torpor. Personally, I find so-called multiculturalism little more than mandatory obsequity towards anyone not white, male and Christian. Yeah, that’s real liberation, ain’t it.
But to proceed from there to partially whitewash fascism and Islam, which properly belong side-by-side in the front case at the Museum of Anti-Modernity, is more than just the proverbial taking of the cake. For Zizek to think either of these kook creeds is any sort of misdirected anti-capitalism is to indulge in the same sort of selectivity he faults lifestyle consumption for.
Sadly, the results aren’t the same. The Dalai Lama and one’s New Age neighbor look like intellectual giants next to the senior researcher from Essen. I’ve known “ashram culture” from the inside for some time. There’s much more recognition of it’s ugly sides from it’s adherents, along with attempts to deal honorably with such than I’ve ever come across in the various Marxist-Leninist groups I worked with over the course of nearly three decades. And at least the New Agers don’t carry on as if creature comforts and pleasures are per se decadence, even as they indulge in a few.
Just once, I’d like to see Zizek and In These Times admit that the “spirit of collective discipline and sacrifice” that animates their (doubtless passionately) hoped-for “people’s community” is itself fraught with potential problems. Such an admission ought to be the basis of any post-capitalist future that doesn’t devolve into “the socialism of fools.”
Posted by Doug P. on Mar 4, 2004 at 7:11 PM SIR(zizek),i think you never have met any islamist or havent been to any muslim countries.islam embrace capilatizm and fasizm easily.as a left wing person,you should never give islam a reference,or any other religion,islam cant not be a sanctuary for us against capitalism.some comments about what is written below.one should see easily that how muslim countries are delibaretely put in thsese position,why are they poor?why all of them have political problems?look into history,how their borders were drawn?see why kings were appointed?blaming muslim for being countries poor just shows that how ignorant person you are.
next time study more and come back here.this kind of claims makes me angry.why cant you see how west goverment supported right wings parties in underdeveoped countries,how they supported military takeovers...please read about these things a little bitand afyter that make some why they r poor....
thank you
TT
Posted by tt on Mar 9, 2004 at 7:14 AM Surprised to see such - Beyond American - reporting here - Zizek captures an important way that US people self-brainwash by ignoring their feelings and passion and packaginf them up in “proper attire.”
I especially like the positive outlook on Islamic fundamentalism which is currently one of the only things standing between Bush-Blair-Corporate domination of the whole planet and its consciousness.
Posted by MArcel Idels on Mar 11, 2004 at 1:53 PM If Marcel Idels thinks Islamic fundamentalism is to be lionized because it’s some sort of putative anti-imperialism, then he needs to unhand his dick and his two-bit copy of the Quran (yeah, I know, referring to the Quran as two-bit is redundant).
I’ll take U.S. Hegemony, Incorporated over Islam, Incorporated any day. Does Idels really think liberty and justice for all is what Al-Qaeda, Hamas and Ansar-Al-Islam have in mind? Don’t make me laugh!!
As I’ve said in this space before: Islam is a religion of peace like my ass chews gum. Shame on Idels!!
Posted by Doug P. on Mar 12, 2004 at 8:42 AM The Jews DO control Hollywood. That’s why Shindler’s List was RUSHED to DVD without any extras to speak of. They wanted something out there when Mel’s film caught a wave. I’m not a Holocaust denier. It did happen, but Sharon is a fucking mass murderer. When do we stop allowing Jews to be such fucking killers? Do we allow blacks to walk around being killers because so many were killed as slaves? Israel is stealing land and building an illegal wall and has tons of WMD, Sharon is a killer, and you Jews who think different can go fuck yourselves. Mel Gibson will pay a price in Hollywood...it just takes time.
Posted by sdrturds on Mar 15, 2004 at 1:55 AM I am what might be called a “left-wing” Catholic. Mel Gibson got it all wrong! Jesus of Nazareth was a Jew who was executed by the Roman State for threatening the current world view, ie, male, exclusivist, militarist. That some members of the Jewish (Vichy?) leadership might have agreed with this assessment is probably true. The common people, the down and outers, the excluded certainly did not howl for his execution. Pilate was not a milquetoast Roman governor. He was as brutal as they came in those days. He would not hesitate to use the empire’s favorite means of capital punishment against any rebel, real or perceived. Jesus was executed by the state. Jesus never renounced his Judaism, but sought to include all of humanity at the Father’s banquet table. Evidently this threatened the high and the mighty. Therefore, anti-Semitism is a no brainer for a Christian--or at least it should be. I for one, am tired of fundamentalists of all stripes, those “exclusivists” who condmemn and murder other human beings because “their book” says so. I reject all fanatics, whether Christian, Muslim, Jewish, Hindu who kill in the name of God. Enough! Gibson showed us nothing of the “real” rabbi from Nazareth.
Posted by Tom Sciamanna on Mar 15, 2004 at 10:16 AM Page 1 of 1 pages -
register a new account »Posting Security
Also by Slavoj Zizek
- The Ambiguous Legacy of ‘68
Forty years ago, what was revolutionized -- the world or capitalism? - China’s Valley of Tears
Is authoritarian capitalism the future? - The Disturbing Sounds of the Turkish March
The true problem with "militaristic humanism" resides not in "militaristic," but in "humanism," in the way a military intervention is presented as humanitarian aid - The Dreams of Others
By tying the drama to a mere personal whim, The Lives of Others fails to capture the true horror of the GDR - In You More Than Yourself
The revolutionary potential of the Internet is far from self-evident - Lets be Realists, Let?s Demand the Impossible!
Why pragmatic politics are doomed to fail in the Middle East
Popular Discussions
- The 9/11 Faith Movement
Many Americans believe 9/11 was a conspiracy by the U.S. government
1968 posts since Jul 11 06 - What’s the 411 on 9/11?
891 posts since Dec 21 05 - Democrats: It’s the War
659 posts since Nov 1 05 - Was the Presidential Election Stolen?
459 posts since Jun 19 06 - A Fundamental History Lesson
The rise of National Socialism proved politics and religion don't mix
426 posts since Oct 10 05
© 2004 In These Times | Reprint Policy | Privacy Policy | Powered by Expression Engine | RSS Feeds
