>be me
>be aspiring leftist scum
>see zizek and chomsky equally hated by le "right" online, assume zizek is safe to read
>Buy In Defense of Lost Causes
>Then read this: This notion of civility is at the very heart of the impasse of multiculturalism. A couple years ago, there was a debate in Germany about Leitkultur (the dominant culture): against abstract multiculturalism, conservatives insisted that every state is based on a predominant cultural space which the members of other cultures who live in the same space should respect. Although liberal leftists attacked this notion as covert racism, one should admit that, if nothing else, it offers an adequate description of the facts. Respect of individual freedoms and rights, even if at the expense of group rights, full emancipation of women, freedom of religion (and of atheism) and sexual orientation, freedom to publicly attack anyone and anything, are central constituent elements of Western liberal Leitkultur, and this can be used to respond to those Muslim theologians in Western countries who protest against their treatment, while accepting ait as normal than in, say, Saudi Arabia, it is prohibited to practice publicly religions other than Islam. They should accept that the same Leitkultur which allows their religious freedom in the West, demands of them a respect for all other freedoms. To put it succinctly: freedom for Muslims is part and parcel of the freedom for Salman Rushdie to write what he wants - you cannot choose the part of Western freedom which suits you. The answer to the standard critical argument that Western multiculturalism is not truly neutral, that it privileges specific values, is that one should shamelessly accept this paradox: universal openness itself is rooted in Western modernity.
Why do /pol/tards hate this guy again? What are his politics, exactly?
This fat oaf slipped me le redpill
Other urls found in this thread:
youtube.com
en.wikipedia.org
twitter.com
Zizek is essentially a communist with many caveats, including a scepticism towards radical democracy and a rejection of the idea that communism is a historical inevitability. However, he generally puts aside his communist beliefs when it comes to political discussions in favour of old fashioned social democratic values, and support for the idea of a European Project such as the EU.
He has too much of an ironic love for Stalinism and too much of a complicated relationship with democracy to fit in on either side. Makes meme heads asplode
>see zizek and chomsky equally hated by le "right" online, assume zizek is safe to read
>safe to read
Jesus, I can't even imagine being this much of a philistine.
He's another Chris Cutrone, he got so good at trolling liberals that he painted himself into a corner of being increasingly-less-ironically pro-Trump. First as Tragedy was formative for me, though, so I still have some respect for him.
A literal maoist.
Also ever since Adorno commies have unconsciously moved towards reactionary thought. I predict that within a few hundred years the communist utopia and the traditionalist utopia will be entirely indistinguishable beyond scale of kingships.
Lucky my inhaler was within reach after reading that passage desu
kek
It is a decent answer but not sound upon closer examination. The muslim leitkultur stands for specific ideas and values, on the role of women, on religion, on social norms.
The Western openness is not so much a leitkultur as it is a lack of leitkultur. Blame the empiricists of the Enlightenment for that (and to a degree, their predecessors among the greeks, ie the Sophists) who have attacked every value and norm with unconstructive wordplay and paradoxes until doubt became permanently rooted in the western ideology.
Rather than pride in pursuing new ideas, the West takes pride in demolishing ideas and embracing void instead, under the guise of "openness".
Jung recognized this disease early on but foolishly put his fate in the first next idea that came along (Hitler and co) to come up with something better. The Russians made the same mistake with Communism. That's what the redpill doesn't get, the nazi ideals are attractive because we have nothing but as an ideology it is self-destructive and still plagued by certain voids.
All we can do is hope for a sensible ideology to come along, with an actual spiritual revival of Western norms, to combat the existentialism that is plaguing our culture now.
Hello.
I'm a human being.
And who is this?
No, seriously, who the fuck is this?
hahaha
He has even called himself a moral conservative, which is what he is, compared to the loony progressives.
As any sane person should be
I think Zizek really is a Stalinist at heart. Authoritarian socialism with conservative values.
Hi, welcome to Veeky Forums, put away your books and start arguing about writers you've never read. Enjoy your time here.
>Why do /pol/tards hate this guy again?
1. Angry people are often the ones to respond. Group wank is not as nice as it sounds. (It doesn't, even)
2. There are multiple factions that want to fracture /pol/, especially after the influence it had on US presidential elections. Long before this, JIDF etc. have been there.
3. The simpletons do not change their complexity upon acquiring information. Hence the old control mechanism still operate in them.
>this is your enemy, hate it, no matter what
>this is your ally, accept it, no matter what
4. There are trolls, thirsting for (you)s, and they will do anything for them.
Religion threads kill the #4, though. They merely use copypaste these days. Too much self doubt, inflicted in fighting there.
Except stalin wasn't racist. You should read what actual stalinists think about him, like on the rhizzone.net
In Russia being a reactionary and a communist is necessarily the same. I wouldn't be surprised if this development continues in that direction in other countries as well.
In Germany the leading leftist party Die Linke has a GDR-nostalgic nationalist wing.
I'm starting to believe in telepathy. Because today, I had this slight revelation of Jewish soul and European soul.
They are both fractured to factions, of course.
Shem, the glory - puritanism. A strive and fanaticism you won't find elsewhere; Kabbalah, Torah and Talmud being the obvious three, but also socialism and capitalism - the Jewish soul.
The European soul would be of course, rooted in Japhet, expansion. However, for it to be a permanent state, there would have to be a self-destruct mechanism in the soul. Sophism is the first written form of it. Empiricism, or rather, rationalism would be the other.
The interplay and dance has had its moments. The feminine soul of Judaism and the Masculine soul of Europeans have danced together since the French Revolution.
He knew about the sneakiness of the jew. That's all I need to know.
I think /pol/ should be fond of him, he's a crypto-fascist after all.
/pol/ doesn't know what they want. Too many lies. Too many liars.
>Hitler this and that t. Hollywood
>We should do as the Hollywood Hitler!!
>ever since Adorno
>being a reactionary and a communist is necessarily the same
Can you elaborate on this? I've thought communist thought and reactionary thought are totally antithetical?
Those kids faces are the fodder of nightmares.
you woudn't know if ypu are not eatern european.
a lot of eastern european leftists hate multiculturalism and multi raciliasm. we see that in the west multiculturaland multiracial comunities are more divided and more self-centered. muslims can have their comunist society in their own country. there is no need to come and perturbe ours.
>Rather than pride in pursuing new ideas, the West takes pride in demolishing ideas and embracing void instead, under the guise of "openness".
Except ideas aren't really "voided" in the West. To be voided would mean for them to stop making sense. Rather what happens is that ideas are recontextualized as "wrong" against this or that evidence, but the ground of evidence itself is rarely put into question, as well as a bunch of other assumptions.
Take your use of idea as pure content as opposed to container. It is wholly a metaphore but to you it is nonetheless equally terrible that ideas are "voided", even though that really wouldn't make sense if ideas were pure content. You would obtain incomplete ideas, or you would be talking about ideas as mechanisms in themselves, in which case, the matter becomes a lot more complicated in determining what were the necessary parts that were taken away from them.
Now it's true that the worst parts of the Western discourse are "destructive"; however their destruction is one of a kind in which what is destroyed will always remain in the new structure. Or rather, the new structure, where the "destroyed" is now "wrong" was always the point of the endeavour. Obliteration was never truly the point in itself, but the subversion, in a first-symbolic-then-actual manner. And while particular groups or ideologies might be destroyed, this process will always continue because the modus operandi is never put into question.
So you end with a society of constant actualization and upgrading. Everything must be made better. Everything must be fixed. Nothing must remain only a "mere" hope, dream or nightmare, rendering the whole use of abstraction pointless; no transcendence, then. Yet at the same time all the previous structures persist, only negatively. The command remains, only with a "not" in it: "don't be this"; the verb remains, and with it, the struggle, the suffering, the frustration, the desire and the disorientation.
And so, the reason you're afraid to die is because you have problems to solve.
>be leftist scum
>"safe to read"
checks out
muslims are not human
>Why do /pol/tards hate this guy again?
Because he's a - gasp - civic nationalist?
"infidels are not human"
Zizek has a bloated noise full of his failed attempts to conciliate communism with breaking down the dated Enlightenment values society clings to (e.g like in that paragraph you pinpoint).
KEK
>Why do /pol/tards hate this guy again? What are his politics, exactly?
Because /pol/ thinks Zizek wants to breed out whiteness
Ourgirl?
They hate him (and most things) because when they moved to /pol/ hating them was part of the board culture, and so they adopted that hate without question.
Ironically, Zizek would approve of this.
This is self evident to anyone even remotely Left of Bernie Sanders. Is this honestly the first time you came across this sort of reasoning before? Have you never read anything Right wing in your life?
>Have you never read anything Right wing in your life?
What if I became a Nazi?
Is being a fascist that much worse than being a Stalinist?
He said Nazi, not Fascist
Freedom to attack institutions and ideological diversity are not evidence of decadence or social decay though, and are not symptomatic of a meretricious facade of a culture, but rather tenets of an intellectual tradition that prizes reason and believes discourse is essential for societal advancement. Other than that I completely agree, this continue emancipation, and atomization of collective value in favor of personal conceptions of reality is inherently self destructive
Reactionaries long for the long-lost olden days when everything was proper. In Russia, those olden days were Communist.
"slugs are not human"
wtf I'm a slug now
I think you might be overlooking a difference between refuting a facet of canonical thought, and destruction for the sake of destruction. I recommend reading Jacques Barzun's From Dawn to Decadence, as he gives a far better explanation than I can, but the basic premise is that culture as a whole has been exhausted; all avenues of thought have been tried, and creative energy is turned inward, attacking the once axiomatic, as evidenced by Derrida or Foucault and their push to reconsider basic assumptions. I'm not passing a judgement on this behavior, nor am I saying that culture truly is exhausted, but the prevailing attitude certainly seems to affirm this hypothesis.
Does anyone have a nice pic with the Maistre quote about "man"?
Slavoj Zizek. He's a modern philosopher of the Marxist type who gets namedropped here a lot.
This is a pretty good summary of dialectics
I'm just very wary of cries about decadence, user. They seem like wishful thinking, too eager to destroy to start "anew". That's what I'm getting at, in the end; this desire to forget, even though Nietzsche had already preached the Eternal Recurrence against this. And even if the behavior is turned towards the axiomatic, it doesn't change what it is. It will continue to be motivated by Truth, Good, Beauty, Justice, whathaveyou.
>I'm not passing a judgement on this behavior
Well I am. It's insufficient.
>nor am I saying that culture truly is exhausted
Culture has always been a tomb. I don't know where people get this idea of culture as a source of innovation, when it's always been inheritance and reiteration. If it changes it's only because it fails to be itself.
Not true at all. Is Individualism the product of a different culture than Humanism because they are different ideologies, when the former is Ann expansion of the latter? No, culture is not static, it is constantly evolving, and it traces various themes through its evolution, resulting in different movements/ schools of thought.
>argues for liberal values
>why do wannabe-fascists hate this guy again?
Take the Dugin-pill and accept National Bolshevism as humanity's destiny.
>Žižek
>civic nationalist
???
> And, to go even a step further, is the practice of fist-fucking not the exemplary case of what Deleuze called the "expansion of a concept?" The fist is put to a new use; the notion of penetration is expanded into the combination of the hand with sexual penetration, into the exploration of the inside of a body.
> No wonder Foucault, Deleuze's Other, was practicing fisting: is fist-fucking not the sexual invention of the twentieth century, a new model of eroticism and pleasure? It is no longer genitalized, but focused just on the penetration of the surface, with the role of the phallus being taken over by the hand, the autonomized partial object par excellence.
I can only wank to ontologicool
>What are his politics, exactly?
Nothing special from what I've heard, he just talks about basic liberal shit with common sense, like "accept immigrants, but don't do away with western culture".
But he doesn't dare to talk about the racial problem with honesty, so he's not interesting to me and he gets some criticism from parts of /pol/.
What's the racial problem?
>why do /pol/tards hate this guy again?
a friend of mine browses /pol/ and likes him. he's a Hegelian marxist though isn't he? seems reason enough for /pol/ to hate him. also;
>assume zizek is safe to read
in other words 'assume he won't challenge my opinions'. you're a fucking faggot
The fact that some people prefer not to have people from other races live with them and change the ethnic/genetic substance of their societies.
im a nazi and listen to him every now and then hes always wrong because hes a commie but hes wrong in interesting ways
only center right/cuckservative types hate him tbhfam
>Authoritarian socialism with conservative values.
aka Slav
Eh? You mean he doesn't talk about racism? I'd be very surprised if he hasn't addressed it.
>Why do /pol/tards hate this guy again?
because he advocated taking in millions of refugees even though his reasoning was edgier than your typical leftist. instead of "love" he said "fuck love, they are fucking human beings who need help." wow what a brilliant man, he should be made world president.
>racism
I didn't use that word, because while racism isn't strictly defined, most of the time it implies some kind of hostility towards other races (I disagree with that definition, but it is what it is).
And no, he hasn't talked about it with intellectual honesty. All I heard from him was basically that the growing nationalistic trends in Europe are racist and therefore bad. That's it.
He didn't explain why, because I guess in his mind it should be self-evident.
Oh and he also suggests that migrants are used as scapegoats, like the Jews were and whatnot.
Basically he's strawmanning and not leaving the possibility that:
a) some people legitimately don't like this kind of "enrichment" and it's not because they were brainwashed by Hitler
and that
b) preventing this could be done in a civil way, without gas chambers and shit.
This means c9mmunism and socialism has gone completely full circle since the days of Comte and Saint-Simon
>The Western openness is not so much a leitkultur as it is a lack of leitkultur.
Retarded statement. Western openness is about staving off decay and corruption.
Every single society that is a complete corrupt shithole on the planet is a society where the spoken truth isn't respected.
Back to pleddit scumbag.
Not an argument fuckboi.
Neither is Zizek.
...
You're obviously full of shit and a idiot who doesn't what he's talking about, so I guess you're here just to bait.
>Every single society that is a complete corrupt shithole on the planet is a society where the spoken truth isn't respected
Give me a fucking break.
>Why do /pol/tards hate this guy exactly?
/pol/ is a cult and they will disregard anything Marxist or socialist without even reading it. In their minds they already have an opinion. Also
>basing what you read on what /pol/ considers as safe
It is true though. Logocentricity is what has made the West more powerful than any other society, and the least corrupt.
This can stop at any moment. You just have to convince enough people that deception and lies aren't wrong.
/pol/ hates him because he stole ideas from the French New Right. But they shouldn't because Alain de Benoist is a homosex whereas Zizek is a stone cold pucci crusher.
>universal openness itself is rooted in Western modernity.
>some people legitimately don't like this kind of "enrichment"
I hardly think that's controversial- anyone who's ever had a racist grandparent knows this. And he's from Eastern Europe, where those sentiments are expressed far more often and openly than in the west. More likely he's just not in favour of pandering to those views.
It's not hard to see why, either. Even if you had a hypothetically peaceful means of ethnic cleansing (and I don't think anywhere has ever achieved such a thing, though I could be wrong), it would be a blatant violation of the basic values of modern western societies. Why would you expect a left-wing intellectual to consider such an idea seriously, even to argue against? Is anyone seriously arguing FOR it?
nothing about your post suggests you've comprehended anything of what he's saying in this passage.
>Rather than pride in pursuing new ideas, the West takes pride in demolishing ideas and embracing void instead, under the guise of "openness".
This is wrong.
when western liberal values claim that the church should be seperate from the state, that is not a "void" or a lack of an idea.
When western liberal values claim that anyone should be able to personally practice any religion (save where it infringes on the rights of other people) that is not a "void".
you're just calling any new idea you don't like a void.
Please expound
>anyone who's ever had a racist grandparent knows this
But it's not just about "a racist grandparent", it affects all normal people, some more some less, on multiple levels:
1. Personal impact. Say, if you ask a guy whether he wants to live among ethnic Africans or Asians or Peruvians... he will state a preference, assuming he's normal. Nobody is completely indifferent to this, probably not even Žižek.
2. Symbolic level of identification with your society. If people who are supposed to be your countrymen don't look anything like you, you'll be less inclined to identify with them and feel solidarity towards them.
I think younger people (late teens, early twenties) tend to be a bit more "color blind" for one reason or another, but that's more of a phase, it's not the default human state.
>More likely he's just not in favour of pandering to those views.
Of course Žižek believes that he has to play the role of a "color blind" leftist and his audience expects that and doesn't challenge him. The point stands that he did not address those issues, except in passing to dismiss them quickly and to reaffirm the "anti-racist" dogma.
>Even if you had a hypothetically peaceful means of ethnic cleansing (and I don't think anywhere has ever achieved such a thing, though I could be wrong)
I'm not sure what you mean by ethnic cleansing. There are different ways to achieve some level of racial homogeneity. But, for example, you cannot become a citizen of Liberia unless you're black.
>it would be a blatant violation of the basic values of modern western societies
Those values (assuming they exist to the extent that you think they do) might have to be updated to keep up with the global changes. Migration is now happening at a much faster rate, for example.
>Is anyone seriously arguing FOR it?
Yes. Identitarian movements in Europe, the Alt-right etc.
This guy takes like 5 minutes to explain a 30 second idea.
agreed. It takes a long time for immigrants and individuals from different culutral backgrounds to adopt a new one. It takes at least 3 generations before they are willing to consider it and that is being generous. It's not race that is entirely the issue, it is the apparent lose of culture that is felt when race begins to detoriate in such a short period of time. You see this everywhere. Nationalism starts to be hated. No one has a sense of patriotism anymore, let alone academia. Honor is something that isn't talked about anymore. Duty is a thing of the past. The leftist dogma is purely a hedonistic one. That's why they are so focused on the outcomes of things, not the effort and struggle that is needed to achieve such things. The right idealizes the individual because they see the value in the struggle.They're problem is when they lose their sense of collectivism(in the sense of a nation). All degeneration begins with the loss of traditional/conservative values of honor, duty, and generosity when needed. It's important to be skeptical of the other working classes, but each deserves a certain level of respect to be given the opportunity to prove themselves before they get tossed in the bin. That attitude can only be obtained by a strong cultural homogeneity.
Zizek is nazbol
The only good thing that ever came out of /pol/ is nazbol memes. t. querfront advocate
>No, culture is not static
I didn't imply that. You're equating change with innovation.
>Why do /pol/tards hate this guy again?
For the same reason why they sperg out about Adorno despite sharing so many views with him. They are too stupid to actually read and get acquainted with them.
Read against the double blackmail. Which was compelling at points but references a lot of things I did not understand.
Is there a better place to start with this guy or am I, as somebody that doesn't read much in the way of philosophy, not going to make it with him?
Just read him. Maybe watch some of his movies. Whatever interpretation Žižek does of other people is still Žižek's interpretation of the thing. If you feel like it would be more enlightening for you to read the texts or they pick your interest, then by all measures read them. Žižek often gives a basic explaination of his concepts anyway. There's no right way to go, musing over it will just make you not read.
what is nazbol?
Against liberty, against the West, complete surrender to the absolute, perfect synthesis of left and right Hegelianism transcending the material-ideal dialectic.
Nazbol is no meme my friend, it is inevitability.
Fair enough, I could have used a different word than static, but the salient point is that culture has innovated, in response to material concerns, others ideas a la Hegel and synthetic phenomenology, etc, and the product of such innovation is still inextricably linked to the over-arching culture due to adherence to basic themes, like you mentioned in your original post. Where we differ is that I believe change/innovation can occur within a culture, while the basic tenets of the culture remain intact. the recent trend of self-referential creativity and self-destruction are cultural expressions that do noy innovate but rather retread old ground in an effort to critique, criticize, and destroy
>the recent trend of self-referential creativity and self-destruction are cultural expressions that do noy innovate but rather retread old ground in an effort to critique, criticize, and destroy
Would that type of destruction not count as innovation in itself?
No because nothing new is being created.
Not its results, I mean the action in itself.
I would unironically date her.
Underrated.
>safe to read
If I could personally ban people from this board OP would be done n' dusted.
Just saw this movie, what do I think of that?