Changes

{{BSZ}} The excitation and the sense of urgency caused by the daily reports on violent demonstrations against the perpetrators of Muhammed caricatures is on the wane. The time has come to look back (as well as into the future, of course) and draw a balance.<br><br>

The irony not to be missed is that 99.99% of the thousands who feel offended and demonstrate had never even SEEN the Danish caricatures. This fact confronts us with another, less attractive, aspect of globalization: the “global informational village” is the condition of the fact that something that took place in an obscure daily in Denmark caused such a violent stir in the far-away Muslim countries – it was as if Denmark and Syria (and Pakistan and Egypt and Iraq and Lebanon and Indonesia and…) are <i>neighboring</i> countries. This is what those who see globalization as the chance for the entire earth as a unified space of communication, bringing together all humanity, fail to notice: since a Neighbor is (as Freud suspected long ago) primarily a Thing, a traumatic intruder, someone whose different way of life (or, rather, way of <i>jouissance</i> materialized in its social practices and rituals) disturb us, throw off the rails the balance of our way of life, when the Neighbor comes too close, this can also give rise to aggressive reaction aimed at getting rid of this disturbing intruder – or, as Peter Sloterdijk put it: “More communication means at first above all more conflict.” <a title="" name="_ftnref1" href="#_ftn1">[1]</aref>Peter Sloterdijk, “Warten auf den Islam,” <bri>Focus<br/i> This is why the attitude of “understanding-each-other” has to be supplemented by the attitude of “getting-out-of-each-other’s-way10/2006,” by maintaining an appropriate distance, by a new “code of discretionp.” European civilization finds it easier to tolerate different ways of life precise on account of what its critics usually denounce as its weakness and failure, namely the “alienation” of social life.” Alienation means (also) that distance is included into the very social texture: even if I live side by side with others, the normal state is to ignore them. I am allowed not to get too close to others; I move in a social space where I interact with others obeying certain external “mechanical” rules, without sharing their “inner world” – and, perhaps, the lesson to be learned is that, sometimes, a dose of alienation is indispensable for the peaceful coexistence of ways of life. Sometimes, alienation is not a problem but a solution: globalization will turn explosive not if we remain isolated of each other, but, on the opposite, if we get too close to each other84.<br><br/ref>

WasThis is why the attitude of “understanding-each-other” has to be supplemented by the attitude of “getting-out-of-each-other’s-way, however” by maintaining an appropriate distance, that by a new “code of discretion.” European civilization finds it easier to tolerate different ways of life precise on account of what triggered such violent reactions really the cultural gap between the secular West its critics usually denounce as its weakness and failure, namely the Muslim countries, i.e“alienation” of social life.” Alienation means (also) that distance is included into the very social texture: even if I live side by side with others, the fact that Islam fundamentalists find unbearable any playful-ironic reference normal state is to ignore them. I am allowed not to get too close to God? For others; I move in a Western liberalsocial space where I interact with others obeying certain external “mechanical” rules, without sharing their “inner world” – and, perhaps, the sight lesson to be learned is that, sometimes, a dose of mob violence cannot but evoke alienation is indispensable for the first line from William Butler Yeats’ “Second Coming” (quoted in the title)peaceful coexistence of ways of life. The poem goes on: “the best lack all convictionSometimes, while the worst are full of passionate intensity.” Is this alienation is not a good description problem but a solution: globalization will turn explosive not if we remain isolated of today’s split between anemic liberals and impassionate fundamentalists? The best are no longer able to fully engage themselveseach other, while “the worst” engage in (racistbut, religiouson the opposite, sexist) fanaticismif we get too close to each other.<br><br>

AreWas, however, the terrorist fundamentalists, be it Christian or Muslim, truly fundamentalists? There is a feature that clearly distinguishes all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to what triggered such violent reactions really the Amish in cultural gap between the US: secular West and the absence of resentment and envyMuslim countries, i.e., the deep indifference towards the nonfact that Islam fundamentalists find unbearable any playful-believers’ way of life. Since they really believe they found their way ironic reference to Truth, why should they feel threatened by non-believers, why should they envy themGod? When a Buddhist encounters For a Western hedonistliberal, he is far the sight of mob violence cannot but evoke the first line from condemning him; he just benevolently notes that William Butler Yeats’ “Second Coming” (quoted in the hedonist’s search for happiness is self-defeatingtitle). The contrast cannot be stronger to poem goes on: “the best lack all conviction, while the terrorist pseudo-worst are full of passionate intensity.” Is this not a good description of today’s split between anemic liberals and impassionate fundamentalists who ? The best are deeply botheredno longer able to fully engage themselves, intriguedwhile “the worst” engage in (racist, fascinatedreligious, by the sinful life of the non-believers – one can feel that, in fighting the sinful other, they are fighting their own temptation. A so-called Christian or Muslim “fundamentalist” is a disgrace to true fundamentalismsexist) fanaticism.<br><br>

It Are, however, the terrorist fundamentalists, be it Christian or Muslim, truly fundamentalists? There is here a feature that Yeats’ diagnosis falls short: clearly distinguishes all authentic fundamentalists, from Tibetan Buddhists to the passionate intensity of a mob bears witness to a lack of true conviction. The fundamentalist Islamic terror is NOT grounded Amish in the terrorists’ conviction US: the absence of their superiority resentment and in their desire to safeguard their culturalenvy, the deep indifference towards the non-religious identity from the onslaught believers’ way of the global consumerist civilization: the problem with fundamentalists is not that we consider them inferior life. Since they really believe they found their way to usTruth, butwhy should they feel threatened by non-believers, ratherwhy should they envy them? When a Buddhist encounters a Western hedonist, he is far from condemning him; he just benevolently notes that THEY THEMSELVES secretly consider themselves inferior (like, obviously, Hitler himself felt towards Jews) – which the hedonist’s search for happiness is why our condescending Politically Correct assurances that we feel no superiority towards them only makes them more furious and feeds their resentmentself-defeating. The problem is not cultural difference (their effort contrast cannot be stronger to preserve their identity), but the opposite fact that the terrorist pseudo-fundamentalists who are already like usdeeply bothered, intrigued, fascinated, by the sinful life of the non-believers – one can feel that, secretlyin fighting the sinful other, they have already internalized our standards and measure themselves by themare fighting their own temptation. Paradoxically, what the fundamentalists really lack A so-called Christian or Muslim “fundamentalist” is precisely a dosage of disgrace to true “racist” conviction of one’s own superiorityfundamentalism. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s well-known distinction between <i>amour-de-soi</i> and <i>amour-propre</i> is more than pertinent here:</font></font></p>

It is here that Yeats’ diagnosis falls short: the passionate intensity of a mob bears witness to a lack of true conviction. The fundamentalist Islamic terror is NOT grounded in the terrorists’ conviction of their superiority and in their desire to safeguard their cultural-religious identity from the onslaught of the global consumerist civilization: the problem with fundamentalists is not that we consider them inferior to us, but, rather, that THEY THEMSELVES secretly consider themselves inferior (like, obviously, Hitler himself felt towards Jews) – which is why our condescending Politically Correct assurances that we feel no superiority towards them only makes them more furious and feeds their resentment. The problem is not cultural difference (their effort to preserve their identity), but the opposite fact that the fundamentalists are already like us, that, secretly, they have already internalized our standards and measure themselves by them. Paradoxically, what the fundamentalists really lack is precisely a dosage of true “racist” conviction of one’s own superiority. Jean-Jacques Rousseau’s well-known distinction between <blockquotei>amour-de-soi<p align="justify"/i>and <i>amour-propre</i> is more than pertinent here:

<font color="#4a647b"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"blockquote>The primitive passions, which all directly tend towards our happiness, make us deal only with objects which relate to them, and whose principle is only amour de soi, are all in their essence lovable and tender; however, when, <i>diverted from their objects by obstacles, they are more occupied with the obstacle they try to get rid of, than with the object they try to reach, </i>they change their nature and become irascible and hateful. This is how amour de soi, which is a noble and absolute feeling, becomes amour-propre, that is to say, a relative feeling by means of which one compares oneself, a feeling which demands preferences, <i>whose enjoyment is purely negative and which does not strive to find satisfaction in our own well-being, but only in the misfortune of others</i>. <a title="" name="_ftnref2" href="#_ftn2"ref>[2]</ai>Rousseau, juge de Jean-Jacques</font></fonti>, first dialogue.</pref></blockquote>

<p align="justify"><font color="#4a647b"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">A true egotist is all too busy with taking care of his own good to have time to cause misfortunes to others; a violent pseudo-fundamentalist is, on the contrary, more occupied with (causing misfortune to the) others than with (providing a happy life to) himself. And does this not hold for fundamentalist violence, be it the Oklahoma bombings or the attack on Twin Towers? In both cases, we were dealing with hatred simple and pure: destroying the obstacle (Oklahoma City Federal Building, Twin Towers) was what really mattered, not achieving the noble goal of a truly Christian or Muslim society. <a title="" name="_ftnref3" href="#_ftn3"ref>See Jean-Pierre Dupuy, <i>Petite metaphysique des tsunamis</i>[3], Paris: Editions du Seuil 2005, p. 68.</aref> Not bearing in mind this logic of envy and resentment is the main cause of the debilitating deadlock of our reactions to the Muslim violence. These reactions oscillated between the two extremes of clinging to the freedom of the press and of demanding respect for the others.<br><br>

<b>Antinomies of Tolerant Reason</b><br><br>

Immanuel Kant developed the notion of the “antinomies of pure reason”: all reason inevitably falls into self contradiction when it attempts to go beyond our concrete sensible experience to address such questions as: "Does the Universe have a beginning in time, a limit in space, an initial cause, or is it infinite?" The antimony arises because it is possible to construct valid arguments to argue both sides of the question: we can conclusively demonstrate that the universe is finite <i>and</i> that it is infinite… Kant argues that if this conflict of reason is not resolved that humanity would lapse into hopeless skepticism which he called the "euthanasia of pure reason." The reactions to the Muslim outrage at the Danish caricatures of Mohammad seem to confront us with a similar antinomy of tolerant reason: two opposite stories can be told about the caricatures, each of them convincing and well-argued for, without any mediation or reconciliation between them.<br><br> On the one hand, for a Western liberal for whom the freedom of the press is one of the highest values, the case is clear. Even if we reject in disgust the caricatures, their publication in no way justifies murderous mob violence and the stigmatization of a whole country. Some companies already caught up with the new rules of the game – among others, Nestle and Carrefour. Nestle now emphasizes that no milk of Danish cows is used in their products. The French supermarket chain Carrefour in Egypt informs their “dear clients” that out of “solidarity” with Islamic community they “don’t carry Danish products.” The horror is that they both accepted the stigmatization of a whole country. Going even a step further, the Slovene president apologized to Muslims on behalf of “European civilization” itself!<br><br>

Those offended by On the caricatures should go to one hand, for a court and persecute Western liberal for whom the freedom of the press is one of the offenderhighest values, not demand apologies from the statecase is clear. The Muslim reaction thus displays Even if we reject in disgust the blatant lack of understanding of caricatures, their publication in no way justifies murderous mob violence and the Western principle stigmatization of an independent civil societya whole country. What underlies this attitude is Some companies already caught up with the sacred status new rules of writing as such (which is why Muslims are prohibited to use toilet-paper)the game – among others, Nestle and Carrefour. The idea Nestle now emphasizes that no milk of thoroughly secularized writing Danish cows is unimaginable used in an Islam culture, not to mention a Monty Pythonesque “Life of Muhammadtheir products.” There is more The French supermarket chain Carrefour in this than may appear. A carnivalesque mocking Egypt informs their “dear clients” that out of divinity is part of European religious tradition itself, starting “solidarity” with Ancient Greek ritualistic ridiculing the gods of OlympusIslamic community they “don’t carry Danish products. There is nothing subversive or atheist in it: this is an inherent part of religious life itself. As to Christianity, ” The horror is that they both accepted the crucifixion itself not a mocking spectacle stigmatization of blasphemy, making fun of Christ as a king riding a donkey with whole country. Going even a crown of thorns? Even morestep further, are there not moments the Slovene president apologized to Muslims on behalf of carnivalesque irony in Christ’s parables and riddles themselves?<br><br>“European civilization” itself!

On Those offended by the other handcaricatures should go to a court and persecute the offender, a no less convincing case can be made against not demand apologies from the Weststate. It soon became known that The Muslim reaction thus displays the same Danish newspaper which published blatant lack of understanding of the Muhammad caricatures, in a blatant display Western principle of its bias, previously rejected caricatures an independent civil society. What underlies this attitude is the sacred status of Christ writing as too offensivesuch (which is why Muslims are prohibited to use toilet-paper). FurthermoreThe idea of thoroughly secularized writing is unimaginable in an Islam culture, prior not to resorting to public manifestations, the Danish Muslims did for months try the “European” path mention a Monty Pythonesque “Life of dialogue, asking for reception with government authorities, etcMuhammad., and were ruthlessly rejected and ignored” There is more in this than may appear. The reality behind all this A carnivalesque mocking of divinity is the sad fact part of the rising xenophobia in DenmarkEuropean religious tradition itself, signaling starting with Ancient Greek ritualistic ridiculing the end gods of the myth Olympus. There is nothing subversive or atheist in it: this is an inherent part of Scandinavian tolerancereligious life itself. AndAs to Christianity, last but is the crucifixion itself not leasta mocking spectacle of blasphemy, what about our own prohibitions and limitations making fun of the freedom Christ as a king riding a donkey with a crown of the pressthorns? Is holocaust Even more, are there not our sacred untouchable fact? At the very moment when the Muslim protests were raging, David Irving was sitting in an Austrian prison for expressing his doubts about the holocaust moments of carnivalesque irony in an article published 15 years earlier, Christ’s parables and was then condemned to 3 years of prison – so it IS prohibited to doubt the holocaust in our liberal societies…<br><br>riddles themselves?

FurthermoreOn the other hand, a no less convincing case can be made against the obvious over-reaction to West. It soon became known that the same Danish newspaper which published the Muhammad caricatures, in a blatant display of its bias, previously rejected caricaturesof Christ as too offensive. Furthermore, rising up prior to murderous violence and expanding resorting to public manifestations, the whole Danish Muslims did for months try the “European” path of Europe or of the Westdialogue, asking for reception with government authorities, indicates how the protests are “not really” about caricaturesetc., but about humiliations and frustrations with Western imperialist attitudewere ruthlessly rejected and ignored. Journalists in The reality behind all this is the last weeks compete with each other enumerating these “real reasons”: Israeli occupation for Palestinians, dissatisfaction with sad fact of the pro-American Musharaf regime rising xenophobia in PakistanDenmark, anti-Americanism in Iransignaling the end of the myth of Scandinavian tolerance. And, etc.etc. Howeverlast but not least, what about our own prohibitions and limitations of the problem with this excuse is: does freedom of the same press? Is holocaust not our sacred untouchable fact? At the very moment when the Muslim protests were raging, David Irving was sitting in an Austrian prison for anti-Semitism itself? It is not “really” expressing his doubts about Jewsthe holocaust in an article published 15 years earlier, but a displaced protest about capitalist exploitation. So this excuse only makes and was then condemned to 3 years of prison – so it worse for IS prohibited to doubt the Muslims: why don’t they address the TRUE cause?<br><br>holocaust in our liberal societies…

AndFurthermore, last but not least, what about the brutal and vulgar antiobvious over-Semitic and anti-Christian reaction to caricatures that abound in the press , rising up to murderous violence and school-books in Muslim countries? Where is here expanding to the respect for other people and their religion, that they demand from whole of Europe or of the West? Some Muslim groups replied to , indicates how the Danish protests are “not really” about caricatures , but about humiliations and frustrations with their own offensive of caricaturesWestern imperialist attitude. A Muslim group Journalists in Europe distributed on the net drawings of Anna Frank in bed last weeks compete with Hitler. <i>Hamshahri</i>each other enumerating these “real reasons”: Israeli occupation for Palestinians, Iran's largest selling newspaper, has announced it is holding a contest on cartoons of dissatisfaction with the Holocaust pro-American Musharaf regime in response to the publishing Pakistan, anti-Americanism in European papers of caricatures of the Prophet MuhammadIran, etc. The plan is to turn the tables on the assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in the name of freedom of expression: "The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the pretext of freedom of expression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoonsetc." This exercise is clearly self-defeating: if they really believe that the Danish caricatures of Mohammad were a sacrilegious crime that deserves the harshest punishmentHowever, will the holocaust cartoons not <i>repeat the crime</i>? The fact that they are doing it problem with the this excuse “Let us see how tolerant YOU are!” in no way changes this fact. In short, this reaction is a proof that what really matters to : does the enraged Muslims same not for anti-Semitism itself? It is a struggle for recognition and respectnot “really” about Jews, but a sense of humiliation and hurt pride, NOT religiondisplaced protest about capitalist exploitation.<br><br>So this excuse only makes it worse for the Muslims: why don’t they address the TRUE cause?

A further proof of this fact And, last but not least, what about the brutal and vulgar anti-Semitic and anti-Christian caricatures that abound in the press and school-books in Muslim countries? Where is here the strange inconsistency in respect for other people and their reference religion, that they demand from the West? Some Muslim groups replied to the holocaustDanish caricatures with their own offensive of caricatures. A Muslim group in Europe distributed on the net drawings of Anna Frank in bed with Hitler. The Jordanian newspaper <i>Ad-DusturHamshahri</i> published , Iran's largest selling newspaper, has announced it is holding a contest on October 19 2003 a cartoon depicting cartoons of the railroad Holocaust in response to the death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, with Israeli flags replacing the Nazi ones; the sign publishing in Arabic reads: “Gaza Strip or European papers of caricatures of the Israeli Annihilation CampProphet Muhammad.” This idea that Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians have been comparable The plan is to Nazi actions towards Jews strangely contradicts turn the holocaust denial. Are we not witnessing here yet another example of tables on the joke evoked by Freud assertion that newspapers can print offensive material in order to render the strange logic name of freedom of dreamsexpression: (1) I never borrowed a kettle from you; (2) I returned it to you unbroken; (3) "The Western papers printed these sacrilegious cartoons on the kettle was already broken when I got it from you. Such an enumeration pretext of freedom of inconsistent argumentsexpression, so let's see if they mean what they say and also print these Holocaust cartoons." This exercise is clearly self-defeating: if they really believe that the Danish caricatures of courseMohammad were a sacrilegious crime that deserves the harshest punishment, confirms will the holocaust cartoons not <i>per negationemrepeat the crime</i> what it endeavors to deny – that I returned you a broken kettle… Does the same inconsistency not characterize the way radical Islamists respond to the holocaust? (1) Holocaust did not happen. (2) It did happen, but the Jews deserved it. (3) The Jews did not deserve it, but fact that they themselves lost the right to complain by are doing to Palestinians what it with the Nazis did to themexcuse “Let us see how tolerant YOU are!” in no way changes this fact. Speaking in Mecca in December 2005In short, the Iranian president Ahmadinejad implied this reaction is a proof that guilt for the holocaust led European countries what really matters to support the establishment enraged Muslims is a struggle for recognition and respect, a sense of the State of Israel:</font></font></p>humiliation and hurt pride, NOT religion.

A further proof of this fact is the strange inconsistency in their reference to the holocaust. The Jordanian newspaper <blockquotei>Ad-Dustur<p align="justify"><font color="#4a647b"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3"/i>Some European countries insist published on saying October 19 2003 a cartoon depicting the railroad to the death camp at Auschwitz-Birkenau, with Israeli flags replacing the Nazi ones; the sign in Arabic reads: “Gaza Strip or the Israeli Annihilation Camp.” This idea that Hitler killed millions Israel’s policies towards the Palestinians have been comparable to Nazi actions towards Jews strangely contradicts the holocaust denial. Are we not witnessing here yet another example of innocent Jews the joke evoked by Freud in furnacesorder to render the strange logic of dreams: (1) I never borrowed a kettle from you; (2) I returned it to you unbroken; (3) the kettle was already broken when I got it from you. Such an enumeration of inconsistent arguments, of course, and they insist on confirms <i>per negationem</i> what it endeavors to deny – that I returned you a broken kettle… Does the same inconsistency not characterize the extent that if anyone proves something contrary way radical Islamists respond to thatthe holocaust? (1) Holocaust did not happen. (2) It did happen, they condemn that person and throw them in jailbut the Jews deserved it. /…/ Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose (3) The Jews did not deserve it is true, our question for but they themselves lost the Europeans is: Is the killing of innocent Jewish people right to complain by Hitler doing to Palestinians what the reason for their support Nazis did to the occupiers of Jerusalem? /…/ If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces them. Speaking in Europe, like Mecca in GermanyDecember 2005, Austria or other the Iranian president Ahmadinejad implied that guilt for the holocaust led European countries, to support the Zionists, and establishment of the Zionists can establish their state in Europe. You offer part State of Europe, and we will support it."</font></font></p></blockquote>Israel:

<p align="justify"blockquote><font color="#4a647b"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">This statement is the mixture of the most disgusting and of a correct insight. The disgusting part is, of course, holocaust denial or, even more problematically, the claim Some European countries insist on saying that Jews deserved it (“we don’t accept this claim”: which one? That Hitler killed million millions of innocent Jews <i>or in furnaces, and they insist on it to the extent that if anyone proves something contrary to that, they condemn that the Jews were innocent</i> person and did not deserve to be killed?)throw them in jail. What /…/ Although we don't accept this claim, if we suppose it is correct about true, our question for the quoted statement Europeans is : Is the reminder killing of European hypocrisy: innocent Jewish people by Hitler the European manoeuvre effectively was reason for their support to pay for its own guilt with another people’s land. So when the Israeli government spokesman Raanan Gissin said occupiers of Jerusalem? /…/ If the Europeans are honest they should give some of their provinces in responseEurope, "Just to remind Mr. Ahmadinejadlike in Germany, we've been here long before his ancestors were here. ThereforeAustria or other countries, we have a birthright to be here the Zionists, and the Zionists can establish their state in the land Europe. You offer part of our forefathers Europe, and to live here,we will support it." he evoked a historical right which, when applied universally, would lead to universal slaughter. Alain Badiou recently addressed this impasse:</font></font></pblockquote>

<blockquote><p align="justify"><font color="#4a647b"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">This statement is the mixture of the most disgusting and of a correct insight. The founding disgusting part is, of a Zionist State was a mixedcourse, holocaust denial or, thoroughly complexeven more problematically, reality. On the one side, claim that Jews deserved it is an event (“we don’t accept this claim”: which is part one? That Hitler killed million of a larger event: Jews <i>or that the rise of great revolutionary, communist Jews were innocent</i> and socialist projects. The idea did not deserve to found an entirely new societybe killed?). On What is correct about the other side, it quoted statement is a counter-event, which is part the reminder of a larger counter-eventEuropean hypocrisy: colonialism, the brutal conquest, by European manoeuvre effectively was to pay for its own guilt with another people’s land. So when the people who came from EuropeIsraeli government spokesman Raanan Gissin said in response, of the new land where other people, other peoples"Just to remind Mr. Ahmadinejad, livewe've been here long before his ancestors were here. This creation is an extraordinary mixture of revolution and reactionTherefore, of emancipation and oppression. The Zionist State should become what it had we have a birthright to be here in it the land of being just our forefathers and new. It has to become the least raciallive here," he evoked a historical right which, the least religiouswhen applied universally, and the least nationalist of States. The most would lead to universal of them allslaughter. <a title="" name="_ftnref4" href="#_ftn4">[4]</a></font></font></p>Alain Badiou recently addressed this impasse:

<blockquote>The founding of a Zionist State was a mixed, thoroughly complex, reality. On the one side, it is an event which is part of a larger event: the rise of great revolutionary, communist and socialist projects. The idea to found an entirely new society. On the other side, it is a counter-event, which is part of a larger counter-event: colonialism, the brutal conquest, by the people who came from Europe, of the new land where other people, other peoples, live. This creation is an extraordinary mixture of revolution and reaction, of emancipation and oppression. The Zionist State should become what it had in it of being just and new. It has to become the least racial, the least religious, and the least nationalist of States. The most universal of them all.<ref>Alain Badiou, <i>Circonstances, 3. Portees du mot “juif,”</i> Paris: Lignes 2005, p. 89-90.</ref></blockquote>

<p align="justify"><font color="#4a647b"><font color="#000000" face="Times New Roman" size="3">There is a truth in this insight. Cecile Winter proposed along these lines a nice mental experiment: imagine Israel as it is, in its destiny of the last half-century, IGNORING the fact that Jews came there stigmatized by the signifier of the absolute Victim, and thus beyond moral reproach. What we thus get is a standard story of colonization… However, the problem remains: can one really think these two aspects as different, in the sense of the possibility of the first one (the Zionist state) without the second one? It is like in the legendary “If…” answer of an American politician to the question ”Do you support the prohibition of wine or not?’: “If by wine you mean the terrible drink which ruined thousands of families, making husbands a wreck who were beating their wives and neglecting their children, then I am fully for the prohibition. But if you mean by wine the noble drink with a wonderful taste which makes every meal such a pleasure, then I am against it!” <ref>There is a title="" name="_ftnref5" href="#_ftn5">[5]deeper problem here, which concerns modern State democracy as such: is it not that the democratic abstraction (“all people independent of sex, belief, wealth, religion…”) is always sustained by a remainder of the contingent Real in the guise of a national Thing (“the /French, American…/ people”)? And does not this remainder return in Badiou’s suppressed French nationalism?</a><br><brref>

So why should we, as Badiou proposes, <i>abstract</i> from the holocaust when we judge the Israeli politics towards Palestinians? Not because one can compare the two, but precisely because the holocaust <i>was</i> an incomparably stronger crime. It is those who evoke holocaust that effectively manipulate it, instrumentalizing it for today’s political uses. The very need to evoke holocaust in defense of the Israeli acts secretly implies that Israel is committing such horrible crimes that only the absolute trump-card of holocaust can redeem them.<br><br>

Udi Aloni’s <i>Forgiveness</i> (2005) is a fiction movie based on one of those crazy historical coincidences: in order to arouse panic among the Palestinians and make them flee during the 1949 war, the Israeli army killed the population of a small Palestinian village in the suburb of Jerusalem and razed to ground all houses; afterwards, they built on these grounds a psychiatric hospital for the survivors of the holocaust (later for the victims of the terrorist kidnappings). The hypothesis of the film is that the patients are haunted by the ghosts of those who are buried beneath the ground of the hospital, in an example of what Gilles Deleuze referred to as the atemporal superimposition of historical moments in the crystal-image. The irony is shattering: those most sensitive to the ghosts of the killed Palestinians are the very survivors of the holocaust (the film plays with the fact that the living dead in the camps were called Muslims, <i>Musulmannen</i>). Aloni neither elevates the holocaust into the Absolute Crime which somehow legitimizes Israeli activity in the occupied zones, allowing the Israelis to dismiss all criticism of the Israeli politics as secretly motivated by the holocaust-denial; nor does he resort to the ridiculously false (and effectively latently anti-Semitic) equation “what Nazis were doing to the Jews, the Jews are now doing to Palestinians.”<br><br>

In the guise of the raging Muslim crowds, we stumble upon the limit of multicultural liberal tolerance, of its propensity to self-blaming and effort to “understand” the other: the Other is here a REAL other, real in his hatred. We thus encounter the paradox of tolerance at its purest: how far should tolerance for intolerance go? All the Politically Correct beautiful liberal formulas on how caricatures were insulting and insensitive, but violent reactions to them are also unacceptable, about how freedom also brings responsibility and should not be abused, etc., show their limitation here. What is this famous “freedom with responsibility” if not a new version of the good old paradox of forced choice: you are given a freedom of choice – on condition that you make the right choice; you are given freedom – on condition that you will not really use it.<brb>The ”anonymous religion of atheism”<br/b>

HowIt is, thenhowever, are we all too easy to break score points in this vicious circle of the endless oscillation between pro and contra brings the tolerant reason to a debilitating standstill? There is only one way to do itdebate with witty reversals, like: to reject what if the very terms in which the problem is posed. As Gilles Deleuze repeatedly emphasized, there are not only right and wrong solutions to problems, there true caricatures of Islam are also right and wrong problems. To perceive the problem as the one of the right measure between the respect for the other versus our own freedom of expression is in itself a mystification. No wonder thatviolent anti-Danish demonstrations themselves, upon offering a closer analysis, ridiculous image which exactly fits the two opposite poles reveal their secret solidarity. Western cliché? The language ultimate irony, of respect course, is that the language ire of liberal tolerance: respect only has meaning Muslim crowds turned against Europe which staunch anti-islamists like Oriana Falacci perceive as respect for those with whom I do NOT agreeway too tolerant towards Islam, already capitulating to its pressure; soand, when the offended Muslims demand respect for their otherness, they accept the frame of the liberal-tolerant discourse. On the other handin Europe, blasphemy is not only an attitude of hatred, of trying to hit the other where it matters mostagainst Denmark, at the core part of the real Scandinavian model of his belieftolerance. It is <i>stricto sensu</i> a religious problem: it only works within as if the more you tolerate Islam, the convolutions of a religious space.<br><br>stronger its pressure will be on you…

What lurks at In the guise of the horizon if raging Muslim crowds, we avoid this path is stumble upon the nightmarish prospect limit of a society regulated by a perverse pact between religious fundamentalists and the Politically Correct preachers multicultural liberal tolerance, of tolerance its propensity to self-blaming and respect for effort to “understand” the other’s beliefsother: the Other is here a society immobilized by REAL other, real in his hatred. We thus encounter the concern paradox of tolerance at its purest: how far should tolerance for not hurting intolerance go? All the otherPolitically Correct beautiful liberal formulas on how caricatures were insulting and insensitive, but violent reactions to them are also unacceptable, no matter about how cruel freedom also brings responsibility and superstitious should not be abused, etc., show their limitation here. What is this other is, and in which individuals famous “freedom with responsibility” if not a new version of the good old paradox of forced choice: you are engaged in regular rituals given a freedom of “witnessing” their victimizationchoice – on condition that you make the right choice; you are given freedom – on condition that you will not really use it.<br><br>

In How, then, are we to break this vicious circle of the last years, endless oscillation between pro and contra brings the tolerant reason to a public debate was raging debilitating standstill? There is only one way to do it: to reject the very terms in Slovenia: should which the Muslims (mostly immigrant workers from ex-Yugoslav republics) be allowed problem is posed. As Gilles Deleuze repeatedly emphasized, there are not only right and wrong solutions to build a mosque in Ljubljanaproblems, there are also right and wrong problems. To perceive the problem as the capital one of Slovenia? While conservatives opposed the mosque right measure between the respect for culturalthe other versus our own freedom of expression is in itself a mystification. No wonder that, politicalupon a closer analysis, and even architectural reasonsthe two opposite poles reveal their secret solidarity. The language of respect is the language of liberal tolerance: respect only has meaning as respect for those with whom I do NOT agree; so, when the weekly journal <i>Mladina</i> was most consistent and exposed in its support offended Muslims demand respect for the mosquetheir otherness, in line with its general support for they accept the civil and social the rights frame of the people from other exliberal-Yugoslav republicstolerant discourse. Not surprisinglyOn the other hand, in line with its libertarian blasphemy is not only an attitudeof hatred, of trying to hit the other where it matters most, at the core of the real of his belief. It is <i>Mladinastricto sensu</i> was also the a religious problem: it only one to reprint works within the Muhammad caricaturesconvolutions of a religious space. And, conversely, those who displayed the greatest “understanding” for the violent Muslim protest were the very ones who regularly expressed their concern for the Christian Europe.<br><br>

The parallel What lurks at the horizon if we avoid this path is the conservatives evoked was with a scandal in Slovenia a couple nightmarish prospect of years ago, when a rock group Strelnikoff printed society regulated by a poster announcing their concert: a classical painting perverse pact between religious fundamentalists and the Politically Correct preachers of Mary tolerance and respect for the baby Christ, but with other’s beliefs: a twist – Mary holds in her lap a rat instead of society immobilized by the concern for not hurting the baby Christ. The point of other, no matter how cruel and superstitious this parallel wasother is, of course, to reprimand also the caricatures mocking Christianity; at the same time, the difference and in which individuals are engaged in reactions regular rituals of the concerned religious community was noted as an argument for the difference of civilizations, i.e“witnessing” their victimization., for the superiority of Europe: we, Christians, limited ourselves to verbal protests, while the Muslims now resort to killings and burnings…<br><br>

These weird alliance confronts In the European Muslim community with last years, a difficult choice which best encapsulates their paradoxical positionpublic debate was raging in Slovenia: should the only political force which does not reduce them Muslims (mostly immigrant workers from ex-Yugoslav republics) be allowed to second-class citizensbuild a mosque in Ljubljana, but allows them the space to deploy their religious identity, are capital of Slovenia? While conservatives opposed the “godless” atheist liberalsmosque for cultural, while those who are closest to their religious social practicepolitical, their Christian mirror-imageand even architectural reasons, are their greatest political enemies. The paradox is that (not those who first published the caricaturesweekly journal <i>Mladina</i> was most consistent and exposed in its support for the mosque, but) those who, out of solidarity in line with its general support for the freedom civil and social the rights of expressionthe people from other ex-Yugoslav republics. Not surprisingly, reprinted in line with its libertarian attitude, <i>Mladina</i> was also the only one to reprint the Muhammad caricatures. And, are conversely, those who displayed the greatest “understanding” for the violent Muslim protest were the very ones who regularly expressed their only true alliesconcern for the Christian Europe.<br><br>

In his analysis of The parallel the political <i>imbroglio</i> of the French revolution conservatives evoked was with a scandal in Slovenia a couple of 1848years ago, Karl Marx pointed out the paradoxical status when a rock group Strelnikoff printed a poster announcing their concert: a classical painting of Mary and the ruling Party baby Christ, but with a twist – Mary holds in her lap a rat instead of the Orderbaby Christ. It The point of this parallel was the coalition of the two royalist wings (Bourbons and Orleanists). However, since the two parties were, by definition, not able to find a common denominator at the level of royalism (one cannot be a royalist in generalcourse, since one should support a certain determinate royal house), the only way for the two to unite was under reprimand also the banner of the »anonymous kingdom of the Republic«: the only way to be a royalist in general is to be a republican. And does caricatures mocking Christianity; at the same not hold for religion? Heretime, also, one cannot be religious in general, one can only believe the difference in some God(s) to the detriment reactions of others. The failure of all the efforts to unite religions proves that the only way to be concerned religious in general is under community was noted as an argument for the banner difference of the »anonymous religion of atheismcivilizations, i.e.« As , for the fate superiority of the Muslim communities in the West demonstratesEurope: we, it is only under this banner that they can thrive. There is thus a kind of poetic justice in the fact that the all-Muslim outcry against godless Denmark was immediately followed by the hightened violence between Sunnis and ShiitesChristians, the two Muslim factionslimited ourselves to verbal protests, in Iraq. Is not while the lesson of all totalitarianisms that the fight against the external enemy sooner or later always turns into an inner split Muslims now resort to killings and the fight against the inner enemy?<br><br>burnings…

<b>When God existsThese weird alliance confronts the European Muslim community with a difficult choice which best encapsulates their paradoxical position: the only political force which does not reduce them to second-class citizens, everything but allows them the space to deploy their religious identity, are the “godless” atheist liberals, while those who are closest to their religious social practice, their Christian mirror-image, are their greatest political enemies. The paradox is permitted!</b><br><br>that (not those who first published the caricatures, but) those who, out of solidarity with the freedom of expression, reprinted the Muhammad caricatures, are their only true allies.

After all In his analysis of the political <i>imbroglio</i> of the French revolution of 1848, Karl Marx pointed out the fuss about paradoxical status of the “post-secular” return ruling Party of the religious, about Order. It was the limits coalition of disenchantment the two royalist wings (Bourbons and Orleanists). However, since the need two parties were, by definition, not able to rediscover find a common denominator at the Sacredlevel of royalism (one cannot be a royalist in general, perhapssince one should support a certain determinate royal house), what we truly need the only way for the two to unite was under the banner of the »anonymous kingdom of the Republic«: the only way to be a royalist in general is to be a dose republican. And does the same not hold for religion? Here, also, one cannot be religious in general, one can only believe in some God(s) to the detriment of others. The failure of all the efforts to unite religions proves that the only way to be religious in general is under the banner of the good old »anonymous religion of atheism. The outrage caused by « As the caricatures fate of Muhammad in the Muslim communities provides yet another proof in the West demonstrates, it is only under this banner that religious beliefs are they can thrive. There is thus a force to be reckoned with. Deplorable as kind of poetic justice in the fact that the all-Muslim outcry against godless Denmark was immediately followed by the hightened violence of between Sunnis and Shiites, the two Muslim crowds may befactions, in Iraq. Is not the lesson of all totalitarianisms that the fight against the reckless external enemy sooner or later always turns into an inner split and cynical Western libertarians must also learn their lesson from it: the limits of secular disenchantment. Or so we are told.<br><br>fight against the inner enemy?

Is namely this really the lesson to be learned from the mobs killing, looting and burning on behalf of religion? For a long time<b>When God exists, we were told that, without religion, we are reduced to egotistic animals fighting for their lot, with the only morality that of the pact of the wolves, and that only religion can elevate us to a higher spiritual level. Today, when religion is emerging as the main source of murderous violence around the world, one everything is getting tired of the assurances that the Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting a noble spiritual message of their creed. What about restoring the dignity of atheism, perhaps our only chance for peace?<br>permitted!<br/b>

More than a century ago, in his <i>Karamazov Brothers</i>, Dostoyevsky warned against After all the fuss about the dangers “post-secular” return of the godless moral nihilism: <i>“If God doesn’t exist</i>religious, <i>then everything is permitted</i>.” The French “new philosopher” Andre Glucksmann even applied Dostoyevsky’s critique of godless nihilism to 9/11, as about the title limits of his book – <i>Dostoyevsky in Manhattan</i> – suggests. He couldn’t have been more wrong: disenchantment and the lesson of today’s terrorism is that if there IS God, then everything, up need to blowing up hundreds of innocent bystanders, is permitted – to those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as rediscover the instruments of His willSacred, since, clearlyperhaps, what we truly need is a direct link to God justifies our violation dose of any “merely human” constraints and considerationsthe good old atheism. The “godless” Stalinist Communists are outrage caused by the ultimate caricatures of Muhammad in Muslim communities provides yet another proof of it: everything was permitted that religious beliefs are a force to them since they perceived themselves be reckoned with. Deplorable as direct instruments the violence of the Muslim crowds may be, the reckless and cynical Western libertarians must also learn their divinity, lesson from it: the Historical Necessity limits of Progress towards Communismsecular disenchantment. Or so we are told.<br><br>

In Is namely this really the lesson to be learned from the course mobs killing, looting and burning on behalf of religion? For a long time, we were told that, without religion, we are reduced to egotistic animals fighting for their lot, with the Crusade only morality that of King St.Louis, Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the street with a dish full pact of fire in her right hand the wolves, and that only religion can elevate us to a bowl full of water in her left handhigher spiritual level. Asked why she Today, when religion is doing it, she answered that with emerging as the fire she would burn up Paradise until nothing remained main source of itmurderous violence around the world, and with one is getting tired of the water she would put out assurances that the fires Christian or Muslim or Hindu fundamentalists are only abusing and perverting a noble spiritual message of Hell until nothing remained of them: “Because I want no one to do good in order to receive their creed. What about restoring the reward dignity of Paradiseatheism, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of love perhaps our only chance for God.” It is as if today this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism.<br><br>peace?

Fundamentalists do (what they perceive as) good deeds More than a century ago, in order his <i>Karamazov Brothers</i>, Dostoyevsky warned against the dangers of the godless moral nihilism: <i>“If God doesn’t exist</i>, <i>then everything is permitted</i>.” The French “new philosopher” Andre Glucksmann even applied Dostoyevsky’s critique of godless nihilism to fulfill God’s will and to deserve salvation; atheists do them simply because it is 9/11, as the right thing to dotitle of his book – <i>Dostoyevsky in Manhattan</i> – suggests. Is this also not our most elementary experience He couldn’t have been more wrong: the lesson of morality? When I do a good deedtoday’s terrorism is that if there IS God, I do not do it with a view on gaining God’s favorthen everything, I do it because I cannot do otherwise - if I were not up to do itblowing up hundreds of innocent bystanders, I would not be able is permitted – to look at myself in those who claim to act directly on behalf of God, as the mirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. David Humeinstruments of His will, since, a believerclearly, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that the only way direct link to show a true respect for God is justifies our violation of any “merely human” constraints and considerations. The “godless” Stalinist Communists are the ultimate proof of it: everything was permitted to act morally while ignoring God’s existencethem since they perceived themselves as direct instruments of their divinity, the Historical Necessity of Progress towards Communism.<br><br>

The history of European atheism, from its Greek and Roman origins (Lucretius’ <i>De rerum natura</i>) to modern classics like Spinoza, offers a lesson in dignity and courage. Much more than with occasional outbursts of hedonism, it is marked by In the awareness course of the bitter outcome Crusade of every human lifeKing St.Louis, since there is no higher authority watching over our fates and guaranteeing Yves le Breton reported how he once encountered an old woman who wandered down the happy outcome; at the same time, they all strive to formulate the message street with a dish full of joy which comes not from escaping reality, but from accepting it fire in her right hand and creatively finding one´s place a bowl full of water in ither left hand. What makes this materialist tradition unique Asked why she is the way doing it combines the humble awareness , she answered that we are not masters of with the universe, but just parts fire she would burn up Paradise until nothing remained of a much larger whole, exposed to contingent twists of fateit, and with the readiness water she would put out the fires of Hell until nothing remained of them: “Because I want no one to do good in order to accept receive the heavy burden reward of the full responsibility for what we make Paradise, or from fear of Hell; but solely out of our lives – love for God.” It is as if today, when the threats of unpredictable catastrophies loom from all sides, such an attitude not needed more than ever?<br><br>this properly Christian ethical stance survives mostly in atheism.

A year or so ago, a debate was raging in Europe: should, Fundamentalists do (what they perceive as) good deeds in order to fulfill God’s will and to deserve salvation; atheists do them simply because it is the preambles right thing to the draft of the European constitution, Christianity be mentioned as the key component do. Is this also not our most elementary experience of European legacymorality? As usual, When I do a compromise was worked outgood deed, where Christianity is listed along I do not do it with Judaisma view on gaining God’s favor, IslamI do it because I cannot do otherwise - if I were not to do it, and I would not be able to look at myself in the legacy of Antiquitymirror. A moral deed is by definition its own reward. But where was modern Europe’s most precious legacyDavid Hume, a believer, made this point in a very poignant way, when he wrote that of atheism? What makes modern Europe unique is that it is the first and only civilization in which atheism way to show a true respect for God is a fully legitimate option, not an obstacle to any public post? THIS is the European legacy worth fighting foract morally while ignoring God’s existence.<br><br>

While The history of European atheism, from its Greek and Roman origins (Lucretius’ <i>De rerum natura</i>) to modern classics like Spinoza, offers a true atheist has no need whatsoever to boost his own stance lesson in dignity and courage. Much more than with occasional outbursts of hedonism, it is marked by way the awareness of shocking the believer with blasphemous statementsbitter outcome of every human life, he also refuses to reduce since there is no higher authority watching over our fates and guaranteeing the problem of happy outcome; at the Muhammad caricatures same time, they all strive to formulate the one message of respect for other’s beliefsjoy which comes not from escaping reality, but from accepting it and creatively finding one´s place in it. Respect for other’s beliefs as What makes this materialist tradition unique is the highest value can only mean one of way it combines the two things: either humble awareness that we treat are not masters of the other in universe, but just parts of a patronizing way and avoid hurting him in order not much larger whole, exposed to ruin his illusions; orcontingent twists of fate, we adopt with the readiness to accept the relativist stance heavy burden of multiple “regimes the full responsibility for what we make out of truthour lives – is today,” disqualifying as violent imposition any clear insistence on truth. What, however, about submitting Islam – together with when the threats of unpredictable catastrophies loom from all other religions – to a respectfulsides, but for that reason no less ruthless, critical analysissuch an attitude not needed more than ever? This, and only this, is the way to show a true respect for Muslims: to treat them as serious adults responsible for their beliefs.<br><br>

When I visited the University of Champaign in IllinoisA year or so ago, I a debate was taken to a restaurant which offered on the menu “Tuscany fries”; asking friends what this israging in Europe: should, they explained it: in the owner wanted preambles to appear patriotic apropos the French opposition to draft of the US attack on Iraq, so he followed the US Congress and renamed French fries freedom fries; howeverEuropean constitution, Christianity be mentioned as the progressive members key component of the faculty (the majority of his customers) threatened to boycott his place if “freedom fries” remain on the menu. The owner didn’t want to lose his customersEuropean legacy? As usual, but also did not want to appear un-patriotica compromise was worked out, so he invented a new namewhere Christianity is listed along with Judaism, “Tuscany fries” (which also sounded EuropeanIslam, plus echoing and the vague legacy of idyllic films on Tuscany…)Antiquity. In a move similar to the one But where was modern Europe’s most precious legacy, that of atheism? What makes modern Europe unique is that it is the US congressfirst and only civilization in which atheism is a fully legitimate option, Iranian authorities recently ordered the bakeries not an obstacle to change any public post? THIS is the name of Danish pastry into “roses of MuhammadEuropean legacy worth fighting for.”<br><br>

It would be nice to leave in While a world in which the US Congress would change the name of French fries into Muhammad’s fries, and the Iranian authorities the name of Danish pastry into Freedom pastry. But the prospect of tolerance is the one in which our stores and restaurant menus will be more and more full of different versions of Tuscany fries.<br><br> The irony not true atheist has no need whatsoever to be missed is that 99.99% boost his own stance by way of shocking the thousands who feel offended and demonstrate had never even SEEN the caricatures. This fact confronts us believer with anotherblasphemous statements, less attractive, aspect of globalization: the “global informational village” is the condition of the fact that something that took place in an obscure daily in Denmark caused such a violent stir in the far-away Muslim countries – it was as if Denmark and Syria (and Pakistan and Egypt and Iraq and Lebanon and Indonesia and…) are <i>neighboring</i> countries. This is what those who see globalization as the chance for the entire earth as a unified space of communication, bringing together all humanity, fail he also refuses to notice: since a Neighbor is (as Freud suspected long ago) primarily a Thing, a traumatic intruder, someone whose different way of life (or, rather, way of <i>jouissance</i> materialized in its social practices and rituals) disturb us, throw off reduce the rails the balance of our way problem of life, when the Neighbor comes too close, this can also give rise Muhammad caricatures to aggressive reaction aimed at getting rid of this disturbing intruder – or, as Peter Sloterdijk put it: “More communication means at first above all more conflict.” <a title="" name="_ftnref6" href="#_ftn6">[6]</a> This is why he was right to claim that the attitude one of “understanding-each-other” has to be supplemented by the attitude of “getting-out-of-each-respect for other’s-way,” by maintaining an appropriate distance, by a new “code of discretionbeliefs.” European civilization finds it easier to tolerate different ways of life precise on account of what its critics usually denounce as its weakness and failure, namely the “alienation” of social life.” Alienation means (also) that distance is included into the very social texture: even if I live side by side with others, the normal state is to ignore them. I am allowed not to get too close to others; I move in a social space where I interact with others obeying certain external “mechanical” rules, without sharing their “inner world” – and, perhaps, the lesson to be learned is that, sometimes, a dose of alienation is indispensable Respect for the peaceful coexistence of ways of life. Sometimes, alienation is not a problem but a solution.<br><br> What we should always bear in mind is the fact that the protests (and the very real violence accompanying them) were triggered by means of representation, by words and images (caricatures, which a large majority of those protesting did not see, but just read or heard about). The Muslim crowds did not react to caricatures other’s beliefs as such; they reacted to the complex figure/image highest value can only mean one of the “West” that was perceived as the attitude behind the caricatures. Those who proposed the term “Occidentalism” as the counterpart to Edward Said’s “Orientalism” were up to a point righttwo things: what either we get in Muslim countries is a certain ideological image of treat the West which distorts Western reality no less (although other in a different patronizing way) than the Orientalist image of the Orient. What exploded in violence was a complex cobweb of symbols, images and attitudes (Western imperialism, godless materialism and hedonism, the suffering of Palestinians, etc.etc.) that became attached to Danish caricatures, which is why the hatred expanded from caricatures to Denmark as a country, to Scandinavian countries, to Europe, to the West – it was as if all these humiliations and frustrations got condensed avoid hurting him in the caricatures. And, again, one should bear in mind that this condensation is a fact of language, of constructing and imposing a certain symbolic field.<br><br> This simple and all too obvious fact should compel us to render problematic the idea (propagated lately by Habermas, but also order not strange to a certain Lacan) of languageruin his illusions; or, symbolic order, as we adopt the medium relativist stance of reconciliation/mediation, multiple “regimes of peaceful co-existencetruth, ” disqualifying as opposed to the violence of immediate raw confrontation: in language, instead of exerting direct violence violent imposition any clear insistence on each other, we debate, we exchange words, and such an exchange, even when it is aggressive, presupposes a minimum of recognition of the other. The idea is thus that, insofar as language gets infected by violence, this occurs under the influence of contingent empirical “pathological” circumstances which distort the inherent logic of symbolic communicationtruth. What if, however, humans exceed animals in their capacity to violence precisely because they <i>speak</i>? <a title="" name="_ftnref7" href="#_ftn7">[7]</a> As already Hegel was well aware, there is something violent in the very symbolization of a thing, which equals its mortification; this violence operates at multiple levels. Language simplifies the designated thing, reducing it to a “unary feature”; it dismembers the thing, destroying its organic unity, treating its parts and properties as autonomous; it inserts the thing into a field of meaning which is ultimately external to it.<br><br> Lacan condensed this aspect of language in his notion of the Master-Signifier which “quilts” and thus holds about submitting Islam – together a symbolic field. That is to say, for Lacan (at least for his theory of four discourses elaborated in late 1960s), human communication in its most basic, constitutive, dimension does not involve a space of egalitarian intersubjectivity, it is not “balanced,” it does not put the participants in symmetric mutually responsible positions where they with all have other religions – to follow the same rules and justify their claims with reasons. On the contrary, what Lacan indicates with his notion of the discourse of the Master as the first, inaugural, constitutive, form of discourse, is that every concrete, “really existing,” space of discourse is ultimately grounded in a violent imposition of a Master-Signifier which is <i>stricto sensu</i> “irrational”: it cannot be further grounded in reasonsrespectful, it is the point at which one can only say but for that “the buck stops here,” a point at which, in order to stop the endless regress, somebody has to say <i>“It is so because I say it is so!”</i>.<br><br> Perhaps, the fact that <i>reason (ratio)</i> and <i>race</i> have the same root tells us something: languageno less ruthless, not primitive egotistic interestscritical analysis? This, is the first and greatest divider, it is because of language that we and our neighbors (can) “live in different worlds” even when we live on the same street. What only this means is that verbal violence is not a secondary distortion, but the ultimate resort of every specifically human violence. Let us take anti-Semitic pogroms (or, more generally, racist violence). They do not react to (i.e., what they find intolerable and rage-provoking is not) the immediate reality of Jews, but (to) the image/figure of the “Jew” constructed ands circulating in their tradition. The catch, of course, is that one cannot simply distinguish between real Jews and their anti-Semitic image: this image overdetermines the way I experience real Jews themselves (and, furthermore, it affects the way Jews experience themselves). What makes to show a real Jew that an anti-Semite encounters on the street “intolerable,” what the anti-Semite tries to destroy when he attacks the Jew, the true target of his fury, is this fantasmatic dimension. And the same goes respect for every political protestMuslims: when workers protest to treat them as serious adults responsible for their exploitation, they do not protest a simple reality, but a certain meaningful experience of their real predicament. Reality in itself, in its stupid facticity, is never intolerable: it is language, its symbolization, which makes it such. So precisely when we are dealing with the scene of a furious crowd, attacking and burning buildings and cars, lynching people, etc., we should never forget the placards they are carrying, the words sustaining and justifying their acts. <a title="" name="_ftnref8" href="#_ftn8">[8]</a><br><br> <b>Notes:</b><br><br>  <a title="" name="_ftn1" href="#_ftnref1">[1]</a> Peter Sloterdijk, “Warten auf den Islam,” <i>Focus</i> 10/2006, p. 84.<br><br>  <a title="" name="_ftn2" href="#_ftnref2">[2]</a> <i>Rousseau, juge de Jean-Jacques</i>, first dialogue.<br><br>  <a title="" name="_ftn3" href="#_ftnref3">[3]</a> See Jean-Pierre Dupuy, <i>Petite metaphysique des tsunamis</i>, Paris: Editions du Seuil 2005, p. 68.<br><br> <a title="" name="_ftn4" href="#_ftnref4">[4]</a> Alain Badiou, <i>Circonstances, 3. Portees du mot “juif,”</i> Paris: Lignes 2005, p. 89-90beliefs.<br><br>

<When I visited the University of Champaign in Illinois, I was taken to a title="" name="_ftn5" href="#_ftnref5">[5]</a> There restaurant which offered on the menu “Tuscany fries”; asking friends what this is a deeper problem here, which concerns modern State democracy as suchthey explained it: is it not that the democratic abstraction owner wanted to appear patriotic apropos the French opposition to the US attack on Iraq, so he followed the US Congress and renamed French fries freedom fries; however, the progressive members of the faculty (“all people independent the majority of sexhis customers) threatened to boycott his place if “freedom fries” remain on the menu. The owner didn’t want to lose his customers, beliefbut also did not want to appear un-patriotic, wealthso he invented a new name, religion…”“Tuscany fries” (which also sounded European, plus echoing the vague of idyllic films on Tuscany…) is always sustained by . In a remainder move similar to the one of the contingent Real in US congress, Iranian authorities recently ordered the bakeries to change the guise name of a national Thing (“the /French, American…/ people”)? And does not this remainder return in Badiou’s suppressed French nationalism?<br><br>Danish pastry into “roses of Muhammad.”

<It would be nice to leave in a title="" world in which the US Congress would change the name="_ftn6" href="#_ftnref6">[6]</a> Peter Sloterdijkof French fries into Muhammad’s fries, “Warten auf den Islam,” <i>Focus</i> 10/2006, pand the Iranian authorities the name of Danish pastry into Freedom pastry. 84But the prospect of tolerance is the one in which our stores and restaurant menus will be more and more full of different versions of Tuscany fries.<br><br>

The irony not to be missed is that 99.99% of the thousands who feel offended and demonstrate had never even SEEN the caricatures. This fact confronts us with another, less attractive, aspect of globalization: the “global informational village” is the condition of the fact that something that took place in an obscure daily in Denmark caused such a violent stir in the far-away Muslim countries – it was as if Denmark and Syria (and Pakistan and Egypt and Iraq and Lebanon and Indonesia and…) are <a title="" name="_ftn7" href="#_ftnref7"i>[7]neighboring</i> countries. This is what those who see globalization as the chance for the entire earth as a unified space of communication, bringing together all humanity, fail to notice: since a Neighbor is (as Freud suspected long ago) primarily a Thing, a> See Clement Rossettraumatic intruder, someone whose different way of life (or, rather, way of <i>Le reel. Traite de l’idiotiejouissance</i>materialized in its social practices and rituals) disturb us, Paristhrow off the rails the balance of our way of life, when the Neighbor comes too close, this can also give rise to aggressive reaction aimed at getting rid of this disturbing intruder – or, as Peter Sloterdijk put it: Les Editions de Minuit 2004“More communication means at first above all more conflict.”<ref>Peter Sloterdijk, “Warten auf den Islam,” <i>Focus</i> 10/2006, p.112-11484.<br><br/ref> This is why he was right to claim that the attitude of “understanding-each-other” has to be supplemented by the attitude of “getting-out-of-each-other’s-way,” by maintaining an appropriate distance, by a new “code of discretion.” European civilization finds it easier to tolerate different ways of life precise on account of what its critics usually denounce as its weakness and failure, namely the “alienation” of social life.” Alienation means (also) that distance is included into the very social texture: even if I live side by side with others, the normal state is to ignore them. I am allowed not to get too close to others; I move in a social space where I interact with others obeying certain external “mechanical” rules, without sharing their “inner world” – and, perhaps, the lesson to be learned is that, sometimes, a dose of alienation is indispensable for the peaceful coexistence of ways of life. Sometimes, alienation is not a problem but a solution.

<What we should always bear in mind is the fact that the protests (and the very real violence accompanying them) were triggered by means of representation, by words and images (caricatures, which a title="" name="_ftn8" href="#_ftnref8">[8]</a> large majority of those protesting did not see, but just read or heard about). The further crucial thing Muslim crowds did not react to add, caricatures as such; they reacted to the complex figure/image of course, is the “West” that was perceived as the attitude behind the caricatures. Those who proposed the term “Occidentalism” as the counterpart to Edward Said’s “Orientalism” were up to a point right: what we do not have multiple cultures, each get in Muslim countries is a certain ideological image of the West which distorts Western reality no less (although in a different way) than the Orientalist image of them dwelling the Orient. What exploded in its own closed circle: each culture is traversed by an inherent “impossibilityviolence was a complex cobweb of symbols,” clashing primarily with ITSELF. Every racist images and “fundamentalist” violence always attitudes (Western imperialism, godless materialism and by definition has hedonism, the character suffering of Palestinians, etc.etc.) that became attached to Danish caricatures, which is why the hatred expanded from caricatures to Denmark as a violent <i>passage country, to Scandinavian countries, to Europe, to the West – it was as if all these humiliations and frustrations got condensed in the caricatures. And, again, one should bear in mind that this condensation is a l’acte</i>fact of language, of escaping into a violent act in order to mask/displace constructing and imposing a certain symbolic deadlockfield.</font>

httpPerhaps, the fact that <i>reason (ratio)</i> and <i>race</i> have the same root tells us something:language, not primitive egotistic interests, is the first and greatest divider, it is because of language that we and our neighbors (can) “live in different worlds” even when we live on the same street. What this means is that verbal violence is not a secondary distortion, but the ultimate resort of every specifically human violence. Let us take anti-Semitic pogroms (or, more generally, racist violence). They do not react to (i.e., what they find intolerable and rage-provoking is not) the immediate reality of Jews, but (to) the image//wwwfigure of the “Jew” constructed ands circulating in their tradition. The catch, of course, is that one cannot simply distinguish between real Jews and their anti-Semitic image: this image overdetermines the way I experience real Jews themselves (and, furthermore, it affects the way Jews experience themselves). What makes a real Jew that an anti-Semite encounters on the street “intolerable,” what the anti-Semite tries to destroy when he attacks the Jew, the true target of his fury, is this fantasmatic dimension. And the same goes for every political protest: when workers protest their exploitation, they do not protest a simple reality, but a certain meaningful experience of their real predicament. Reality in itself, in its stupid facticity, is never intolerable: it is language, its symbolization, which makes it such. So precisely when we are dealing with the scene of a furious crowd, attacking and burning buildings and cars, lynching people, etc.lacan, we should never forget the placards they are carrying, the words sustaining and justifying their acts.com<ref>The further crucial thing to add, of course, is that we do not have multiple cultures, each of them dwelling in its own closed circle: each culture is traversed by an inherent “impossibility,” clashing primarily with ITSELF. Every racist and “fundamentalist” violence always and by definition has the character of a violent <i>passage a l’acte</zizantinomiesi>, of escaping into a violent act in order to mask/displace a symbolic deadlock.htm</ref>