But isn't it true that to be a proper Marxist today, and here I disagree with my good friend Alain Badiou...

But isn't it true that to be a proper Marxist today, and here I disagree with my good friend Alain Badiou, that you must precisely be a staunch anti-communist. And I don't mean in the naive cold-warrior sense, David Horrowitz, Peter Collier, and so on; but we must return to a radical emancipatory politics grounded in third way National-socialism. It is for this reason that I proclaim that not only are fascists the only true, consistent anti-capitalists, but that for any one to truly be anti-capitalist in our postmodern world, you must be a fascist. The true problem with Hitler, and here we must go back to Kant and Schelling, is that he was not violent enough.

Wtf I'm fascist now

ZIZKE IS NAZOBOK
BOTTOM TWXT

I always knew the sniffman was on to something,

lel.

Zizek isn't saying, "become a Nazi," he's pointing out how today, there is no proletarian internationalism anymore, and most anti-capitalist struggles take the form of nationalism and a retreat back into tradition in order to offset western influence.

But what if the opposite is true?

Well, according to Popper, “Hegel + Haeckel is the formula for modern racism” and as we all know that Zizek is the reincarnation of Hegel, this fake quote actually makes sense.

u know this isnt a real fucking quote right?

Isn't it precisely because it is a fake quote that it must be real? Recall Walter Benjamin's 14th thesis on the Philosophy of History.

But, my gott, doesch zis fakeness, in an Hegelian twischt, turn around what isch true and what not.

Zizek is a literal liberal who stood as a liberal candidate. Idk why he gets so much credit here

I mean, are we aware, when we make fake quotes, what is really happening? Isn't this some sort of, of, of, Freudian mask, in the sense that, uh, "I'm wearing this mask to deploy some sort of ridiculous opinion", but isn't this ridiculous opinion the truth, and the mask a protection from it, some sort of shield for the mind?

An anrcho-syndicalist American analytic philosopher and linguistics professor was teaching a class on Bertrand Russell, known logician.
”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Russell as the most influential philosopher of the 20th century, even more influential than Jacques Derrida or any other continental philosopher!”
At this moment, a brave, psycho-analytic, Hegelian Marxist philosopher and cultural theorist, who fully recognised the weaponisation and ideological basis of instrumental rationality, boldy stood up and tugged at his collar.
”My god, pure ideology! How can you ignore the work of Lacan and the Frankfurt School and so on and so on, like that? ”
The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “Continental philosophy cloaks trvialities in fancy language and uses the scientific-sounding term 'theory' to describe propositions that could never be tested empirically. ”
”Wrong. If empricism is so important, as you would say, then how come you were so empirically wrong on the Khmer Rouge and Cambodia, and so on and so on?”
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus . He stormed out of the room crying those unironic empirically verified crocodile tears.
There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Noam Chomsky, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than an outdated linguist and blindly analytic philosopher.
He wished so much that he had an argument to save himself from embarrassment, but he himself had advocated for truth derived from empirical investigation!
The students applauded and all dropped out to transfer into the École Normale Supérieure that day and accepted French philosophy as superior to both German Idealism and the Anglosphere's Analytic traditions.
An eagle named “Critical Theory” flew into the room and perched atop a burning American flag and shed a single tear on the dropped chalk. Sections of Lacan's Seminars were read several times, and the Spirit of Hegel himself showed up and demonstrated the nature of dialectics so vividly that everybody in the room progressed to a trans-physical state transcending conventional notions of time and space.
The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day and was forced to become a panelist on an MSNBC news show to make ends meet.

...

Reminder that Zizek is a fucking fraud. Chomsky was right

Already in Hegel we find that there are three exact ways to enjoy a cup of coffee: coffee with cream, coffee with no cream and no coffee with no cream (notice how the absence of cream was already immament with the lack of coffee). I claim, that with fist-fucking, am I not enjoying my partner through my symbolic castration: "I know I am not enjoying this assblasting, but nonetheless I partake in it…". It is here, you know, that we find the fourth option, enjoyment with no enjoyment, coffee with no coffee, leftism with no leftism and so on.

Please make more

...

He's fueled by rational policies, not ideology like you

Kek'd. Reminds me of this one.

Zizek is good at marketing himself, ironic for a Marxist.
All that shit he does, sniffing, and so on, grabbing his shirt, either he is mentally ill or that is some sort of branding.
Writing essays for big time magazines and websites instead of academic journals.
I think the biggest problem people have with him is that he is critical of the left as well.

he's critical of capitalist liberals who make the left look bad

A marxist post-structuralist continental Ecole Normale Supérieure professor and feminist activist was teaching a class on Martin Heidegger, known hermeneuticist.
”Before the class begins, you must get on your knees and worship Nietzsche and accept that his genealogical method was the most highly-evolved theory the continent has ever known, even greater than Hegel's dialectics!”
At this moment, a brave, rational, positivist analytic philosopher who had read more than 15000 pages of Popper and Wittgenstein and understood the raison d'être of empiricism and fully supported all modern hard sciences stood up and held up the constitution.
"How universal is this text, frenchfag?"
The arrogant professor smirked quite Jewishly and smugly replied “It's not universal at all, fucking positivist, its 'truth' is rooted in our shared understandings about culture, the subject and the nexus of power and knowledge”
”Wrong. It’s been 225 years since human reason created it. If it was not universal, and post-modern relativism, as you say, is real… then it should be regarded as a myth now”
The professor was visibly shaken, and dropped his chalk and copy of On Grammatology. He stormed out of the room crying those ironic post-modern crocodile tears. There is no doubt that at this point our professor, Michel Foucault, wished he had pulled himself up by his bootstraps and become more than an AIDS ridden sadomasochist interested in fisting. He wished so much that he had some kind of truth to hold on to, but he himself had written to disprove it!
The students applauded and all rolled into American universities that day and accepted Wittgenstein as the end of philosophy. An eagle named “Formal logic” flew into the room and perched atop the copy of "Principa Mathematica" and shed a tear on the hardcover. The last sentence of "Tractatus Logico-Philosophicus" was read several times, and Karl Popper himself showed up and demonstrated how dialectics is nothing but a means of justifying contradictions.
The professor lost his tenure and was fired the next day. He died of the gay plague AIDS and his "books" were disregarded for all eternity.

Why was this thread anchored?

Idk. But I'm saddened by it. :(

Making fun of Zizek is trivializing imperialism.

Unless you can learn to laugh you will never seize the memes of production.

Mods I'm pretty sure OP posted that in jest. Nobody who knows Zizek's lingo and way of talking that well coulds till be a Holla Forumsack.
Please unanchor, it was pretty funny.

...

your thread gets anchored if you don't send a mail to the BO specifying it's not against assad. it's a new rule

My gott, isn't this ironic sniffposting a sympton of our current predicament? On imageboards one can be a complete moron, but not really mean it, that's the beauty of it, then you go back to real life or whatever where you have to be a complete moron and mean it and so on, my gott, it is perverted. Here I would like to twist around Mao's famous huh, quote, political power doesn't grow out of the barrel of a gun, it grows out of being a shitposter and so on. And I'm quite serious, you have these kids, millenials and so on, sitting all day sharing memes, my gott, isn't here where things are actually happening? Forget about huh, professional politicians and so on, my gott, even academics like myself cannot really keep up, all the political innovation these days is coming of these fringe places, Holla Forums or whatever they call it, I claim it will be these kids that save the left and so on, my gott, we truly live in perverted times.

Here I would like to twist around Debord's famous phrase "the true is a moment of the false" today increasingly the sincere is already a moment of the ironic, no? And again, we should not demonize irony "oh the left has to be serious all the time" No! my gott, this is precisely what got us on our current predicament, you have FinnishBolshevik or whatever and he talks for hours and everyone is incredibly bored and so on, this isn't the way for the left to move forward, I claim, so I am for ironic shitposting and so on.

Here I'm a radical shitposter, and some of my colleagues from the left might think this is excellent. But look at the result of this seriousness: bumplocked threads and so on. Martin Luther King, and I looked through all his speeches, never talked about being serious. When we are shitposting, we break the curtain of formality that's between us.

Let me tell you what happened to me at a convention a few years ago. A Holla Forumsack came to me to get his book autographed and I told him "Is it true that you guys actually like the BBC?". You know what happened?! He EMBRACED me and told me "Now you can call me cuck". We became friends!

To use an old example which I like to quote often: the european triad. You know, blabla, anglo-american, german and french toilets and so on. But does this same triad of people's relation to shit not apply to shitposting aswell?
The revolutionary french make their shitposts with haste. Witty, one-liner retorts which might or might not fail. The conservative germans make elaborate shitposts, very refined, long texts. Most people say the Germans have no sense of humor, but I would say those people have no patience to get through an elaborate joke, no?
It's like Lenin used to say, "learn, learn, learn", only it's "patience, patience, patience" if you want to understand German humor. My gott, this goes for anything the germans make. It requires fine analyzing: their poetry, their engineering, their shit.
But back to shitposting, the anglo-saxons, with their moderate and liberal attitude are unable to properly shitpost. Exceptions go for countries they've colonized. Canada and Australia are magnificent shitposters, although in Canada's case it's watered down because french and anglo-saxon humor don't mix.

A+ material comrade