2 April 2017I must be starting to get a bit tired of Zizek, not because he isn't a bad writer, nor because he isn't confronting, but rather because, as another reviewer suggested , it has more to do with the law of diminishing returns than anything else. There was a time when I thought that I should read everything by an author that I loved (or admired) until I discovered that not everything that a great author writes is actually any good. In fact, like everything else, pretty much all authors suffer from the law of diminishing returns, and the more that they write, the worse the content tends to become. As I suggested at one time the key to becoming a successful author is not always writing good books (thought that does help, and writing something that becomes a modern classic is even better), but rather creating such a cult following that whenever you release a book you have a hoard of adoring fans that camp outside the local bookshop waiting for its release.I have probably been a bit too harsh on this book though because as the same reviewer suggested, writing a book about violence without feeling some form of sympathy for the victim, is actually quite hard. In a sense we have this idea of violence being bad drilled into our minds that we end up becoming disconnected behind the reasons as to why people commit violence, and we also become somewhat desensitised to it when it is perpetrated a world away as opposed to being in our own back yard. However these is something of a dichotomy here because while our governments do everything to prevent violence being perpetrated against 'innocent' victims (such as the lock out laws in Sydney which basically forces pubs to close at around midnight, and also having something akin to passport control in some areas), we still seem to have violence being forced onto us from the television and cinema screen or on the sporting field. Isn't it interesting that a sport that is violent (such as football) draws larger crowds than sorts that aren't (such as lawn bowls – though sports like Baseball and Cricket seem to go against this trend).The interesting thing about violence is that it does tend to be very victim focused, and we tend to want to deal with the perpetrator rather than looking at the reason why the perpetrators are committing the violent act. For instance we have the school yard bully that goes out of their way to pick on those weaker than them, but we never seem to look at the reasons as to why the bully is behaving in that manner, and one of the reasons I suspect that this is the case is because the bully is himself (or herself) also a victim of violence. For instance if a child were to grow up in a house where the father (or mother) is violent, then the child is not going to know any better, and the child is not only going to behave like that in public, but is also going to see this as a norm and behave like that in their adult lives. While I am not trying to justify the actions of the bully, particularly since I have been at the receiving end of it, we need to remember that violence rarely occurs in a vacuum.One of the things that Zizek explores is the idea of the sacred cow, such as the Holocaust. In a sense it seems as if this is one of the reasons behind why there is such turmoil in the Israel/Palestinian territories. What is actually quite baffling is that Israel is actually a secular state (or at least it is according to Zizek), which makes it odd that they seem to use the religious writings as a reason to claim this particular land. Actually, it probably has more to do with tradition than anything else as to why they want this particular piece of territory, though interestingly many of the orthodox Jews really aren't interested in sharing it.Actually, it isn't as if people in the past didn't want to give the Jews a territory of their own – the Russians gave them some land in the far reaches of Siberia, while the United Nations originally wanted to give them some land down near Oman – it is just that they wanted this particular piece of land, and basically started moving in, and even went as far as declaring themselves a country. Obviously all of the fundamentalist Christians got really excited over this because this was apparently a prophecy that had been fulfilled, though it does seem interesting that it is the Christians that are far more supportive of Israel on religious grounds than the Israelis, but as I suggested this probably has much more to do with tradition than any real religious basis.A discussion on violence probably should at least explore the idea of religious violence. Isn't it interesting that for religions that are supposed to promote peace the supporters are actually quite violent in the way they go about propagating their faith – in a sense of believe or die. I'm not just talking about Christianity here because with most religions, and I'm not even narrowing myself to the people of the book, there is always this fear that one's religious view is going to be proven to be little more than nothing – basically somebody's whole basis of existence is being challenged, and if they are proven to be wrong then their entire life, and in fact their entire meaning for existence, is going to come to naught. The problem is that religions tend not to be flexible (and in talking about religion, I'm not referring to Buddhism because in my mind that is more of a philosophy).The problem with religion is that it is inflexible, and practitioners tend not to want to be flexible – if one part of the religion is wrong then it is possible that everything is wrong, and people fear doubt. However, there is a difference between being wrong about an interpretation of religion, and the religion being wrong. However, many practitioners don't actually think for themselves, but rather follow some leader that they all believe is infallible. It would be interesting in seeing how many people drifted away from religion when the televangelists came out as being basically pretty corrupt. Yet even when they are exposed for the hedonists that they really are, they still manage to survive, and even flourish. Maybe it has something to do with this concept of repentance, and when they are seen as being human, they are accepted all the more – a leader that admits his flaws do tend to generate much more empathy than one who denies them. In a way it is all part of the stage show.Taking this into account, it is not surprising that many practitioners of religion tend to be conservative, and many conservatives tend to live in rural areas. In the country the pace of life tends to be much slower, which means that the speed of development that occurs in the cities, as well as the interchange of ideas, tends to challenge the conservative. It goes without saying that conservatives do not like change, though I should probably suggest that what they don't like is fast change – things change, they always do, it is the nature of the universe, however change works better for most people when it is slow and gradual as opposed to when it is fast. Still, there are those that don't like change at all because that is how things have always been. I guess that is probably a good reason why I didn't end up moving out to the country because even though the money would have been nice, I also like change.Which brings us back to violence – one of the reasons that conservatives react with violence when change happens is because they don't like change, and will violently attempt to suppress it. This is not just the rancher clutching his Bible and his gun, but also the Islamic fundamentalist that can't handle the changing pace of technology. Then again it is not only technology, it is basically attempting to make sure things stay the way that they have always been. Isn't it interesting that the rise of Islamic violence occurs now as opposed to back in the days of the British Empire – one of the reasons is the idea of gender equality. Back in the 20s women dressed a lot more modestly than they do now, but the other thing was that the British tended to rule on the cheap – namely they didn't really interfere with the cultural practices of the lands that they had conquered, unless they found the practice offensive (such as the widows throwing themselves onto their husband's pyre). However, when the Americans invaded Iraq it wasn't seen as liberating the Iraqis from a dictator, but rather Americanising the middle east. Rumour has it that Iraq, Iran, Syria, and North Korea weren't members of the IMF, which also happen have been the countries on George Bush's axis of evil.Which brings me to capitalism. Sure, I know I said that I would finish off with religion, but I feel that I should also say a few things about Capitalism because capitalism is inherently violent. It is all about greed and wealth, and people will go to great lengths to get as much money as possible. Isn't it interesting that if you rip off a bank you are a thief but if a bank rips you off then it is the normal course of doing business. The thing with capitalism is that it is always looking for new markets, and it will go to great lengths to open up these new markets. China and Japan for instance - neither countries wanted to participate in a world of global trade, but the British (and Americans) didn't take no for an answer and forced them to open up through violence – the British with the Opium Wars and the Americans by sailing a gunship into Tokyo harbour. No wonder the Japanese declared war against the United States in the 1940s.Well, this is getting a bit long in the tooth, particularly for a book that I only gave a couple of stars However, I should make mention of Atheism. Zizek suggests that based upon the propensity for religious violence, Atheism is actually a peaceful religion. Look, I would disagree, not to the extent where some Christian preachers have claimed that because Stalin and Pol Pot were atheists and mass murderers therefore all atheists are mass murderers, but rather because of the lack of any moral basis. Sure, we have the old adage of do unto others (which is actually Christian), but in reality the whole idea of 'as long as it doesn't hurt anybody' is a bit of a fallacy because there are a lot of things that we do that causes lots of misery and heartache, it is just that because we don't see it, we pretend that it doesn't exist, which brings us back to where I started – violence is aberrant, but only if it is in our back yard.