Slavoj Zizek vs Jonathan Bowden

Booze versus Coke, who'd win in a shouting match, yeah?

Bowden wasn't that anti-semitic. Maybe a 6/10.

Macdonald overstates his case for two reasons. (1) Many Jewish immigrants to the US and UK adopted left-wing politics to fit in with the liberal WASP establishment; (2) Eastern European/Yiddish speaking Jews were extremely adverse to assimilation and had a deep hatred of Russian and Polish Christians, resulting not just in Jewish communism but also the Hasidic movement and Revisionist/Right-wing Zionism. All three are different ways to either overhaul or separate from Christian society. MacDonald accurately documents this, for the most part. However, Sephardic Jews and German Jews were much more favorable to assimilation. They tended to be conservative politically and either converted to Christianity or were reform Jews (Reform Judaism is basically Liberal/Mainline Protestantism minus Jesus with Church on Saturday).

The German Jews in my family who remained in Germany past the 1870s all converted to Christianity, and its probable come the 1930s many supported the Nazis. The ones who came to America stayed Jewish but acted like WASP Republicans.

Bowden is counter semitic.

And your crit does not really for because Jews Did dismantle wasp establishment.

And even conservative Jews subvert.
This is known as the kosher sandwich

I recommend you re-read Culture of Critique. You're utterly out of your depth and seem to be an apologist for white genocide

These gentlemen are correct.

But I want to have a quick laugh about the following:

>Jewish immigrants ... adopted left-wing politics to fit in

How cute.

Bowden would have exposed zizeks crypto fascism.

Problem with zizek is he thinks you could retain West civ with minority actual Europeans "tolerating" minorities. Or maybe he didn't even think that and doesn't care.

Zizek creates a deluzian morality machine by literally tying the moral organ (white man) to a sin organ (the muds).
He is attracted to trying to bring black and white into Hegelian battle.
He thinks a Christianity (Marxist Christianity) will be the only thing to survive.

He simply isn't aware what's in their genes in terms of pure destructiveness and subversion of virtue

>zizeks crypto fascism
Go on...

>zizeks crypto fascism
*desire to know more intensifies*

At bottom he agrees with /pol/ and probably browses the site. He's not a leftist. Between the act, he hates Jews and women, and it's quite evident. It's inevitable that he'll turn full NatSoc, it scream from him.

>zizek
>hates women

But I've heard him quite a few times praising the emancipation of women, are you saying he's bluffing?

He's doing it to appease leftists, but if you read his books carefully, you can definitely detect that he is redpilled and wants to white race to prosper at the expense of other races

Nah mate, I'm not seeing it. I've read some of his stuff, admittedly not a whole lot but I've never seen anything to suggest that he's "redpilled and wants to white race to prosper at the expense of other races".

Where exactly in his work have you seen such a thing? Any quotes?

>Jews Did dismantle wasp establishment

Harvard, the New York Times, and the federal bureaucracy still exist. They're just full of Jews (and Irish) now. Mill, Wilberforce, Garrison, John Brown, Croly, Gladstone, Wollstonecraft, Bellamy, Emerson, FDR, most of the people who worked in the FDR Administration, Alger Hiss, and pick any other Anglo liberal/prog from 1800 to 1960 were not Jews, nor did they want Jews at their country clubs.

I don't oppose pointing out the many Jewish leftists. But MacDonald ignores, and in this sense apologizes for, non-Jewish leftism, in order to back up his genetic determinist ideas.

Jews are genetically similar to any other Mediterranean group. There isn't a "subversion gene". A genetically Jewish baby adopted by Baptist Texas NRA members will grow up to have the same politics and religion as any other child raised in the same environment. You have as poor a grasp of biology as the liberals do, and you make valid criticisms of Jews sound insane by association.

wew lads, we've gone a bit off topic.

Bowden vs. Zizkek, how do they match up to each other?

Jews are semites that are most closely related to arabs. And I think you're perhaps leaning a bit too strong on the nurture side of things. The problem is biological.

Bowden was a great public speaker, but I'm only aware of his monologues and non-confrontational interviews. I'm not sure how he'd fare in a debate, nor am I aware of any debates he was ever in. While he was very intelligent, he wasn't exactly an original or groundbreaking thinker either. Without his oratory he's just another columnist for a publication like counter-currents, albeit one of the better ones.

Zizek is very well read and probably more used to a standard academic/Oxford style debate. Could be wrong, I don't know much about Zizek honestly.

Strawman

>sniffs
>tugs on shirt
>makes disgusting slurping sounds
>tells bawdy joke about a soviet officer and a prostitute
>name-drops hegel
>sycophant audience claps like seals

>zizek calls Bowden a deluzian potato fascist
>Bowden agrees and tries to sound edgy

Harmony ensures.

What do debates prove? Do you want to know who the better rhetorician is? Judge them based on their works and opinions, not by their ability to bullshit a crowd.

Zizek says he hates debates and prefers to be by himself researching and then staying up to 3am playing Playstation with his son.

Zizek wouldn't be able to handle a confrontational debate he can't even handle panel discussions too well as he spends a lot of time talking about other topics, but he is very capable of presenting some intriguing insights into other peoples ideas that knocks the wind out of their sails.

Zizek wrote under a pseudonym for a white nationalist journal

Bowden was unbeatable. RIP.

Venus Flytrap was unironically GOAT.

And which one would that be?

he didn't write under a pseudonym as far as i know but he allegedly plagiarized parts of a review of culture of critique from a nationalist jounral back in 2006

I think he is a bit like that, but I wouldn't call him red-pilled. When he is desribing emancipation or anti-racism in interviews he just waves with of with minimal interest
>"oh yeah, that is good, I guess(whatever)"
is the vibe I get from him.

Zizek doesn't debate.

The red pill on Hegelian dialectics is that you start off faggot Marxist then slowly hegel reveals the violence of the historical process.
After a time you come to be immeasurably right wing basically fascist.

Zizek only thinks we need to help muds because he thinks Europeans are great enough to suffer living with them. And that we would benefit from differing their presence

They are literally a prop for his hegelianism.

But what is gained in this demographic based Hegelian dialectic you speak of? What do Europeans get out of it in the end?