Where were you when this respectable chap smashed Zizek's commie-psychobabble into smithereens?

Where were you when this respectable chap smashed Zizek's commie-psychobabble into smithereens?

>In Žižek, we find astonishing evidence of the fact that the “Communist hypothesis,” as Badiou calls it, will never go away. Notwithstanding Marx’s attempt to present it as the conclusion of a science, the “hypothesis” cannot be put to the test and refuted. For it is not a prediction or, in any real sense, a hypothesis. It is a statement of faith in the unknowable. Žižek unhesitatingly adds his weight to every cause that is directed, in whatever way, against the established order of the Western democracies. He even sets himself against parliamentary democracy and has no qualms in advocating terror (suitably aestheticized) as part of his glamorous detachment. But his few empty invocations of the egalitarian alternative advance no further than the clichés of the French Revolution and are soon wrapped in Lacanian spells by way of shielding them from argument. When it comes to real politics, he writes as though negation is enough. Whether it be the Palestinian intifada, the IRA, the Venezuelan Chavistas, the French sans-papiers, or the Occupy movement—whatever the radical cause, it is the attack on the “System” that matters.

>As in 1789, as in 1917, as in the Long March of Mao, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, the work of destruction feeds on itself. Žižek’s windbaggery serves one purpose: to turn attention away from the actual world, from real people, and from ordinary moral and political reasoning. It exists to promote a single and absolute cause, the cause that admits of no criticism and no compromise and that offers redemption to all who espouse it. And what is that cause? The answer is there on every page of Žižek’s writings: Nothing.

city-journal.org/html/clown-prince-revolution-14632.html

Other urls found in this thread:

inthesetimes.com/article/18605/breaking-the-taboos-in-the-wake-of-paris-attacks-the-left-must-embrace-its
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

Who?
>Roger Scruton
Ah, the man who was paid to shill for the tobacco industry.

nice ad hom

>zizek
>communist

Almost as bad as "Nietzsche was a Nihilist".

"I am a communist!" -- Slavoj Žižek

ah yes

Looks like Scruton will become the new flavour of the season. You can put his books on the piles of Stirner and Evola books that have never been read.

Almost as bad as "Christianity is nihilism"

wonder if he was paid by the tobacco industry for placing this ad too?
Scruton is a non-entity

at home sipping literature juice

nietzsche call me up and say "god is dead"

no

and u??

"Regarding my analysis of the Chinese Cultural Revolution (a political truth if ever there was one), one reviewer for a British newspaper remarked - merely from noting my positive account of this episode of Chinese history, which he of course regards as a sinister, bloody catastrophe - that it was 'not hard to feel a certain pride in workaday Anglo-Saxon empiricism, which inoculates us [the readers of the Observer] against the tyranny of pure political abstraction'. He was basically taking pride n the fact that the dominant imperative in the world today is 'Live without an Idea'."

convinced Scruton is controlled opposition

Thoughts on his documentary?

he sounds like his hymen is fully intact

And what's wrong with the French Revolution?

down to earth anglos bringing these head in clouds continentals down to size

>a political truth if ever there was one)
What did he mean by this?

Care to refute the actual point?

what point? muh radicalism is bad, zizek isn't saying anything
yeah, but, not, actually

>Englishman tries to dismiss China while also ignoring his autismland is the reason the country was so fucked up even Maoism seemed like a good idea


Seriously my right wing friendos, are you so completely desperate for a intellectual that you take this literal babboon as a beacon of truth?

As he did in his AWFUL attempts to "destroy" "modern" (what he understands as modern, of course) art, he simply fails to engage in any of the arguments Zizek (or the vanguards) has, instead opting to spew a shitload of platitudes that go literally nowhere because MUH TRADITION.

I don't even think traditionalism or conservatism are inherently wrong, it's just that A) the applications of it are awful - I mean, how much of a retard do you have to be to think you can stop or turn back history and B) the proponents are always the biggest virgins you'll find outside of /r9k/.

That Scruton is such a darling for the new right only goes to show how it's even a bigger hugbox than the left, the left at least seems to try to self-criticize (case in point: Zizek, who pretty much dropped his research to spend the last 10 years shitting on the left and being hailed by the left for doing it)

He's always saying a lot of shit, interesting shit even, but you refuse to follow or even recognize his train of thought because MUH CLARITY

So no then.

He also described himself as a "monster" and says outrageous nonsense in interviews all the time. Is he a Monstrist too?

>his autismland is the reason the country was so fucked up
uh what

It should be punishable by law to use this many buzzwords in a single post

yeah

what is the british empire
not that guy btw

that's a terrible comparison

do you have autism?

Why would making a terrible comparison imply autism?

there's a difference between jokingly proclaiming "I'm really a monster" and defending communism for an hour, dont you think?

Why would asking why making a terrible comparison would imply autism imply that I didn't understand why the comparison was terrible?

ah yes here we go...

what the fuck its wrong with his hair? lmao

expand on how the British Empire explains China being a shit hole

>Use proper terminology
>HURR DURR MADE UP WORDS BLAH BLAH BLAH
>Try to meme it up to see if you faggots listen and stop posting the same shit every fucking day, bringing Veeky Forums from almost bearable to a fucking shitfest
>BUZZWORDS ::::::^^^^^^^^^))))))))))))

Anyone else listened to Scruton's debate with Terry Eagleton about culture? They were both agreeing on
>muh cultural decline
and talking past each other a lot, but when they actually directly challenged each other it sounded to me like Eagleton was winning by a mile.

No but I read your last previous saying the exact same thing.

So you could say that Scruton doesn't hold up to scrutiny?

Good. That was in a thread that the mod mysteriously banished to /mu/, where I'm pretty sure it got no replies.

>last previous
Good job, me.
>banished to /mu/
A fate worse than /trash/. Wonder if the mods will be consistent enough to send this to /pol/.

>In his book Sexual Desire, Scrunton uses Hegel to argue there are two forms of masturbation and only one is perverted

w-which one

Poor Hegel.

Too funny

Does he even listen to Zizek? If you had cut "Zizek" and "Lacan" from the first paragraph, there's no way anyone could have guessed that he's talking about him. Completely off the mark.

My god, how many times has he made the "I would sell my mother in to slavery for a sequel to V for Vendetta" joke?

why does everyone force this meme known as roger scruton? his views on aesthetics are shit and he thinks everyone should listen to classical music

>he doesn't listen exclusively to classical movies

I don't see much criticism here, but it's a good review of Zizek. It's true that he wants non-europeans to actually shut up and take up euro-centric socialist values. Killing people(mostly neo-liberals) is an OK thing in his philosophy. There basically a lot of defence on violence in Zizek.

>Ah, the man who was paid to shill for the tobacco industry.
he had a marketing advisor company, he dealt with representing the views of the people who came to him
read his newest book faggot, there is no shame or immorality about what he has done

Why his views on aesthetics are shit?

>>As in 1789, as in 1917, as in the Long March of Mao, the Great Leap Forward, and the Cultural Revolution, the work of destruction feeds on itself. Žižek’s windbaggery serves one purpose: to turn attention away from the actual world, from real people, and from ordinary moral and political reasoning. It exists to promote a single and absolute cause, the cause that admits of no criticism and no compromise and that offers redemption to all who espouse it. And what is that cause? The answer is there on every page of Žižek’s writings: Nothing.

He knows nothing about zizeks work nor about Zizek. A vulgar criticism without any foundation. Can't believe you plebs fall for shit like this

>cant present a refutation
>presents an ad-hominem

classic marxist

>respectable chap

>In 2002 it emerged that Scruton had been receiving a fee of £54,000 p.a. from Japan Tobacco International (JTI) during a period when he had written about tobacco issues without declaring an interest.[64][65] He wrote articles for The Wall Street Journal in 1998 and 2000, and in 2000 wrote a 65-page pamphlet —"WHO, What, and Why: Trans-national Government, Legitimacy and the World Health Organisation"—for the Institute of Economic Affairs, a British free-market think-tank. The pamphlet criticized the World Health Organization's (WHO) campaign against smoking, arguing that transnational bodies should not seek to influence domestic legislation because they are not answerable to the electorate. He wrote that overall he was against tobacco—his own father died of emphysema after smoking for many years—but that it was an innocent pleasure.[66]

>The payments became public when a letter to Japan Tobacco International signed by Professor Scruton's wife was leaked, in which they were asked to increase the payments to £66,000 p.a., in exchange for which "We would aim to place an article every two months in one or other of the WSJ (Wall Street Journal), the Times, the Telegraph, the Spectator, the Financial Times, the Economist, the Independent or the New Statesman." The failure to disclose these payments had the consequence that Scruton was no longer asked to write articles for the Financial Times[67] and Wall Street Journal.[68][69][70]

A literal shill.

>He also described himself as a "monster"
didnt you read the article being discussed in this thread?
He kinda is a monster. Kudos for Zizek for admitting it

>hurr durr common sense
>hurr durr reel ppl
Nothing worse than this Humean pomp.

Typical bong.

>LARPing conservatism and christianity in the face of full automation and technological revolutions unlike ever before

I hope this ginger cunt dies for his own good before he will be forced that trying to resist time itself is a futile effort.

>he thinks everyone shouldn't listen to classical music

It is in the simple sense it doesn't care about this world in comparison to the afterlife. Nietzsche said it himself though

Tf? What buzzwords were even used? Conservativism?

The part in which it looked like Glastonbury

Someone hasn't read his remarks on the '''refugee''' crisis

inthesetimes.com/article/18605/breaking-the-taboos-in-the-wake-of-paris-attacks-the-left-must-embrace-its

Masturbation exists in
two forms; one, in which it relieves a period of sexual isolation, and is guided by a
fantasy of copulation; the other, in which masturbation replaces the human encounter,
and perhaps makes it impossible, by reinforcing the human terror, and simplifying the
process, of sexual gratification. On one plausible view, only the second of these could
reasonably be described as perverted, for only the second shows a bending of the sexual
impulse away from interpersonal union — a bending, however, that occurs under the
pressure of fantasies of sexual union.

what's wrong with his criticism of modern art?

Why would you value an ethical argument made by someone whose morals are compromised?