18 Comments

Scathing. "His books are an oasis of boredom in a desert of horror."

The last thing we need is more dystopian hopelessness. The imbeciles who run the panopticon don't have the faintest idea what to do next, so they just do things that will hurt people they despise. This makes them feel like they are doing something about problems they don't understand, cannot fix, and in most cases which they created themselves, or which are imaginary. That does not feel long-term stable to me. On the other side of the inevitable bonfire of this garbage pile lies ... something else. It might even be good. It might be good if we think about what it might be. An oasis of boredom is at best a temporary rest stop, not a place to stay for long, and provides little guidance for the post-dystopian world.

BTW this essay was good enough to make me a paid subscriber, despite my desperately limited cash. Pat yourself on the back.

Expand full comment

Thank you. We're grateful. Will aim to keep the quality high.

Expand full comment

Infocracy was the final straw for me. As you noted, the redundancy of his texts — oscillating and self-referencing tautologically to the same five or six ideas, over and over and over again, but with slightly new, cool and detached window dressing — got old. I still adore Agony of Eros and Expulsion of the Other, though.

Expand full comment

I said terseness, not tenseness. And I meant precisely what I wrote.

Expand full comment

I do want to clarify, though: Han’s brevity shouldn’t be so criticized. There’s nothing intrinsically wrong with that. Terseness is characteristically German. It’s fitting. But inasmuch as Han’s brevity implicates his substance — yeah, I’m on the same page with that.

Expand full comment

Tenseness is characteristic of German? How does that account for Heidegger, etx?

Maybe you mean contemporary German?

Expand full comment

I am not familiar with Han, but this is excellently written, and it tracks very well with a lot of "safe" critics of modernity. Muh globalized alienation, but never dare defend anything vital or premodern against it.

Expand full comment

Trash. The author fails to understand Han’s argument that runs through his books which is the expulsion of the other. This critique is embarrassing.

Expand full comment
Jan 6Edited

There's no argument in Han that hasn't been made 100 times better, 30 and 50 years ago, by far superior thinkers. It's airport-reading social-philosophy slop.

Expand full comment

You’re an idiot

Expand full comment
Jan 6Edited

Thank you for your second highly elaborate, argument-full, intellectual critique...

Expand full comment

There was nothing in your comment to respond to

Expand full comment

In that, it was a homage to Han's work.

Expand full comment

This is the classic "I would have written a different book" book review.

Expand full comment
Jan 6Edited

His is typical modern German intellectual cowardice. Total submission to the establishment's "allowed thoughts", under a thin vereer of "independent thinking". Even someone like Malcom Gladwell would loom like an intellectual giant among them...

Expand full comment

Psychopolitics hit a deeply depressing nail squarely on the head the head, but it is optimistic book in the most profound sense. It provides possible solutions from a an honest appraisal. There is true, nutritious hope in that book.

Expand full comment

Oh God. This was, so poorly written. You haven't been able to understand the books and it shows.

Expand full comment

Apparently Han doesn't shriek about immigration so why bother to understand anything beyond that?

These people are retarded.

Expand full comment