Last night on the move, I noticed an article by zizek regarding war, turkey, isis and europe. While I agree the eu deal to pay turkey is both a sad true and shamefull beyond words, was surprised to hear the authoritarian and despicable islamist regime of turkey was supposedly calling for an isis embassy in ankara, among other pro islamic state statements.
Given I noticed a few times that zizek fails to let some facts stand in the path of certain ideas, I though to re-visit that article and check what is he talking about.
By this morning, the editors removed the bits re turkish support to isis.
That stuff was something like the bits in these posts:
The original zizek text seem to imply there is no other way but death violence – rather than death of violence – to solve isis. An approach that i think places zizek as a bit of a conservative in my mind. It imagines that because violence is the known way for surviving certain situations of being physically attacked, any other approach is both un imaginable and naive – hence impractical.
Hopefully, ways like the ones mentioned here: http://www.democracynow.org/2015/12/7/former_isis_hostage_nicolas_henin_welcoming – will prevail?
** zizek fails to let some facts stand in the path of certain ideas? **
A bit possibly ironic as zizek works so hard to expose ideology in our time, no?
Well.. perhaps this exposition is done from a reactionary conservative mind. It seems that the zizek critique of ideology is to show/expose what and how it is, rather than the radical approach – to search from ways that might render ideological mind a bit archaic?