People keep memeing "hurr punching people you disagree with is childish"

yeah but most of us can distinguish between someone being a zionist and a jew and that there are plenty of gentile zionists as well. i.e. american politicians

I doubt you really have a solid understanding of what you yourself mean with the former, and what the latter implies in general. Explain anyways.

Kek. Zizek's been even more elaborate on why OWS completely failed, and it's because it lacked any sort of popular discipline or real idea of what was to be done. Coupled with a dominantly liberal background, everything turned into screechfests with identity politics, vague Keynesian reforms or completely utopian anarchist ideas like democratizing and horizontalizing everything through a referendum.

theguardian.com/commentisfree/cifamerica/2012/apr/24/occupy-wall-street-what-is-to-be-done-next

Childhood is when you idolize punching Nazis. Adulthood is when you realize firing squads and GULAGs make more sense.

Punching trump supporting hillbillies and mentally impaired mart sharters is not bashing le fash

Yanks took an already shit movement from Yuropoors and gave it some of that exceptional american autism

I agree with Zizek partly. I'm not really sure what he means by Ghandian passivity or how that could be used by the left today but I do agree that we to some extent should ignore the right wing populists and not reduce ourselves to vulgarity. Not onthe basis of some concrete policy of 'political correctness' but rather that we should keep a professional, issue-focused demeanour.
We will get no where by attacking the right wing populists, we would only antagonise those who support them by giving them the sense of having an enemy. By focusing our enmity on the liberals we offer those workers disenfranchised by liberalism an alternative when they start realising Trump/Le Pen and the populist right will still advance the neoliberalism.

Just FYI: Zizek wants us to take from Gandhi his passivity without his politics. Zizek's been more than critical of Gandhi's ideological basis and the prerogatives these came from

Basically, Gandhian passivity means, when one is not compatible with the dominant ideology, to take an outwardly passive stance. It is this "violent" rejection of being violent against the inherent violence of all other engaged politics that lets you win in such a situation. And the left will win by taking back discipline and decency as a principle.

Furthermore, people like Dick Spencer are total fucking losers. Yes, they rally their neckbeard and thug gangs towards thinking bullying minorities, but they don't do any of it, because they're gigantic fascists.

We should also properly reinvestigate what it means when our understanding of fascism is so incoherent: libcom.org/library/fascism-anti-fascism-gilles-dauve-jean-barrot.

The rest is spot on, and while I at once understand why you'd take his side considering your voluntaristic political basis (looking at your flag), you nonetheless surprise me.

I think it's a dangerous slippery slope. There are millions and millions of people who think that leftist ideology is a destructive force in the world. should they be given free moral reign to punch us (or even worse)? Because they will.

this

...

Ironically the same people who are against punching nazis will tell you Muslims cant be reasoned with and therefore need to die. These free speech tolerant liberals love to lecture people on tolerating the intolerant all the time. Milo who gave great oratory masterpieces where he called out students at a university for being non-citizens while ICE raids are happening in the same city was just exercising his right to free speech, but boycotting him and a venue is not free speech… Despite us always being told "vote with your wallet" by capitalist cock suckers.

I'd love the aut-right if they could be consistent from one second to the next.

I was so against Israel I didn't vote for Hillary or…. Trump. Somehow I think you may have got suckered, but I'm willing to hear otherwise.

Honestly it's kind of mindboggling that people think that punching random fashes is gonna do anything at all. People don't care about them and the only thing they see is some retard punching another retard. America already memed a moron into presidency because of this sort of ridiculous shaming tactics. I didn't even know who richard spencer was before he got punched. this isn't about no moral high ground, this shit is very practical.

Fucking liberal

I didn't say what my belief was fam, merely an inconsistency in the belief of others. For the record I think we should engage both intellectually and refrain from violent action. Now you're free to call me a cuck guilt free.

There is plenty of socialist arguments for why the middle east is the way it aside from religion. Last week I heard Zizek talking about how the absence of a leftist alternative and the US's is support of faith based regimes led to the vacuum being filled with said full retard regimes of extreme Islamic fundamentalism.

A Leninist view would say the west's inherent need for an imperialist extracting of resources to expand the market and continue the free flow of goods makes the bad conditions in the middle east inevitable.

An Islamic society sans class would solve quite a few problems, obviously not all but enough that it would have significant transformative effect on the middle east. I doubt a liberal would write that last sentence there as a liberal believes a free market can eventually solve all problems despite other mitigating factors and concerns.

Saudi Arabia is the most extreme Islamic state is given mountains of aid of all kinds by the US and the Israeli's. Wahhabism is the scariest brand of Islam and the state sponsors the religion. Without US aid how long would that terrible regime last? According to people like you the inherent stupidity of Islamic citizens means it might be eternal regardless, but I happen to believe otherwise.

lurk more