Nobel Prize Committee Honors a Defender of genocide

This is Sweden today. If the Nobel committee had any courage whatsoever, it would have given Julian Assange (one of our heroes) the prize for peace, and instead preferred to honour a genocide apologists.

Here is the latest example of what Robert Pfaller calls “Interpasivity” of Western leftists: they want to be authentic through a second who lives authenticly instead. For years Handke spent his authentic life in interpasitivity, free from the corruption of consumer Western capitalism through Slovenians (his mother was Slovenian). For him, Slovenia was a place where words immediately salute objects (in stores, milk was named “qe”, bypassing brand commercial names, etc). Slovenia's independence and its willingness to join the European Union have initiated in it a violent aggression against Slovenians by ignoring them as slaves of Austrian and German capital, reasoning that they have sold their heritage to the West. All of this because his interpasitative game was disturbed. In other words, because Slovenians stopped behaving in a way that enabled him to live through them authentically. Therefore, its turning back from Serbia is no wonder as the last authentic remnant in Europe, comparing Bosnian Serbs to surrounding Sarajevo with American indigenous people when they surrounded a camp of white settlers.

In short, as Gilles Deleuze put it, “if you're stuck in another's dream, you're stuck with it”: We Slovenians were stuck in Handke's dream where we were supposed to live by it. The great irony here is the fact that he has chosen Milosevic as his authentic other who enables him to keep up with Yugoslav homesickness, namely the most responsible politician for Yugoslavia's death.

In Soul Phenomenology, Hegel mentions the silent interval of the soul: underground work of changing ideological coordinates, mostly invisible to the public eye, which then suddenly explodes, catching all of them. This was happening in the former Yugoslavia of the '70s and '80s that when everything broke out in the late '80s, it was already too late, the old ideological consensus was completely rotten and broke up inside itself. Yugoslavia in the '70s and '80s was like the proverbial cat of cartoons that keep walking even though it is above the cliff and which falls only when, at last, it becomes aware that there is no fixed foundation under its feet. Milosevic was the first to force us to note beneath our feet the ruin. The main actors of this secret corruption were nationalist poets, and to avoid the illusion of the poetic-military complex as a Balkan specialty, we could mention at least Hasan Ngese, Rwanda's Karadzic, who, in his newspaper Kangarara, systematically hated anti-Tuts and appealed for genocide against them.

That's why I don't think we can separate political and ethical considerations from literature. Almost a century ago, in reference to the rise of Nazim in Germany, Karl Kraus was shot when he said that Germany, the country of poets and thinkers, became home to judges and executions today, in our era of ethnic cleansing, is taking place. Even in its more apolitical texts (sufficiently to remember Himmmel über Berlin's mutative poetry), Handke retained the poet's role in the poet's doubles and executions. Apolitical thoughts on the complex nature of the soul and language are the stock through which ethnic cleansing is woven.

Subtitles by: Shut up.The following explanations belong to this page:

This scripture was published on October 15, 2019, in the weekly magazine of world politics, culture and present “The Spectator”.

For his translation and reprinting, we have respected copyrights by taking the approval of editors in the magazine.