Zizek analyses the outcome of the US Elections

youtube.com/watch?v=5bixgOtkLao
Pretty cool that he holds no resentment towards Chomsky.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8
slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/02/is_donald_trump_a_fascist_an_expert_on_fascism_weighs_in.html
youtube.com/watch?v=YlIBCmvy7CI&t=0s
youtube.com/watch?v=5bixgOtkLao&lc=z12wdjpjnvvnunbor04cirhhrkiwd1ioppw0k
critical-theory.com/professor-of-the-year-if-you-dont-give-me-any-of-your-shitty-papers-you-get-an-a/
periscope.tv/RT_com/1ynJOkYBeEnJR?t=1#
youtube.com/watch?v=3JZmwQAZmak
twitter.com/AnonBabble

Damn he is getting old

Seems plausible tbh

No, he won because they won they too much.

People in the Rust Belt, which had mostly been solid Democrat, must have found something unsatisfactory about Obama's presidency to change their minds. Are you suggesting it's actually not about the economy, but about backlash against social liberalism?

isnt he self aware about that nose shit

if he does so much public speaking cant he learn to stop it

GOP suppressed voters in a lot of key states as well.

It is a nervous tic leave him be m8.

The democrats now openly embrace anti-whit.e conspiracy theories, expecting normal white people to vote for this is like expecting jews to vote for people who embrace ideas like jewish supremacy and/or jewish muh privilege.

Now ofcourse, many white people did vote democrat, either because they believe in such themselves or because of base line sectarianism, so it isn't a full explanation of the whole election, but i think it is enough to explain the trump win.

Trump didn't get any more votes than previous Republican nominees
Hillary just got less, because she was shit and nobody gave a shit about going to vote for her

White people do have privelige, it's not a conspiracy like your retarded Jewish thing
Inb4 I get dog-piled for idpol, I don't think privelige is nearly as big a factor a things as liberals think

If you want to call being beaten with a belt instead of a riding crop, then yeah you could say being white is a muh privilege.

he did in the primaries

do jews have jewish muh privilege?

it's not that i'm denying that white people are held in higher regard, it's about the implications of such terms and how they are presented

you're fucking retarded

Nothing new, happens every election. The same is true of race baiting and culture wars. Democrap strategists are too stupid to ask themselves why, when the Rust Belt and Florida elect the President every year, they managed to lose the Rust Belt, which had previously voted for Obama. Could it be that a message of better-paying jobs is appealing to people in a region who face dim economic prospects, and that they didn't want to vote for Killary?
No, they must just be racist, sexist bigots, despite that many Trump voters in the region still like Obama. Hillary didn't even campaign in Wisconsin.

The stupidity of Democrap strategists is mind-boggling. You will never win a single state in the greater South, they are all reactionary and will never vote for a nominally socially liberal or anti-racist candidate. The Mountain West is too rural to not go Republican. You have the coasts and greater Northeast locked down. All you have to do is win Wisconsin, Michigan, Ohio, and Pennsylvania. The Democraps managed to lose all four, thanks to running Killary. The Democratic party is currently the party of the North, you need to win the fucking North.

This is true, but I think if Clinton would've won had it been absent. That being said, it's plainly obvious why they lost the white vote.

nope. Trump literally got less votes than Mitt. It was solely because liberalism collapsed.

there's more of it than ever before

Then why is the country controlled by neofascist?

stop

because they ended the common sense consensus that politics should be resigned to serious, intelligent, decent white men

this is what is winning university debates now, thanks to liberals

youtube.com/watch?v=fmO-ziHU_D8

wtf is this shit
how is this univeristy material?

the reasoning behind it is that they are talking from a black perspective and not subordinating themselves to debate standards set by white people

Mike Pence and Trump have authoritarian tendencies and they use rhetoric that romanticizes a past age of "glory", just like fascist. Their economics might be a little different, and they might be a bit more reactionary which is why I called them neofascist. Authoritarian reactionary works just as well though.

I'm gonna make the inference that you're a confused lolbert supporting Trump since you posted a Peter Schiff video. I don't give a shit about some liberal idpolers whining on a college debate team, the people in charge are not liberals. This election marks the end of American Liberalism, it's the post-liberal era and it's time for a new left.

Yeah, that's essentially what "privilege" means in liberal parlance.

It's like saying that house slaves are treated better and have more comfortable lives than field slaves. This is perfectly true. The problem is that it posits the problem as being inequality among slaves rather than slavery being an evil system, and thus implies that the solution is equality among all slave castes, rather than abolition of slavery.

They also breath air, just like fascist.

So since socdems have a "little bit different" economics to marxists, they're basically marxists too right?

What are you talking about? I haven't posted anything like it, you're talking to multiple people.

Not an argument.

Not an argument, not even coherent.

Srys.

slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/interrogation/2016/02/is_donald_trump_a_fascist_an_expert_on_fascism_weighs_in.html

are you fucking retarded

Write me back when you get a PHD in History from Harvard and write as comprehensive a book on fascism as Paxton's, "The Anatomy of Fascism".

For someone who seems to love the "not an argument" meme, you sure do make a lot of not arguments

You haven't presented any argument against them being fascist-lite, you've just been memeing. Also
Fuck you, I hope you die.

Shouldn't throw stones in that glass shithole of yours. Come up with your own argument why he is a protofascist, since you're making the claim.

Applies to far more demagogues than just fascists. Stalinists especially come to mind.

I shouldn't have to explain why this is wrong.

I'm glad he at least respects Chomsky's work as far as "manufacturing consent" is concerned.
That's cool

You're right being authoritarian doesn't make you a fascist (I never said that). I'll point out all the similarities

The only thing disqualifying them from being fascist is the fascist contention that individual interest ruin the nation, and the outright condemnation of any sort of Democracy.

Which is why I said they diverged from doctrinal fascism. Pinochet is largely identified as being a neofascist but he used the same supply side economics that Trump is advocating for. If it makes you feel better to call them authoritarian reactionaries then okay, let's do that. My whole point is that liberalism is fucking dead.

Junk article, junk source.

I'm sure his thesis involved clickbait meandering about kinda-sortas. Trump's tale of national decline inheres strictly to local circumstances. How on earth does it evoke any lofty sense of ethnic or national mythology and essentialism?

Why does appealing to a despairing or alienated working class have anything to do with fascism in particular? How many literally notfascist movements fall into that category?

The whole article is fucking retarded. Trump is a scatterbrained mean guy with a bit of rhetorical gusto. See?! He's a fascist. I doubt he's even 'authoritarian' whatever the fuck that means to liberal democrats. Besides immigration policy, he's never doubled down on any of the dumb shit he had impulsively blurted out at his rallies.

His book is great.

Was reading the article to hard? Why are you not sure of what his thesis entails.

It's an aspect of fascism, turning the working class against the left.

He's double downed on the "stop and frisk" policies many times over and including in the debates. Paxton didn't even say he was a fascist, he said there were characteristics he shared with fascist.

So you're backing up your argument that Trump is a fascist-lite by citing a guy who doesn't even think he's a fascist, just that he "shares some characteristics" with fascists.

How intellectually dishonest can you get?

and to tie him to fascism, to draw an association on that higher conceptual scale, is super fucking misleading and not useful. Trump is not a fascist, nor is he a quasi-fascist any more than any previous presidents with local authoritarian tendencies. Fascism is not just "authoritarian and not a gommunist", it has peculiarities that shouldn't be ignored.

Yes, it was implied that much of his academic work concerns fascism. So what?

Ok, you have a local example. I'm sure he'll establish internment camps and abolish the constitution next. Stop and frisk is several magnitudes of shouting distance from a policy proposal characteristic at all of betraying any real fascist leanings. It isn't even out of the normal

He turned the working class against Hillary Clinton, not the left.

Yes, and Paxton was wrong to participate in arranging those 'characteristics', applying that data to an improper meaning, so he could virtue signal for social gain

This is what he said

So, he agrees with me they're fascist lite. The individualism present in them was present in neofascist regime like Pinochet. They're protofascist, they'll give rise to real fascism.

He still shares alarming similarities with actual fascist.

The Democraps are the left in American politics.

We'll see if the GOP starts appropriating fascist rhetoric, the party was just reborn.

...

what the fuck am I reading

What do you think protofascist means?

...

LEL

This is such a terrible meme.

Read some fucking Deleuze the lot of you.

Because Americans elected a neofascist, twice… Let's hope all that neofascism ends once Trump assumes power.

I don't think Chomsky dislikes Zizek as much as Zizek thinks. I bet if the two of them sat down and had a mediated conversation they'd find more to agree on than disagree on.

ableist REEEEEEEEEE

this is true

new video
youtube.com/watch?v=YlIBCmvy7CI&t=0s

Is this legit?

Holy shit. I didnt believe at first. But it is. Color me surprised.

source?

The DNC is bad at governing and say stupid shit like "White people don't know what it's like to be poor". They're a disgusting half-baked mutant of neoliberalism, DemSoc and Trotskyism.

It's entirely the DNC's fault they lost the rust belt.

OP's video

maybe we could try to have a podcast with Alex Jones

shiiiieeet

...

Was Marx proto fascist?

could this be the beggining of a new alliance…?

...

...

Fascism is a critique of Marx. Georges Sorel popularized the idea of political religion which inspired fascism was a monarchist who believed he could fill the gaps in Marxism by introducing "myths" to sway crowds into preforming acts that would disturb the capitalist system. Proto-fascists wanted to use this idea to build a strong state and imperialism.

ITS FUCKIN REAL
permalink: youtube.com/watch?v=5bixgOtkLao&lc=z12wdjpjnvvnunbor04cirhhrkiwd1ioppw0k

fascism is a bastardization of sorel

what the fuck is going on with his eyes in this video

yes it is fucking true

there is an alt-rightist cpmmenting already

It might be, but proto-fascism came after Marx, there's no way Marx could have been a proto-fascist.

I actually think zizek is getting more well known with normies, soon he will be household name in america, just wait

hope.gif

So Marx had a part in influencing and forming fascism?

fascism is basically the marxism of right wing sentiments that have always been around it, ordering them into an ideology

so yeah

Marxism is materialistic, fascism is idealistic.

all philosophy is idealistic :^)

im using idealism in the "mysticism" sense.

That's okay there's no way he would want to with you. Or with any real actual human being, really

critical-theory.com/professor-of-the-year-if-you-dont-give-me-any-of-your-shitty-papers-you-get-an-a/

Why is he a professor anyway?

liberals probably pay big bucks to have classes with him

he's a sociologist
you know, people who study the behavior of people in society using experiments and data rather than stereotypes and dated racialist pseudoscience

The sad thing is he's right.

Someone please explain to Zizek that his words fall into a vacuum because all practitioners of "political correctness" have long been operating on the very rules he described - the enemies are viciously attacked, while vulnerable minorities are protected - a so-called "punching up" doctrine. That the rules of who's vulnerable and who's the enemy are, naturally, decided by the powerful, all "political correctness" is establishment by definition, usually in a way much more covert than the blatant examples of misdirection he gives. That the boor Trump did not gather support because the "politically correct" failed to oppose him, he gathered support because rude unconstrained taboo-less speech is the last resort of the commoners to level the playing field against the establishment.

It's a travesty that he doesn't understand it already, but I'm sure he will once someone spells it out to him.

I read a book called "the anatomy of fascism" recently. Implying this book is correct, I am missing the use of violence to gain control.
Not sure what the correct word for it is in English, but both Mussolini and Hitler had brigades.