The uberschmuckitude of Slavoj Zizek

@ Bob's: My comment:

I don't understand what the big deal is about Zizek. The man is incapable of making arguments that sound reasonable or even produce one fact which can be said to be accurate or verifiable. In the past I heard him claim, in two different fora, that Israelis are being sadistic to Palestinian farmers in the WB. His example? They are not allowed to dig more than three inch- deep wells! What are they afraid of? He asked contemptuously. Weapon-smuggling Tunnels?

3-inch wells? Weapon smuggling tunnels in the West Bank?

In a recent "debate" on Al-Jazeera with Tariq Ramadan, he went out of his way to express views that made Ramadan look like the embodiment of good sense and moderation, by claiming with the utmost sycophancy that American Evangelicals are much more dangerous and frightening than the Islamists.

Don't forget this:

"Regarding Islam, we should look at history. In fact, I think it is very interesting in this regard to look at ex-Yugoslavia. Why was Sarajevo and Bosnia the place of violent conflict? Because it was ethnically the most mixed republic of ex-Yugoslavia. Why? Because it was Muslim-dominated, and historically they were definitely the most tolerant. We Slovenes, on the other hand, and the Croats, both Catholics, threw them out several hundred years ago.

This proves that there is nothing inherently intolerant about Islam."

If he is so clever and all that, why can't he understand that "tolerance" and "social harmony" are easy to achieve by having inferiority inscribed into law. When you know that any breach of your inferior status may entail painful judgments, even death, you are not likely to walk with your head held high when you pass your Muslim neighbour in the street. Nor are you likely to pursue justice in court when your Muslim partner cheated you, since by law, your testimony counted for half the value of your adversary's. When a system is slated against you, legally, you adjust your ways and expectations and forgive a multitude of insults, slurs and crimes committed against you. This is the kind of "tolerance" Zizek is praising.

As Zizek emerges as a person who does not seem to understand the basic meaning of the term "tolerance", why, then, would I give much credit to anything he has to say about antisemitism? To me it seems that his intention, in accepting the prevalence of antisemitism, was to make the point that Christian Zionists were antisemitic. First he established that he was an authority on antisemitism and then he cashed in on that authority by including Israel's greatest supporters in America in his version of anti-Semitism. Too clever by half, ain't he?

From there to the declaration that Zionism is not the worst evil in the world is but a tiny step. Again, consider the sleight of phrase! Zionism is an evil, but he Zizek, is so generous and objective in his assessments as to acknowledge that it is not the GREATEST evil!

Islamic regimes in the Balkans were an example of multicultural tolerance but Zionism is an evil, though, mind you, not the only or greatest evil.

Excuse me for thinking the man is an uberschmuck.

(In the past, I commented on Zizek here, and here, and here, and here )